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
This Office action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed 03/23/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 14, 16, and 21 – 24 are pending in the application.
Claims 1 – 3, 6, 7, and 9 – 12, are amended.
Claims 21 – 24 are new.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings in the previous action dated 10/21/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 03/23/2026. Specifically, the objection to the drawings, regarding the reference characters "126 and "128" being used interchangeably to designate the lower handle and the upper handle, for failing to show the upper lever 136 described in the specification, and for failing to show the “dilator subcision assembly” claimed in previous claim 17 have all been withdrawn as the appropriate corrections have been made.
Specification
The objections to the specification in the previous action dated 10/21/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 03/23/2026. Specifically, the objection to the specification, regarding the recitation of “lower portion 124” in paragraph [0068] line 10 and regarding the abstract not being directed to the entire disclosure have been corrected as the appropriate corrections have been made.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 10 in the previous action dated 10/21/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 03/23/2026. Specifically, the objection to claim 10, regarding the phrase “a balloon with stiff members on its surface”, has been withdrawn as the appropriate corrections have been made. However, new objections have been set forth below in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim21 recites “configured to be treat” in line 2, however this is not grammatically correct and therefore the Examiner suggests the line be amended to read “configured to treat”;
Appropriate correction is required.
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. See claim 14.
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.
See claim 14: “means for anchoring the system”
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark, III et al (US 2014/0257272 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, and 21, , Clark, III discloses a treatment system configured to treat an appearance of cellulite of a patient (abstract, paragraphs [0007], [0101], [0153 – 0163], [0195], [0200], and Figs. 2A, 16A,B,C, 17) comprising:
a treatment device (cutter module 1603 with inflatable member 1702) having a shaft (sheath 1602) and [claims 2, 6, and 21] an end effector (inflatable member 1702) comprising a balloon (inflatable member 1702) configured to be advanced and placed between tissue layers to stretch or tear or treat subcutaneous connective tissue at the treatment site (paragraphs [0153 – 0163], [0195], and Fig. 17); and
a stabilizer (handpiece 100) positioned along the shaft (sheath 1602) and including a guide channel (conduit 213) and a removal slot (entry hole 214) (paragraphs [0111], [0113], [0153], [0163], and Fig. 2A);
wherein the treatment device (cutter module 1603 with inflatable member 1702) is configured to be inserted into the guide channel through skin of the patient to a treatment site (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation, which requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. As stated in paragraph [0153] the cutter module 1603, which includes sheath 1602 (i.e., the shaft), is used with the handpiece 100 (i.e., the stabilizer) and as shown in Fig. 17 the sheath 1602 is inserted into the puncture site; there because the sheath 1602 (i.e., the shaft) is insertable through the puncture site, and the treatment device is used with the handpiece 100 (i.e., the stabilizer), it is capable of being inserted through the guide channel of the stabilizer);
the stabilizer (handpiece 100) is configured to stabilize the skin during advancement of the treatment device (paragraphs [0109], [0153], [0159], and Fig. 2A); and
the treatment device (cutter module 1603 with inflatable member 1702) is configured to be removed from the stabilizer (handpiece 100) through the removal slot (entry hole 214) when the treatment device is placed at the treatment site (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation, which requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, the cutter module 1603 with inflatable member 1702 (i.e., the treatment device) is freely insertable into and out of the handpiece 100 (i.e., the stabilizer) as it is not disclosed as being fixed to the handpiece 100, therefore, it is capable of being removed through the entry hole 214 (i.e., the removal slot) when the it is placed at the treatment site).
Regarding claim 1, (alternate interpretation – changes italicized) Clark, III discloses a treatment system configured to treat an appearance of cellulite of a patient (abstract, paragraphs [0007], [0101], [0195], [0200], [0205 – 0206], and Figs. 2A, 23A-C), comprising:
a treatment device (second sheath 2305) having a shaft (second sheath 2305) and [claims 2 and 21] an end effector (mesh 2302) configured to be advanced and placed between tissue layers to stretch or tear or treat subcutaneous connective tissue at the treatment site (paragraphs [0205 – 0210] and Figs. 23A-C); and
a stabilizer (handpiece 100) positioned along the shaft (sheath 1602) and including a guide channel (conduit 213) and a removal slot (entry hole 214) (paragraphs [0106], [0111], [0113], [0211], and Fig. 2A); and
wherein the treatment device (second sheath 2305) is configured to be inserted into the guide channel through skin of the patient to a treatment site (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0205] the second sheath 2305 (i.e., the treatment device) is used with the handpiece 100 (i.e., the stabilizer) and deployed through the conduit 213 (i.e., the guide channel));
the stabilizer (handpiece 100) is configured to stabilize the skin during advancement of the treatment device (paragraphs [0109], [0205], and Fig. 2A); and
the treatment device (second sheath 2305) is configured to be removed from the stabilizer (handpiece 100) through the removal slot (entry hole 214) when the treatment device is placed at the treatment site (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation, which requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, second sheath 2305 (i.e., the treatment device) is freely insertable into and out of the handpiece 100 (i.e., the stabilizer) as it is not disclosed as being fixed to the handpiece 100, therefore, it is capable of being removed through the entry hole 214 (i.e., the removal slot) when the it is placed at the treatment site).
Regarding claim 11, (alternate interpretation) Clark, III discloses wherein the end effector (mesh 2302) of the treatment device comprises a stent (mesh 2302) (Examiner’s note: a stent is defined as a tubular support; and as shown in Fig. 23A/B, the mesh 2302 is tubular in shape, therefore, Clark, III discloses a stent).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kirkemo (US 2017/0172619 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kirkemo discloses a treatment system (device 10) capable of treating appearance of cellulite of a patient (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67,190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d150,152,88. With that said, the surgical guide device is capable of guiding treatment devices used to treat cellulite in order to treat cellulite, as device 10 is used for guiding needles, as discussed in paragraphs [0008 – 0010] and the abstract, and needles are used in the treatment of cellulite), comprising:
a treatment device (needle 50) having a shaft (shaft 54) (paragraphs [0040], [0045 – 0047] and Figs. 2A-4B);
a stabilizer (shaft 20 and needle guide 30) positioned along the shaft (shaft 54) and including a guide channel (cylindrical sidewall 32) and a removal slot (entry 34) (paragraphs [0040 – 0041] and Figs. 2A,4B); and
wherein the treatment device (needle 50) is configured to be inserted into the guide channel (cylindrical sidewall 32) through skin of the patient to a treatment site (paragraphs [0040 – 0044] and Fig. 4B);
the stabilizer (shaft 20 and needle guide 30) is configured to stabilize the skin during advancement of the treatment device (Examiner’s note: as stated in paragraph [0043] the interaction between the surface 40 (i.e., the surface of the shaft 20 – the stabilizer) and the body 2 (i.e., the skin) minimizes drift of the needle (i.e., the treatment device) by adding leverage to the sidewall of the needle guide; this added leverage is a form of stabilization of the skin. Furthermore, it should be understood that the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation and requires only that the structure of the prior art to be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, as recited in paragraph [0046] the shaft 20 (i.e., a part of the stabilizer) is conformable to the body and/or is securable to the body, and because the shaft 20 is securable to the body, it is capable of providing some degree of stability to the surrounding tissue during the advancement of the needle (i.e., the treatment device)); and
the treatment device (needle 50) is configured to be removed from the stabilizer (shaft 20 and needle guide 30) through the removal slot (entry 34) when the treatment device is placed at the treatment site (Examiner’s note: it should be understood that the preceding limitation is an intended use limitation, which requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning in the manner claimed. With that said, needle 50 (i.e., the treatment device) is freely insertable into and out of the needle guide 30 (i.e., a part of the stabilizer) as discussed in paragraph [0044] and is otherwise not disclosed as being fixed to the needle guide 30 (i.e., a part of the stabilizer), therefore, the needle 50 is capable of being removed through the entry 34 (i.e., the removal slot) when the it is placed at the treatment site).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 – 5, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark, III et al (US 2014/0257272 A1).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Clark, III makes discloses the system of claim 1.
However, Clark, III does not expressly disclose (i) an elongate member in combination with the treatment device as a singular system and (ii) wherein the elongate member comprises a needle and the system further comprises an introducer configured to be threaded over the needle.
As to the above, Clark, III teaches using an elongate member (cutting tool 102) comprising a needle (cutting tool 102) (paragraphs [0111 – 0112] and Fig. 2A) to create an insertion site in the tissue (paragraph [0211]), wherein the system further comprises an introducer (subdermal catheter 1801) configured to be threaded over the needle (paragraph [0189]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the cutting tool 102 in combination with the treatment device of described above for the purpose of creating the insertion site in the tissue prior to the treatment device being inserted through the tissue and/or for the purpose of supplying the operator with another means of cutting the subcutaneous tissue in need of being cut. Furthermore, it would be obvious to include an introducer that is can be threaded over the needle for the purpose of protecting tissue proximal of the treatment site from being cut / damaged via the traversing of the needle to the treatment site.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, Clark, III makes obvious the system of claim 1. Additionally, Clark, III makes obvious wherein the treatment device comprises filler material (paragraph [0257]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the treatment device to comprise a filler material, as further taught by Clark, III in paragraph [0257], for the purpose of treating wrinkles.
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above, Clark, III makes obvious the system of claim 1. Additionally, Clark, III makes obvious further comprising an anesthetic injection subassembly (a fluid injection port 2201 in fluid connection with a lumen 2202 in the subdermal catheter) configured to inject an anesthetic (paragraph [0191]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Clark, III to further incorporate the anesthetic injection subassembly for the purpose of providing pain relief for the patient during the procedure (paragraph [0191] – Clark, III).
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, (alternate interpretation) Clark, III makes discloses the system of claim 1.
However, Clark, III does not expressly disclose (i) an elongate member in combination with the treatment device as a singular system and (ii) wherein the elongate member comprises a needle and the system further comprises an introducer configured to be threaded over the needle.
As to the above, Clark, III teaches using an elongate member (cutting tool 102) comprising a needle (cutting tool 102) (paragraphs [0111 – 0112] and Fig. 2A) to create an insertion site in the tissue (paragraph [0211]), wherein the system further comprises an introducer (subdermal catheter 1801) configured to be threaded over the needle (paragraph [0189]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the cutting tool 102 in combination with the treatment device of described above for the purpose of creating the insertion site in the tissue prior to the treatment device being inserted through the tissue and/or for the purpose of supplying the operator with another means of cutting the subcutaneous tissue in need of being cut. Furthermore, it would be obvious to include an introducer that is can be threaded over the needle for the purpose of protecting tissue proximal of the treatment site from being cut / damaged via the traversing of the needle to the treatment site.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as discussed above, (alternate interpretation) Clark, III makes obvious the system of claim 1. Additionally, the combined devices of Clark, III teaches further comprising a guide wire (guidewire – discussed in paragraph [0208]) configured to be inserted through the introducer (Examiner’s note: the preceding limitation is intended use and requires only that the structure of the prior art be capable of functioning as claimed. With that said, as stated in paragraph [0210] the external sheath 2305 can be inserted within the subdermal catheter 1801 (i.e., the introducer) and as stated in paragraphs [0206 – 207] the guidewire is within the external sheath 2305. Therefore, because the external sheath 2305 can be placed within the subdermal catheter 1801 (i.e., the introducer) and the guidewire can be placed within the external sheath 2305, then the guidewire can also be placed through the subdermal catheter 1801 (i.e., the introducer)); and [claim 5] wherein the treatment device (second sheath 2305) is configured to be advanced over the guide wire (paragraph [0208]).
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark, III et al (US 2014/0257272 A1) (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lesh (US 2006/0161253 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 9, 10, and 14, as discussed above, (alternate interpretation) Clark, III teaches the system for treating cellulite of claim 1.
However, Clark, III is silent regarding (i) [claims 6, 7, 9, and 10] wherein the end effector of the treatment device comprises a non-compliant balloon including a plurality of discrete expandable portions, with stiff members on its surface and (ii) [claim 14] comprising means for anchoring the system at a distal location at the treatment subcutaneous interventional site.
As to the above, Lesh teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a medical device for soft tissue augmentation (abstract, paragraphs [0002], [0009], [0171 – 0172], [0225 – 0226], and Fig. 5) comprising a non-compliant balloon (sleeve) including a plurality of discrete expandable portions (paragraphs [0171 – 0172], [0225 – 0226], and Fig. 5) and with a plurality of stiff members (struts) and comprising means (anchor elements / hooks) for anchoring the system at a distal location at the treatment subcutaneous interventional site (paragraph [0175]).
It should be understood that Clark, III and Lesh are known references in the art that teach a dermal augmentation filler device (abstract, paragraphs [0205 – 0210], and Figs. 23A-C – Clark, III ; abstract, paragraphs [0002], [0009], [0171 – 0172], [0175], [0225 – 0226], and Fig. 5 – Lesh); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one filler device for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in treatment device of Clark, III being able to function as intended to augment the tissue as desired. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark, III et al (US 2014/0257272 A1) (previously cited), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gurtner et al (US 2010/0057056 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above, Clark, III teaches the system for treating cellulite of claim 1.
However, Clark, III is silent regarding (i) further comprising a light source.
As to the above, Gurtner teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a system for treating cellulite (device 2) (abstract, paragraphs [0006] and [0035]) comprising a light source (visualization device 19) for the purpose of enabling the user to see what is captured by the cutting device before electing whether or not to cut the tissue (paragraphs [0017], [0036], [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Clark, III to further include a light source, based on the teachings of Gurtner, for the purpose of enabling the user to see what is captured by the cutting device before electing whether or not to cut the tissue (paragraphs [0017], [0036], [0042] – Gurtner).
Claims 22 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirkemo (US 2017/0172619 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bunch et al (US 2014/0358087 A1).
Regarding claims 22 – 24, as discussed above, Kirkemo discloses the system of claim 1 above. Additionally, Kirkemo discloses a lower handle portion (needle stabilizer 30) (paragraphs [0040 – 0041] and Figs. 2A,4B).
However, Kirkemo is silent regarding (i) wherein the stabilizer comprises an arm configured to rotate relative to a lower handle portion to an open position to form the removal slot, (ii) wherein the arm and the lower handle portion form the guide channel when the arm is in a closed position, and (iii) wherein the stabilizer comprises an upper lever configured to rotate the arm to the open position.
As to the above, Bunch teaches a system (device 500) comprising a stabilizer (device 500; which equates to the handle 20 and needle holder 30 of Kirkemo) with a guide channel (sidewall 539; which equates to the cylindrical sidewall 32 of Kirkemo) and a removal slot (lateral opening to the sidewall 539) and an arm (bottom portion / small width portion of button 571) configured to rotate relative to the lower handle portion (hub 512; needle holder 30 of Kirkemo) to an open position to form the removal slot (i.e., expand the lateral opening / channel 538) (paragraph [0068] and Figs. 9 – 11C) and to form the guide channel (sidewall 539) when the arm is in the closed position (paragraph [0072 – 0074]), wherein the stabilizer comprises an upper lever (top portion / larger width portion of button 571) configured to rotate the arm to the open position (Figs. 11A-C).
It should be understood that Kirkemo and Bunch are known references in the art that teach a stabilizer for holding and guiding at least one medical instrument (abstract, paragraphs [0040 – 0047] and Figs. 2A-4B – Kirkemo ; abstract, paragraphs [0069 - 0075], and Figs. 9 – 11C – Bunch); and the Examiner contends that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have substituted one means of holding the medical instrument (needle) for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and resulted in the modified stabilizer of Kirkemo being able to function as intended to properly hold the needle. The Examiner notes the rejection above is based on KSR int’l Co. V. Teleflex inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), rational B, outlined in MPEP 2143.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. More specifically:
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the stabilizer of Clark, III doesn’t have a guide channel and a removal slot, the Examiner notes that as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the stabilizer does have a guide channel and a removal slot. Furthermore, it should be understood that “a slot” is defined as an opening and a channel is pathway; and therefore, the entry opening 214 of Clark, III is considered a slot, and the conduit 213 forms a pathway through the stabilizer and is therefore a guide channel. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments directed to any newly added claims or claim limitations have been addressed in the rejection above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Restaino whose telephone number is (571)272-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 4:00 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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/Andrew Restaino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights