DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Note
A new Examiner has taken over examination of the current application.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed 15 May 2026 wherein Claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 19, and 20 are amended, Claims 5 – 7, 9, and 13 – 15 are previously withdrawn, no new claims are added, and no claims are newly cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending within the Application wherein Claims 5 – 7, 9, and 13 – 15 are withdrawn therefrom.
The Applicant’s amendment to the Claims dated 15 May 2026 has overcome each Claim Objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 30 March 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “Non-Final Rejection”). Therefore, each Claim Objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection is withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendment to the Claims dated 15 May 2026 has overcome each Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and (b) set forth within the Non-Final Rejection. Therefore, each Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) set forth within the Non-Final Rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed 15 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1, 11, and 19 and their respective dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the following:
Hieb et al. (US 2010/0200076 A1); and
Hieb et al. (US 2010/0200076 A1) modified in view of Chassot et al. (US 2020/0297922 A1).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
Claim 19 recites “means for priming a tubing used with the injection system.” Here, the means for priming is interpreted to be a pump or similar structure as recited by [0064] of the Specification.
Claim 19 recites “means for deforming the tubing by expanding its inner diameter.” Here the means for deforming is interpreted to be tubing with the capability to deform and expand its inner diameter based on the tubing’s elastic properties. See [0043] of the Specification. Alternatively, the means for deforming the tubing is interpreted to be restriction mechanisms like a small venting hole on a protective cap at the distal end of the patient line, a pinch valve, or a stop cock. See [0056], [0057], [0068], and [0069] of the Specification.
Claim 20 recites “means for deforming comprises means for restricting a flow out of the tubing.” The means for restricting the flow out of the tubing is interpreted to be restriction mechanisms like a small venting hole on a protective cap at the distal end of the patient line, a pinch valve, or a stop cock. See [0056], [0057], [0068], and [0069] of the Specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites:
An injection system comprising:
one or more processors;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
perform an air-purging operation by causing a fluid to be supplied at a first pressure into a tubing connected to the injection system; and
perform a pre-stressing operation on the tubing by causing pressure in the tubing to increase to a second pressure greater than the first pressure;
wherein the air-purging operation and the pre-stressing operation are performed before a distal end of the patient line is connected to a vascular access device.
The Examiner notes that the structures of “a tubing,” “a distal end of the patient line,” and “a vascular access device” are each recited within the performance steps of the processor or within a “wherein” clause. The Examiner believes that the structures of the tubing, the patient line, and the vascular access device are positively recited within the claim language. MPEP 2111.04; MPEP 2173.02. However, to remove any ambiguity regarding the claim scope of Claim 1 the Examiner suggests amending Claim 1 to recite:
An injection system comprising:
a tubing;
a vascular access device;
one or more processors;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
perform an air-purging operation by causing a fluid to be supplied at a first pressure into [[a]] the tubing connected to the injection system; and
perform a pre-stressing operation on the tubing by causing pressure in the tubing to increase to a second pressure greater than the first pressure;
wherein the air-purging operation and the pre-stressing operation are performed before a distal end of the patient line (see the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection below as the patient line lacks antecedent basis) is connected to [[a]] the vascular access device.
Amending Claim 1 to recite the aforementioned claim language removes any ambiguity regarding the claim scope of the injection system of Claim 1.
Claim 19 recites:
An injection system comprising:
means for priming a tubing used with the injection system; and
means for deforming the tubing by expanding its inner diameter;
wherein the tubing is primed and deformed before a distal end of the tubing is connected to a vascular access device to inject a fluid in a patient.
The Examiner notes that the structures of the “tubing” and “a vascular access device” are each recited within a “means for” clause or a “wherein clause.” The Examiner believes that the structures of the tubing and vascular access device are each positively recited within the claim language. MPEP 2111.04; MPEP 2173.02. However, to remove any ambiguity regarding the claim scope of Claim 19 the Examiner suggests amending Claim 19 to recite:
An injection system comprising:
a tubing;
a vascular access device;
means for priming [[a]] the tubing ; and
means for deforming the tubing by expanding its inner diameter;
wherein the tubing is primed and deformed before a distal end of the tubing is connected to [[a]] the vascular access device to inject a fluid in a patient.
Amending Claim 19 to recite the aforementioned claim language removes any ambiguity regarding the claim scope of the injection system for Claim 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the patient line.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear whether the patient line is referring to the tubing recited within Claim 1 or if these are two distinct structures. For the purposes of examination, “the patient line” will be interpreted as “the tubing” similar to how Claims 2 and 3 each recite these structures. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2 – 4, 8, and 10 are dependent upon Claim 1 and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for the same rationale as Claim 1.
Note Claims 2, 3, and 4 recite “a patient line” or “the distal end of the patient line.” Depending on how the Applicant amends Claim 1 in view of the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection above could cause these later recitations of “a patient line” or “the distal end of the patient line” to lack antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests reviewing the claim language of Claims 2, 3, and 4 when amending Claim 1 to ensure that each recitation of “a patient line” or “the distal end of the patient line” has antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hieb et al. (US 2010/0200076 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Hieb”).
With regard to claim 11, Hieb discloses a method for pre-stressing a patient line (see Figures 12 and 14), the method comprising:
performing in an injection system (1200) (see [0062]) prior to injecting fluid in a patient (see [0062] “ The powered injection system 1200 shown in FIG. 12 may be used to inject medical fluid, such as contrast media or saline, into a patient within the sterile field during a medical procedure (such as during an angiographic or CT procedure).”):
applying fluid under pressure to purge air from a patient line (1222) (see the initial purge step in Figure 14, [0076], [0080] “the flexible valve and tubing”; here the tubing is the patient line 1222);
increasing pressure in the patient line to expand an inner diameter of the patient line (see the contrast purge step in Figure 14 and [0077]) (here the described forceful contrast material injection step causes the flexible components, i.e., the tubing, in the contrast fluid path to expand with pressure as further explained in [0078] and [0084]); and
after the inner diameter of the patient line has been expanded, injecting fluid through the patient line and into the patient via a vascular access device (see [0075] “After the method has been performed, thereby prepping the system, the valve and associated components may be connected to the patient catheter line for use during a patient injection procedure, according to one embodiment.” Here the patient catheter line is the vascular access device);
wherein (a) and (b) are performed before a distal end of the patient line is connected to the vascular access device (see [0075] “After the method has been performed, thereby prepping the system, the valve and associated components may be connected to the patient catheter line for use during a patient injection procedure, according to one embodiment.” Here the associated components includes the tubing/patient line 1222).
With regard to claim 12, Hieb discloses the claimed invention of claim 11, and Hieb further discloses the method further comprising:
restricting flow out of the distal end of the patient line (1222) to increase the pressure in the patient line (see the stopcock 1226 which regulates the flow of fluids to the patient as disclosed in [0066]).
With regard to claim 16, Hieb discloses the claimed invention of claim 11, and Hieb further discloses wherein a cap (1226) on the distal end of the patient line (1222) restricts flow out of the distal end of the patient line (see the stopcock 1226 which regulates the flow of fluids to the patient as disclosed in [0066]).
With regard to claim 19, Hieb discloses (see Figure 12) an injection system (1200) (see [0062]) comprising:
means for priming a tubing (1222) (see [0062]) used with the injection system (see the initial saline purge in Figure 14 and [0076] “To help achieve such an air purge, saline is first injected into and through the saline port of the valve by way of a pumping device, such as a peristaltic pump or syringe.”) (Here the means for priming is the pumping device such as a peristaltic pump or syringe); and
means for deforming (1226) (see [0066]) the tubing by expanding its inner diameter (see the contrast purge step in Figure 14 and [0077]) (here the described forceful contrast material injection step causes the flexible components, i.e., the tubing, in the contrast fluid path to expand with pressure as further explained in [0078] and [0084]);
wherein the tubing is primed and deformed before a distal end of the tubing is connected to a vascular access device to inject a fluid in a patient (see [0075] “After the method has been performed, thereby prepping the system, the valve and associated components may be connected to the patient catheter line for use during a patient injection procedure, according to one embodiment.” Here the patient catheter line is the vascular access device).
With regard to claim 20, Hieb discloses the claimed invention of claim 19, and Hieb further discloses wherein the means for deforming (1226) (see [0066] “The stopcock 1226 regulates the flow of fluids to the patient.”) comprises means for restricting a flow out of the tubing (1222) (see [0062]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hieb and Chassot et al. (US 2020/0297922 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Chassot”)
With regard to claim 1, Hieb discloses (Figures 12 and 14) an injection system (1200) (see [0062]) comprising:
program instructions (see [0063] “control panel 1202 to set up various parameters and/or protocols to be used during a given procedure”);
perform an air-purging operation by causing a fluid to be supplied at a first pressure into a tubing (1222) connected to the injection system (see the initial purge step in Figure 14, [0076], [0080] “the flexible valve and tubing”; here the tubing is the patient line 1222); and
perform a pre-stressing operation on the tubing by causing pressure in the tubing to increase to a second pressure greater than the first pressure (see the contrast purge step in Figure 14 and [0077]) (here the described forceful contrast material injection step causes the flexible components, i.e., the tubing, in the contrast fluid path to expand with pressure as further explained in [0078] and [0084]);
wherein the air-purging operation and the pre-stressing operation are performed before a distal end of the patient line is connected to a vascular access device (see [0075] “After the method has been performed, thereby prepping the system, the valve and associated components may be connected to the patient catheter line for use during a patient injection procedure, according to one embodiment.” Here the disclosed patient catheter line is the vascular access device and the associated components includes the tubing).
However, Hieb is silent to the injection system comprising:
one or more processors;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a function.
Nonetheless Chassot, which is within the analogous art of injection systems (see abstract and title), teaches an injection system (100) comprising:
one or more processors (155) (see [0064]);
a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see [0064] “a RAM that is used as a working memory”); and
program instructions (see [0064], [0086], and [0088]) stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a function (see [0064], [0086], and [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the control panel and other electronic components of the injection system 1200 of Hieb in view of a teaching of Chassot such that the injection system further comprises one or more processors; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Chassot teaches that these components control the operation of the injection system. See [0064] of Chassot. A person having ordinary skill in the art would turn to the teaching of Chassot to learn about the electrical components necessary to perform operation of the injection system especially in view of the lack of disclosure regarding the electronic components of the control panel of the injection system of Hieb.
The injection system of Hieb modified in view of a teaching of Chassot will hereinafter be referred to as the injection system of Hieb and Chassot.
With regards to claim 2, the injection system of Hieb and Chassot teaches the claimed invention of claim 1, and Hieb further teaches wherein the tubing (1222) (see [0066]) comprises a patient line (see [0066] “the patient (high-pressure tubing) line 1222”) and/or a day set.
With regard to claim 8, the injection system of Hieb and Chassot teaches the claimed invention of claim 1, and Hieb further teaches wherein the injector system (1200) (see [0062]) is syringe based (see [0062] “an injection syringe 1216…the pump 1210 may comprise other forms of pumping devices, such as a syringe…”).
With regard to claim 10, the injection system of Hieb and Chassot teaches the claimed invention of claim 1, and the injection system of Hieb and Chassot further teaches wherein the program instructions (see [0063] “control panel 1202 to set up various parameters and/or protocols to be used during a given procedure”), when executed by the one or more processors (see the rejection of Claim 1 above wherein the one or more processors of Chassot are modified to be incorporated into the injection system of Hieb), further cause the one or more processors to:
perform the air-purging operation (see the initial purge step in Figure 14, [0076], [0080]) and/or the pre-stressing operation (see the contrast purge step in Figure 14 and [0077]) automatically, thereby allowing a user to attend to another task during the air-purging operation and/or the pre-stressing operation (see [0075] “In this embodiment, the system may automatically perform the method after the valve and associated tubing are installed, or after the operator has requested that the method be commenced through manual activation on the control or small panel. After the method has been performed, thereby prepping the system, the valve and associated components may be connected to the patient catheter line for use during a patient injection procedure, according to one embodiment.”).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hieb and Chassot as applied to Claim 1 above, and in further view of Hopping et al. (US 2009/0294359 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Hopping”).
With regard to claim 3, the injection system of Hieb and Chassot teaches the claimed invention of claim 1, and Hieb further teaches wherein the tubing (1222) comprises a patient line (see [0066] “the patient (high-pressure tubing) line 1222”).
However, Hieb is silent with regards to the injector system further comprising a port configured to receive the distal end of the patient line prior to the distal end of the patient line being connected to the vascular access device.
Nonetheless Hopping, which is within the analogous art of priming systems (see abstract and title), teaches the injector system (10) (see [0031]) further comprising a port (66a, 66b) (see [0052]) configured to receive the distal end (see at 72 in Figure 5) of the patient line (38d) (see [0034]) prior to the distal end of the patient line being connected to the vascular access device (44) (see [0037], Figure 1, and Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the injection system of Hieb and Chassot in view of a teaching of Hopping such that the injector system further comprising a port configured to receive the distal end of the patient line prior to the distal end of the patient line being connected to the vascular access device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Hopping teaches that this holding apparatus 66a, 66b secures the patient line during priming operation without requiring the physician to hold the patient line. See [0017], [0018], and [0052] of Hopping.
The injection system of Hieb and Chassot modified in view of a teaching of Hopping will hereinafter be referred to as the injection system of Hieb, Chassot, and Hopping.
With regard to claim 4, the injection system of Hieb, Chassot, and Hopping teaches the claimed invention of claim 3, however Hieb is silent with regards to wherein the port is sized to receive a protective cap on the distal end of the patient line.
Nonetheless Hopping, which is within the analogous art of priming systems (see abstract and title), further teaches wherein the port (66a, 66b; see [0052] of Hopping) is sized to receive a protective cap (see [0044] “a connector 62 that is provided initially with a tip protector (not shown). Once patient line 38d is primed, the patient removes the tip protector and connects connector 62 of the patient line to patient connection 44 of the patient's transfer set.” here the tip protector is the disclosed protective cap) on the distal end (see at 62 in Figure 5) of the patient line (38d) (see [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the injection system of Hieb, Chassot, and Hopping in view of a further teaching of Hopping such that the port is sized to receive a protective cap on the distal end of the patient line. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Hopping teaches that this holding apparatus 66a, 66b secures the patient line during priming operation without requiring the physician to hold the patient line. See [0017], [0018], and [0052] of Hopping. The distal end of the patient line is provided with a tip protector to protect the connector 62 to prevent physical damage to the connector while maintaining sterility of the injection system during the priming operation. See [0044] of Hopping.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hieb.
With regard to claim 17, the method of Hieb discloses the claimed invention of claim 11, however, the method of Hieb (see Figure 14) is silent with regards to wherein the pressure in the patient line is increased to at least about 300 psi.
Nonetheless a second embodiment of Hieb (Figure 15) teaches the pressure in the patient line is increased to at least about 300 psi (see [0084] “a forceful contrast injection, flexible components in the contrast fluid path may experience high pressures (e.g., 1200 psi)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the pressure in the patient line of the method of Hieb in view of a second embodiment of Hieb such that the pressure in the patient line is increased to at least about 300 psi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Hieb teaches that certain medical procedures require that liquids be injected into a patient’s vascular system under pressure. See [0002] and [0084] of Hieb.
With regard to claim 18, the method of Hieb discloses the claimed invention of claim 11, however, the method of Hieb (see Figure 14) is silent with regards to wherein the pressure in the patient line is increased to at least about 400 psi.
Nonetheless a second embodiment of Hieb (Figure 15) teaches wherein the pressure in the patient line is increased to at least about 400 psi (see [0084] “a forceful contrast injection, flexible components in the contrast fluid path may experience high pressures (e.g., 1200 psi)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the pressure in the patient line of the method of Hieb in view of a second embodiment of Hieb such that the pressure in the patient line is increased to at least about 400 psi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Hieb teaches that certain medical procedures require that liquids be injected into a patient’s vascular system under pressure. See [0002] and [0084] of Hieb.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bakken (US 2022/0054735 A1)
Nystrom et al. (US 2010/0331779 A1)
Naples et al. (US 2023/0218883 A1)
Chassot et al. (US 2021/0244877 A1)
Chassot et al. (US 2021/0299350 A1)
Chassot (US 2021/0187193 A1)
Chassot et al. (US 10,926,026 B2)
Chassot et al. (US 10,933,200 B2)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT F ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571)270-1744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT F ALLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/WILLIAM R CARPENTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783 09/10/2026
Prosecution Insights