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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 40, 52, 54, and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 40, “wherein the plurality of passages comprises four passages, and wherein adjacent passages from the plurality of passages are angularly spaced apart from each other by about 90 degrees, wherein the reservoir is located at an intersection of the four passages” in lines 1-2 appears to be new matter. The specification does not appear to provide a description of a reservoir having a “circular shape in a plane normal to the longitudinal axis” of claim 36 line 14 which also has four passages, and wherein adjacent passages from the plurality of passages are angularly spaced apart from each other by about 90 degrees, wherein the reservoir is located at an intersection of the four passages, in the description. Figures 3A-3C shows a reservoir having a circular shape but only two passages, and 4A-4B does show an embodiment with four passages, however the reservoir is a cross shape. Finally, such was not originally claimed. Thus, a reservoir having a circular shape “wherein the plurality of passages comprises four passages, and wherein adjacent passages from the plurality of passages are angularly spaced apart from each other by about 90 degrees, wherein the reservoir is located at an intersection of the four passages” in lines 1-2 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending claim 36 and/or claim 40 to clarify.
As to claim 52, “wherein the at least one passage comprises a first passage portion comprising a first width orthogonal to the longitudinal axis and a second passage portion adjacent to the first portion and comprising a second width orthogonal to the longitudinal axis, and wherein the first width is greater than the second width” in lines 1-4 appears to be new matter. The specification does not appear to provide a description of a reservoir having a “circular shape in a plane normal to the longitudinal axis” of claim 36 line 14 which also has a first passage portion comprising a first width and a second passage portion comprising a second width wherein the first width is greater than the second width, in the description. Figures 3A-3C shows a reservoir having a circular shape but having passages with the same width (p. 9 line 33), and 4A-4B does show an embodiment with passages of different widths, however the reservoir is a cross shape. Finally, such was not originally claimed. Thus, a reservoir having a circular shape “wherein the at least one passage comprises a first passage portion comprising a first width orthogonal to the longitudinal axis and a second passage portion adjacent to the first portion and comprising a second width orthogonal to the longitudinal axis, and wherein the first width is greater than the second width” in lines 1-4 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending claim 36 and/or claim 52 to clarify.
As to claim 69, “wherein the cavity is substantially T-shaped in a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis” in lines 3-4 appears to be new matter. The specification does not appear to provide a description of a reservoir having a “circular shape in a plane normal to the longitudinal axis” of claim 36 line 14 which also is substantially T-shaped in a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis. Figures 3A-3C shows a reservoir having a circular shape but is not substantially T-shaped in a plane normal to the longitudinal axis, and 4A-4B does show an embodiment which is substantially T-shaped in a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis, however the reservoir is a cross shape. Finally, such was not originally claimed. Thus, a reservoir having a circular shape “wherein the cavity is substantially T-shaped in a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal axis” in lines 3-4 constitutes new matter. Examiner suggests amending claim 36 and/or claim 69 to clarify.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for its dependence on one or more rejected base and/or intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orikasa et al (U.S. 2013/0171579A1, hereinafter “Orikasa”).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
513
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
556
681
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Orikasa teaches an orthodontic appliance (Figs. 1-4) comprising:
a body (3 in Fig. 3) comprising a first portion (portion 1 in annotated Fig. 3) defining a slot (5 in Fig. 3) for receiving an archwire (Abstract) and a second portion (portion 2 in annotated Fig. 3) extending from the first portion along a longitudinal axis (axis in annotated Fig. 3), wherein the second portion comprises a bottom surface (bottom surface in annotated Figs. 1, 3 and 4) opposite to the first portion (Figs. 1, 3 and 4, para. 0055, bracket body 3 is mounted on surface of base 2) and a lateral surface (lateral surfaces in annotated Figs. 1, 3 and 4) extending from the bottom surface towards the first portion along the longitudinal axis (Figs. 1, 3, and 4), the bottom surface and the lateral surface at least partially forming an external surface of the body (Figs. 1, 3, and 4), wherein the body is part of a self-ligating bracket (Figs. 1-4, Abstract),
wherein the second portion defines a cavity (9 and 94 in Fig. 3) at least partially surrounded by the bottom surface (Figs. 3 and 4) and at least partially extending along a length of the second portion from the bottom surface (Fig. 3), wherein the cavity comprises a reservoir (reservoir in annotated Figs. 3 and 4) and at least one passage (1st and 2nd passage portions in annotated Figs. 3 and 4) disposed in fluid communication with the reservoir (para. 0073) and extending from the reservoir to the lateral surface (Figs. 3 and 4), and wherein the reservoir is capable of retaining a dental composition within the reservoir and to prevent the dental composition from being dislodged from the reservoir except via the at least one passage (para. 0073; reservoir is capable of retaining the composition as the at least one passage, 1st and 2nd passage portions in annotated Figs. 3 and 4, are the only two exits from the reservoir).
In regard to claim 6, Orikasa discloses the invention of claim 1. Orikasa further discloses wherein the at least one passage comprises a plurality of passages (1st and 2nd passage portions in annotated Figs. 3 and 4) spaced apart from each other (see annotated Figs. 3 and 4), and wherein each passage from the plurality of passages extends from the reservoir to the lateral surface (see annotated Figs. 3 and 4, para. 0073).
In regard to claim 20, Orikasa discloses the invention of claim 6. Orikasa further discloses wherein a height of a first passage portion (heights 1 and 2 in annotated Fig. 3) increases along a length of the first passage portion (Fig. 3), and a height of a second passage portion (heights 3 and 4 in annotated Fig. 3) increases along a length of the second passage portion (Fig. 3), wherein the first passage portion has a first rate of change of the height with respect to the length of the first passage portion (Fig. 3), wherein the second passage portion has a second rate of change of the height with respect to the length of the second passage portion (Fig. 3), and wherein the first rate of change of the height is different from the second rate of change of the height (Fig. 3, paras. 0073-0074, 2nd passage portion is part of 94 which is smaller than first portion which is part of 9).
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 13-14, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyritsis (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0194674 A1) in view of Kelly et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,325,622 B1, hereinafter “Kelly”).
PNG
media_image4.png
562
740
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
416
669
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
489
574
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
508
663
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Kyritsis discloses an orthodontic appliance (Figs. 2-8) comprising:
a body (30 in Fig. 2) comprising a first portion (1st portion in annotated Fig. 2) defining a slot (34 in Fig. 2) for receiving an archwire (40 in Fig. 2, para. 0042) and a second portion (2nd portion in annotated Fig. 2) extending from the first portion along a longitudinal axis (axis in annotated Fig. 2), wherein the second portion comprises a bottom surface (bottom surface in annotated Fig. 2, para. 0044) opposite to the first portion and a lateral surface (lateral surfaces in annotated Figs. 2, 5-6 and 8, which are the four outer surfaces of the bracket) extending from the bottom surface towards the first portion along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2), the bottom surface and the lateral surface at least partially forming an external surface of the body (Figs. 2, 5-6 and 8),
wherein the second portion defines a cavity (31 and 32 in annotated Fig. 2) at least partially surrounded by the bottom surface (Fig. 2) and at least partially extending along a length of the second portion from the bottom surface (Fig. 2), wherein the cavity comprises a reservoir (reservoir in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8, inside bracket at intersection of 32 and 31) and at least one passage (vertical part of cavity 32 comprising passages 1 and 2 in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8, and horizontal part of cavity 31 comprising passages 3 and 4 in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8) disposed in fluid communication with the reservoir (Figs. 5-6 and 8, the passages 1-4 extend outward from reservoir at the intersection of 31 and 32) and extending from the reservoir to the lateral surface (Fig. 2, 5-6 and 8, paras. 0045-0046), and wherein the reservoir is capable of retaining a dental composition within the reservoir and to prevent the dental composition from being dislodged from the reservoir except via the at least one passage (Figs. 2-8; reservoir is capable of retaining the composition as the at least one passage, vertical part of cavity 32 comprising passages 1 and 2 in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8, and horizontal part of cavity 31 comprising passages 3 and 4 in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8, are the only exits from the reservoir).
Kelly teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-10) comprising a body (22 in Fig. 1) wherein the body is part of a self-ligating bracket (Fig. 1, Abstract, col. 3 lines 38-55) comprising a latch (24 in Fig. 1).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic brackets. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the body of Kyritsis by adding the latch so that the body is part of a self-ligating bracket as taught by Kelly in order to allow for the bracket to provide a relatively low yet constant force on the archwire to reduce the total time needed to move the teeth to their intended locations (Kelly col. 8 lines 64-col. 9 line 6) while also allowing for conventional ligation as necessary in treatment (Kelly col. 3 lines 45-55).
In regard to claim 2, Kyritsis in view of Kelly discloses the invention of claim 1. Kyritsis further discloses further comprising a base (20 in Fig. 2) comprising a first base surface (22 in Fig. 2) capable of engaging the bottom surface of the second portion of the body (para. 0044) and a second base surface (24 in Fig. 5) opposite to the first base surface and capable of being attached to a tooth (para. 0043).
In regard to claim 6, Kyritsis in view of Kelly discloses the invention of claim 1. Kyritsis further discloses wherein the at least one passage comprises a plurality of passages spaced apart from each other (passages 1-4 in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8), and wherein each passage from the plurality of passages extends from the reservoir to the lateral surface (see annotated Figs. 2, 5-6 and 8, paras. 0045-0046, the passages 1-4 extend outward from reservoir at the intersection of 31 and 32).
In regard to claim 7, Kyritsis in view of Kelly discloses the invention of claim 6. Kyritsis further discloses wherein the plurality of passages comprises four passages (vertical part of cavity 32 comprising passages 1 and 2 in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8, and horizontal part of cavity 31 comprising passages 3 and 4 in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8), and wherein adjacent passages from the plurality of passages are angularly spaced apart from each other by about 90 degrees (see annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8, paras. 0045-0046, the passages 1-4 extend outward from reservoir at the intersection of 31 and 32), wherein the reservoir (reservoir in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8, inside bracket at intersection of 32 and 31) is located at an intersection of the four passages (see annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8).
In regard to claim 13, Kyritsis in view of Kelly discloses the invention of claim 1. Kyritsis further discloses wherein the second portion comprises a cavity surface (cavity surface in annotated Fig. 8) offset from the bottom surface (Figs. 2 and 8), and wherein the cavity extends from the bottom surface towards the cavity surface along the longitudinal axis (Figs. 2 and 8).
In regard to claim 14, Kyritsis in view of Kelly discloses the invention of claim 13. Kyritsis further discloses wherein at least a portion of the cavity (31 and 32 in annotated Fig. 2) is tapered from the bottom surface to the cavity surface (paras. 0045-0046, 31 and 32 may have triangular cross sections).
In regard to claim 31, Kyritsis in view of Kelly discloses the invention of claim 1. Kyritsis further discloses wherein (b) wherein the reservoir is centrally located with respect to the bottom surface (reservoir in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8, inside bracket at intersection of 32 and 31).
PNG
media_image8.png
403
693
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 34, Kyritsis in view of Kelly discloses the invention of claim 1. Kyritsis further discloses wherein the at least one passage (passages 1-4, see specifically passage 2 in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8) is substantially U-shaped (U-shape in annotated Fig. 5 above, prior to securing of base 20 to bracket 30 of para. 0044) in a plane parallel to each of the longitudinal axis and a width (width in annotated Fig. 5 above) of the at least one passage (annotated Fig. 5 above, plane of top view is parallel to longitudinal axis and width).
Claims 3, 5, and 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyritsis in view of Kelly and Lorentz et al (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0245983 A1, hereinafter “Lorentz”).
In regard to claims 3, Kyritsis in view of Kelly discloses the invention of claim 1. Kyritsis does not disclose further comprising a dental composition received within the reservoir.
Lorentz teaches a dental composition (30 in Fig. 1, paras. 0032-0033) received within the reservoir (Fig. 3, para. 0034).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic brackets. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cavity of Kyritsis in view of Kelly by adding the dental composition received within the reservoir as taught by Lorentz in order to reduce and/or eliminate the occurrence of biofilms and white spot lesions on the tooth adjacent to the orthodontic bracket (Lorentz para. 0034).
In regard to claim 5, Kyritsis in view of Kelly and Lorentz discloses the invention of claim 3. Kyritsis does not disclose wherein the dental composition is at least one of a fluoride-releasing composition, a calcium-releasing composition, a strontium- releasing composition, or a phosphate-releasing composition.
Lorentz teaches a dental composition (30 in Fig. 1, paras. 0032-0033) received within the reservoir (Fig. 3, para. 0034), wherein the dental composition is a fluoride-releasing composition (para. 0034).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic brackets. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dental composition of Kyritsis in view of Kelly and Lorentz by specifying that the dental composition is a fluoride-releasing composition as taught by Lorentz in order to reduce and/or eliminate the occurrence of biofilms and white spot lesions on the tooth adjacent to the orthodontic bracket (Lorentz para. 0034).
In regard to claim 70, Kyritsis discloses a method (Abstract, para. 0053) comprising:
providing an orthodontic appliance comprising a bracket (Figs. 2-8, Abstract), the bracket comprising a body (30 in Fig. 2) comprising a first portion (1st portion in annotated Fig. 2) defining a slot (34 in Fig. 2) and a second portion (2nd portion in annotated Fig. 2) extending from the first portion along a longitudinal axis (axis in annotated Fig. 2), wherein the second portion comprises a bottom surface (bottom surface in annotated Fig. 2, para. 0044) opposite to the first portion and a lateral surface (lateral surface in annotated Fig. 2) extending from the bottom surface towards the first portion along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2), the bottom surface and the lateral surface at least partially forming an external surface of the body (Fig. 2), wherein the second portion defines a cavity (31 and 32 in annotated Fig. 2) least partially surrounded by the bottom surface (Fig. 2) and extending at least partially along a length of the second portion from the bottom surface (Fig. 2), wherein the cavity comprises a reservoir (reservoir in annotated Fig. 8, inside bracket) and at least one passage (passages in annotated Fig. 8) disposed in fluid communication with the reservoir (Fig. 8) and extending from the reservoir to the lateral surface (Fig. 2, paras. 0045-0046), and wherein the reservoir is capable of retaining a dental composition within the reservoir and to prevent the dental composition from being dislodged from the reservoir except via the at least one passage (reservoir is capable of retaining the composition as the at least one passage, vertical part of cavity 32 comprising passages 1 and 2 in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8, and horizontal part of cavity 31 comprising passages 3 and 4 in annotated Figs. 5-6 and 8, are the only exits from the reservoir; the dental composition retained inside the reservoir exits through the at least one passage).
Kyritsis does not disclose that the orthodontic appliance comprises a self-ligating bracket, and depositing a dental composition within the reservoir of the cavity.
Kelly teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-10) comprising a self-ligating bracket (Fig. 1, Abstract, col. 3 lines 38-55), the self-ligating bracket comprising a body (22 in Fig. 1) and a latch (24 in Fig. 1).
Lorentz teaches depositing a dental composition (30 in Fig. 1, paras. 0032-0033) within the reservoir of the cavity (Fig. 3, paras. 0033-0034).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic brackets.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bracket of Kyritsis by adding a latch so that the appliance comprises a self-ligating bracket as taught by Kelly in order to allow for the bracket to provide a relatively low yet constant force on the archwire to reduce the total time needed to move the teeth to their intended locations (Kelly col. 8 lines 64-col. 9 line 6) while also allowing for conventional ligation as necessary in treatment (Kelly col. 3 lines 45-55).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kyritsis in view of Kelly by adding the step of depositing a dental composition within the reservoir of the cavity as taught by Lorentz in order to reduce and/or eliminate the occurrence of biofilms and white spot lesions on the tooth adjacent to the orthodontic bracket (Lorentz para. 0034).
In regard to claim 71, Kyritsis in view of Kelly and Lorentz discloses the invention of claim 70. Kyritsis further discloses further comprising engaging a base (20 in Fig. 2) with the bottom surface (bottom surface in annotated Fig. 2) of the second portion of the body (para. 0044), and attaching the base to a tooth (para. 0053).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 December 2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2, 6-7, 13-14, 31, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Kyritsis have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kyritsis does not disclose a body wherein the body is part of a self-ligating bracket.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claims 1-2, 6-7, 13-14, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyritsis in view of Kelly. Examiner notes that Kelly teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-10) comprising a body (22 in Fig. 1) wherein the body is part of a self-ligating bracket (Fig. 1, Abstract, col. 3 lines 38-55) comprising a latch (24 in Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Kyritsis by the teachings of Kelly in order to allow for the bracket to provide a relatively low yet constant force on the archwire to reduce the total time needed to move the teeth to their intended locations (Kelly col. 8 lines 64-col. 9 line 6) while also allowing for conventional ligation as necessary in treatment (Kelly col. 3 lines 45-55). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that in regard to the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Orikasa, Orikasa does not disclose or suggest the specific reservoir and passage configuration recited in claim 1, nor the functional requirement that the reservoir is configured to retain a dental composition within the reservoir and to prevent the dental composition from being dislodged except via the at least one passage.
Examiner notes that Orikasa discloses the reservoir and passage configuration of claim 1 as claimed. Examiner notes that the reservoir is capable of retaining a dental composition within the reservoir and to prevent the dental composition from being dislodged from the reservoir except via the at least one passage (para. 0073; reservoir of Orikasa is capable of retaining the dental composition within the reservoir as the at least one passage, 1st and 2nd passage portions in annotated Figs. 3 and 4, are the only two exits from the reservoir). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
In regard to the rejection of claim 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kyritsis in view of Lorentz, Applicant argues that neither Kyritsis nor Lorentz discloses an orthodontic appliance comprising a self-ligating bracket. Applicant also argues that the dependent claims 3, 5, and 71 are patentable for the reasons given with respect to independent claims 1 and 70, and for their additional novel and non-obvious features recited therein.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claim 3, 5 and 70-71 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyritsis in view of Kelly and Lorentz. As noted in the above response, Kelly teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-10) comprising a body (22 in Fig. 1) wherein the body is part of a self-ligating bracket (Fig. 1, Abstract, col. 3 lines 38-55). Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that in regard to Applicant’s arguments regarding the independent claim 36 and its dependent claims 40, 52, 54, 66, 69, and new claim 74, have been fully considered and are persuasive as the prior art does not disclose the limitations of amended claim 36.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36, 66 and 74 are allowed.
Claims 40, 52, 54, and 69 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772