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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/2/2026 has been entered: Claims 19-38 and 40 are pending in the present application. Claim 39 has been canceled. Claims 19-38 are currently amended. Claim 40 is new.
Claims 19-38 and 40 are examined on the merits.
Applicant’s amendments have been acknowledged, and overcome each and every 112(b) rejection, and objection to the drawings and specification previously set forth in the non-final office action mailed 10/1/2025. All previous 112(b) rejections and objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19, 21-27, 29-30, 32-33, and 36-38 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Merritt remains as the primary reference in rejecting the present claims, for disclosing a majority of the claimed invention.
Boehringer is being introduced as a secondary reference in the present rejection for disclosing and/or rendering obvious the newly amended limitations of Claim 19.
Tessar, previously presented as a secondary reference for teaching now cancelled claim 39, is also now introduced in the rejection of claim 19.
Auth, Cupit, Sjogren, Bendele, Radl, Bass, and remain in the present rejection for disclosing and/or rendering obvious the limitations of claims.
Additionally, while Applicant’s inventions are now directed to a “thrombectomy device” rather than a “clot capture module” presently recite limitations within the same scope of said clot capture module, amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 19, 21-27, 29-30, 32-33, 36-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt et al. (US 2020/0046368 A1), in view of Auth et al. (US 5,827,229 A), Cupit (US 2013/0186815 A1), Tesar (US 2015/0141755 A1), and Boehringer et al. (US 5,120,305 A).
Regarding claim 19, Merritt teaches a thrombectomy device (Figs. 1 and 19-21B; Abstract) comprising a clot capture module (canister 1940 in Fig. 19, filter device 2050 in Figs. 20A-20E, and filter device 2150 in Figs. 21A-B) for use in a thrombectomy system (¶s 1-2 and 7-8 describe thrombectomy use), the clot capture module comprising:
a housing (barrel portion 2070) comprising a proximal housing and a distal housing separated by a tubular side wall (proximal housing being at end 2074 and distal end being at 2076 separated by the tubular wall formed by barrel 2072; ¶ 134);
a clot capture chamber in the housing (formed by filter portion 2060);
a filter in the clot capture chamber (filter 2064), the filter having an upstream surface and a downstream surface (the downstream surface faces pressure source 340 and the upstream surface faces to 2076 and catheter 102, as shown in Fig. 20C);
an incoming flow path configured to direct incoming blood from an aspiration catheter against the upstream surface of the filter (connector 128 and tip 2076);
an aspiration control valve in the incoming flow path (flow control device 126; ¶ 49 describes the flow control device as a stopcock), configured to block the flow of incoming aspirated blood (¶s 50-51); and
an outgoing flow path configured to direct blood from a downstream side of the filter to a remote vacuum canister (¶ 71 describes how a vacuum canister can be used instead of a syringe).
Merritt does not explicitly teach a user actuatable vent operable to permit ambient air to be drawn into the clot capture chamber, wherein the vent comprises an actuator extending through an outer wall of the housing, the actuator being configured such that actuation of the actuator opens the vent and permits ambient air to be drawn into the clot chamber.
Auth teaches a thrombectomy system (Fig. 4; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising a vent operable to permit an optically transparent media to be drawn into the clot capture chamber (Col. 6, lines 62-67 describes a port for receiving saline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Merritt to comprise the vent of Auth. Doing so would be advantageous in allowing saline or other washing solution to enter to improve visualization of clot fragments (Col. 6, lines 62-67 of Auth).
Merritt does teach the use of transparent barrels (¶ 54), but the combination of Merritt and Auth does not clearly describe the transparent portion as a window in the housing to permit visual inspection of the clot chamber, and the filter being visible through the window.
In addressing the same problem as applicant, the problem being windows for viewing filters, Cupit teaches a filter housing (Fig. 3, housing 36; Abstract), comprising a transparent tubular sidewall separating proximal and distal ends of the housing, and forming a window to permit visual inspection of the filter chamber (viewing window 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubular side wall of Merritt and Auth to comprise a transparent window as taught by Cupit. Doing so would thus comprise a window in the housing which would permit visual inspection of the clot capture chamber, and the filter being visible through the window. Doing so would be advantageous to allow the filter to be inspected without having to disassemble the system (¶ 51 of Cupit).
The combination of Merritt, Auth, and Cupit still does not explicitly teach the optically transparent media comprises air or wherein the vent comprises an actuator extending through an outer wall of the housing, the actuator being configured such that actuation of the actuator opens the vent and permits ambient air to be drawn into the clot chamber.
In addressing the same problem as Applicant, the problem being ensuring visibility of surgical visualization systems, Tesar teaches using saline or air for cleaning (¶ 109).
Thus, Tesar shows that air is an equivalent substance known in the art. Therefore, because these two washing solutions were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute air for the original saline as described by Merritt, Auth, and Cupit.
Doing so would allow for analogous washing to improve visualization of the clot fragments, as originally intended by Auth.
The combination of Merritt, Auth, Cupit, and Tesar still does not explicitly teach wherein the vent comprises an actuator extending through an outer wall of the housing, the actuator being configured such that actuation of the actuator opens the vent and permits ambient air to be drawn into the clot chamber.
In addressing the same problem as applicant, the problem being actuation for fluid control means, Boehringer teaches a surgical vacuum apparatus (Fig. 1, Abstract) which comprises an actuator extending through an outer wall of the housing (valve actuator 26 comprising a button 27 which extends through the housing walls of valve 16, as shown in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Merritt, Auth, Cupit, and Tesar to comprise an actuator extending through an outer wall of the housing, as taught by Boehringer. Doing so with thus comprise the actuator being configured such that actuation of the actuator opens the vent and permits ambient air to be drawn into the clot chamber. Doing so would be advantageous in providing simplified control over the fluid flow (Col. 5, lines 44-52 describes how a professional attended may observe the device use and uses the actuator to control operation as needed).
Regarding claim 21, Merritt further teaches the upstream surface of the filter facing the inner wall of the barrel (Fig. 19, Figs. 20A-20E, and Figs. 21A-B).
Regarding claim 22, Auth further teaches the upstream surface of the filter being substantially planar (Fig. 4 shows filter 38 made of two, planar sections meeting at a point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the filter of Merritt and Auth such that the upstream surface of the filter is substantially planar. Doing so would be obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found that the shape did not sufficiently alter the device as a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1996). Also see MPEP 2144/04 (IV)(B). In the instant case, applicant has not demonstrated that the particular configuration of the filter is critical or significant (¶ 12 of Applicant’s specification really states that the filter “may” be planar; ¶ 52 recites that the planar filter depends only on a “desired configuration”).
Regarding claim 23, Merritt further teaches the upstream surface of the filter is convex (Fig. 19, Figs. 20A-20E, and Figs. 21A-B all show the filter shape being convex).
Regarding claim 24, Merritt further teaches wherein the upstream surface of the filter is on a radially outwardly facing surface of the filter (¶s 133-137 describe how the clot is captured on the upstream surface and blood passes through the downstream surface; Fig. 19 shows how the upstream surface which captures the clot before it exits at blood separation port 1946 is on the radially outward facing surface; Figs. 20A-20E show the same filter orientation).
Regarding claim 25, Merritt further teaches the filter at least partially encloses a filtered blood chamber which is in fluid communication with the outgoing flow path (Fig. 19 best shows how the filter forms a tubular/dome shape which would partially enclose an internal volume forming a filtered blood chamber; Figs. 20A-20E show the same filter/membrane orientation).
Regarding claim 26, Cupit further teaches window comprises a transparent tubular portion of the housing (window 33 of housing 36).
As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubular side wall of Merritt and Auth to comprise a transparent window as taught by Cupit. Doing so would be advantageous to allow the filter to be inspected without having to disassemble the system (¶ 51 of Cupit).
Regarding claim 27, Merritt further teaches an aspiration actuator, configured to control the aspiration control valve (fluid control 126 is show to comprise a handle; ¶ 49 describes it as a stopcock; also see ¶s 89 and 136-137).
Regarding claim 29, Merritt further teaches a vacuum line leading to an aspiration pump and a canister (¶ 53 describes the pressure source as being an electric pump coupled to a vacuum chamber).
Merritt does not explicitly disclose a vacuum line.
Auth further teaches a vacuum line (tubing 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Merritt, Auth, and Cupit, to explicitly comprise a vacuum line, as taught by Auth. Doing so would be advantageous in allowing for additional elements between the clot capture chamber and the aspiration pump (such as hydrophobic barrier filter 42 of Auth), and would further provide maneuverability between the aspiration pump and the clot capture chamber.
Further, the limitations of the clot capture module “is configured to reside within a sterile field” while the aspiration pump and canister “reside outside of the sterile field” are considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2112.02. Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Merritt, Auth, Cupit, Tesar, and Boehringer recite all the limitations as claimed. Thus, the combination would be configured such that the capture module can reside within a sterile field will the pump and canister reside outside the sterile field (particularly with the barrier filter 42 of Auth, which could further serve as a barrier between the sterile and nonsterile fields).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Merritt, Auth, and Cupit do not explicitly disclose the vacuum line being at least about 30 inches in length.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Merritt, Auth, and Cupit to have a vacuum line at least about 30 inches in length since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Merritt, Auth, Cupit, Tesar, and Boehringer would not operate differently with the claimed vacuum line length. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (¶ 14 merely recites that the vacuum line may be at least 30 inches or 50 inches or more in length with no further details).
Regarding claim 32, Merritt further teaches the aspiration pump comprises a syringe (¶ 53 describes the pressure source as a syringe).
Regarding claim 33, Cupit further teaches a proximal housing and distal housing separated by transparent tubular sidewall (viewing window 33).
As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubular side wall of Merritt and Auth to comprise a transparent window as taught by Cupit. Doing so would thus comprise a proximal housing and distal housing separated by transparent tubular sidewall. Doing so would be advantageous to allow the filter to be inspected without having to disassemble the system (¶ 51 of Cupit).
Regarding claim 36, Merritt further teaches the aspiration control valve is positioned in the incoming flow path and is biased into a closed position (flow control device 126; ¶ 49 describes the flow control device as a stopcock which can be left in a closed position and thus be normally closed).
Regarding claim 37, Merritt, in a particular embodiment, teaches the aspiration control valve positioned in the housing (Fig. 20E shows valve 126 being directly connected to the syringe).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Merritt, Auth, and Cupit to specifically comprise the aspiration control valve being positioned in the housing (i.e. integral with the housing, and thus a part of the housing).
Doing so would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the control valve within the housing, since it has been held that making integral a device which was formerly multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B). In the instant case, making the control valve positioned within the housing is merely making integral what is made in separate pieces in the alternate embodiments of Merritt (e.g. the control valve attached to the housing via tubing).
Regarding claim 38, the vent of Auth would necessarily be biased into a closed position in order for suction to reach the catheter and distal tip (Col. 2, lines 45-48; if the vent were normally open, negative pressure would instead be drawn through the vent).
As previously stated, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Merritt to comprise the vent of Auth. Doing so would be advantageous in allowing saline or other washing solution to enter to improve visualization of clot fragments (Col. 6, lines 62-67 of Auth).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt, Auth, Cupit, Tesar, and Boehringer, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Sjögren et al. (US 2008/0015485 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Merritt and Auth do not explicitly disclose the aspiration control valve comprises collapsible tubing.
Sjögren teaches a blood collection apparatus (Fig. 1; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising a control valve using a flexible wall tube (¶s 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve of Merritt and Auth to be comprised as a compressible tubing valve, as taught by Sjögren. Doing so would be advantageous in making a cost-effective, reliable, and efficient valve (¶ 12 of Sjögren).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt, Auth, Cupit, Tesar, and Boehringer, as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Bendele (US 2012/0095391 A1).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Merritt, Auth, and Cupit does not explicitly teach the aspiration actuator comprises a rocker switch.
In addressing the same problem as Applicant, the problem being actuation means for valves in tube sets, Bendele teaches the use of a rocker valve and stopcock valve (¶ 100).
Thus, Bendele shows that a rocker valve (i.e. rocker switch) is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two valve means were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the rocker switch valve of Bendele for the original valve means of Merritt. Doing so would allow for analogous valve control.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt, Auth, Cupit, Tesar, and Boehringer, as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Radl et al. (US 2014/0236129 A1).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Merritt, Auth, and Cupit does not explicitly teach comprising a selector valve in the vacuum line.
In addressing the same problem as Applicant, the problem being fluid control in medical fluid circuits, Radl teaches a fluid removal system (Fig. 1; Abstract), comprising a selector valve in a vacuum line (valve 24; ¶ 71 indicates the valve may be a selector valve to control device function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Merritt, Auth, and Cupit, to comprise a selector valve, as taught by Radl. Doing so would allow for additional device functions (as described in ¶ 71 of Radl), such as for removing a volume of blood for sampling, or directing fluid to a waste container as opposed to recirculation.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt, Auth, Cupit, Tesar, and Boehringer, as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Bass (US 3,858,577 A).
Regarding claim 34, the combination does not explicitly teach the proximal housing in the distal housing being releasably connected to the transparent tubular sidewall.
In addressing the same problem as Applicant, the problem being widows which contact body fluids, Bass teaches a medical device comprising a window (window 41 in Fig. 3; Abstract), which is removable from a housing (Col. 3, lines 49-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Merritt, Auth, Cupit, Tesar, and Boehringer to comprise a removable window as taught by Bass. Doing so with thus comprise the transparent tubular sidewall (i.e. window) being releasably connected to the proximal and distal housing. Doing so would be advantageous in readily replacing a damaged or coated window (recognized in Col. 3, lines 49-57 of Bass).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt, Auth, Cupit, Tesar, and Boehringer, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Ogle (US 2006/0047301 A1).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Merritt and Cupit does not explicitly teach further comprising a coating to inhibit blood accumulation on an interior surface of the window.
Ogle teaches an emboli removal system (Fig. 1; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, thus being in the same field of endeavor, which uses a blood compatible coating on inner surfaces of flow components (¶ 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blood contacting surfaces of Merritt, Auth, Cupit, Tesar, and Boehringer it, which would include the interior surface of the window, to comprise the blood compatible coating of Ogle. Doing so would be advantageous in preventing or reducing damage to blood components flowing there through (¶ 21 of Ogle).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merritt, Cupit, Tesar, and Boehringer, as evidenced by Z-Man Corporation (Rocker Pinch Valve Demonstration), hereinafter Z-Man.
Regarding claim 40, Merritt teaches a thrombectomy device comprising:
a housing (barrel portion 2070);
a clot capture chamber in the housing (formed by filter portion 2060);
a filter in the clot capture chamber (filter 2064), the filter having an upstream surface and a downstream surface (the downstream surface faces pressure source 340 and the upstream surface faces to 2076 and catheter 102, as shown in Fig. 20C);
an incoming flow path configured to direct incoming blood from an aspiration catheter against the upstream surface of the filter (connector 128 and tip 2076);
an aspiration control valve in the incoming flow path (flow control device 126; ¶ 49 describes the flow control device as a stopcock) having an aspiration actuator, accessible to a user (fluid control 126 is show to comprise a handle; ¶ 49 describes it as a stopcock; also see ¶s 89 and 136-137), the aspiration control valve being configured to selectively restrict the flow of incoming aspirated blood (¶s 50-51); and
an outgoing flow path configured to direct blood from a downstream side of the filter to a remote vacuum canister (¶ 71 describes how a vacuum canister can be used instead of a syringe).
Merritt does not explicitly teach the aspiration control valve actuator extending through an opening of the housing, a user actuatable vent operable to permit ambient air to be drawn into the clot capture chamber, wherein the vent comprises an actuator extending through an outer wall of the housing, the actuator being configured such that actuation of the actuator opens the vent and permits ambient air to be drawn into the clot chamber.
Auth teaches a thrombectomy system (Fig. 4; Abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, comprising a vent operable to permit an optically transparent media to be drawn into the clot capture chamber (Col. 6, lines 62-67 describes a port for receiving saline).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Merritt to comprise the vent of Auth. Doing so would be advantageous in allowing saline or other washing solution to enter to improve visualization of clot fragments (Col. 6, lines 62-67 of Auth).
Merritt does teach the use of transparent barrels (¶ 54), but the combination of Merritt and Auth does not clearly describe the filter being visible through the window.
In addressing the same problem as applicant, the problem being windows for viewing filters, Cupit teaches a filter housing (Fig. 3, housing 36; Abstract), comprising a transparent tubular sidewall separating proximal and distal ends of the housing, and forming a window to permit visual inspection of the filter chamber (viewing window 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tubular side wall of Merritt and Auth to comprise a transparent window as taught by Cupit. Doing so would thus the filter being visible through the window. Doing so would be advantageous to allow the filter to be inspected without having to disassemble the system (¶ 51 of Cupit).
The combination of Merritt, Auth, and Cupit still does not explicitly teach the aspiration control valve extends through an opening in the housing, washing media comprises air or wherein the vent comprises an actuator extending through an outer wall of the housing, the actuator being configured such that actuation of the actuator opens the vent and permits ambient air to be drawn into the clot chamber.
In addressing the same problem as Applicant, the problem being ensuring visibility of surgical visualization systems, Tesar teaches using saline or air for cleaning (¶ 109).
Thus, Tesar shows that air is an equivalent substance known in the art. Therefore, because these two washing solutions were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute air for the original saline as described by Merritt, Auth, and Cupit.
Doing so would allow for analogous washing to improve visualization of the clot fragments, as originally intended by Auth.
The combination of Merritt, Auth, Cupit, and Tesar still does not explicitly teach the aspiration control valve actuator extending through an opening in the housing, wherein the vent comprises an actuator extending through an outer wall of the housing, the actuator being configured such that actuation of the actuator opens the vent and permits ambient air to be drawn into the clot chamber.
In addressing the same problem as applicant, the problem being actuation for fluid control means, Boehringer teaches a surgical vacuum apparatus (Fig. 1, Abstract) which comprises an actuator extending through an outer wall of the housing (valve actuator 26 comprising a button 27 which extends through the housing walls of valve 16, as shown in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Merritt, Auth, Cupit, and Tesar to comprise an actuator extending through an outer wall of the housing, as taught by Boehringer. Doing so with thus comprise the actuator being configured such that actuation of the actuator opens the vent and permits ambient air to be drawn into the clot chamber. Doing so would be advantageous in providing simplified control over the fluid flow (Col. 5, lines 44-52 describes how a professional attended may observe the device use and uses the actuator to control operation as needed).
The combination of Merritt, Auth, Cupit, Tesar, and Boehringer still does not explicitly teach the aspiration control valve actuator extending through an opening in the housing
In addressing the same problem as Applicant, the problem being actuation means for valves in tube sets, Bendele teaches the use of a rocker valve and stopcock valve (¶ 100).
Thus, Bendele shows that a rocker valve (i.e. rocker switch) is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two valve means were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the rocker switch valve of Bendele for the original valve means of Merritt. Doing so would allow for analogous valve control and would thus comprise the aspiration control actuator extending through an opening int eh housing so as to be accessible to a user (Z-Man shows how the rocker in a rocker switch valve extends through the valve housing where the tube is contained, thus the combination with Bendele would comprise the aspiration control valve actuator extending through an opening in the housing as claimed).
Conclusion
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 ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE whose telephone number is (571)272-9902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Rebecca E Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/ALESSANDRO R DEL PRIORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/GUY K TOWNSEND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781