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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Pratt does not teach the amended limitations of claims 1 and 11, specifically “wherein the orifice has an edge, the dressing interface further comprising an adhesive disposed between the liquid-air separator and the edge of the orifice” for claim 1, and “wherein the at least one lumen has walls, the dressing interface further comprising an adhesive disposed between the liquid-air separator and the walls of the at least one lumen”. As set forth in the rejection below, the rejections are maintained over Pratt in view of Collinson. For Claim 1, Pratt discloses the edge of the orifice in Fig 5: end 127 is considered the edge of the orifice by which the pressure sensing lumen is routed through the conduit port 128 opens to the cavity 130. For Claim 11, Pratt discloses the wall of the lumen in Fig 5, vertical portion of end 127 within cavity 130 is considered a wall of the pressure sensing lumen. For both claims, Pratt teaches that the filter 133 may be welded to the base 124, which is contiguous with the edge 127, thus the weld is disposed between the filter and the edge of the orifice in the case of claim 1 and the wall of the lumen in the case of claim 11. Regarding Claim 16, Pratt discloses in Fig 5-7 ¶[0056] hydrophobic filter 133 disposed within aperture 132 closes fluid communication between the wound exudates and the orifice by which the pressure sensing lumen routed through the conduit port 128 opens to the cavity 130 at end 127, which is an extension of the orifice of the pressure sensing lumen. Collinson teaches application of an adhesive between a filter and an orifice, thus the rejections of claims 1, 11, and 16 are maintained over Pratt/Collinson as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 11-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt (US 20150073361 A1) in view of Collinson (US 20160339158 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pratt discloses a dressing interface (Fig 1 ¶[0052] connector 122) for connecting a reduced-pressure source (Fig 1 ¶[0021] reduced-pressure source 106), to a manifold (Fig 1, dressing 104) to treat a tissue site with reduced pressure (¶[0006]), the dressing interface comprising: a conduit housing having a cavity (Fig 5, cavity 130) defined by a recessed compartment (Fig 5, interior space of 130) and an opening (Fig 5-7, opening of cavity 130 adjacent to aperture 132 above filter 133); a base having a manifold-contacting surface and an aperture surrounding the opening (Fig 5, base 124 has a lower surface contacting dressing 104 and aperture 132); a reduced-pressure port extending through the conduit housing and fluidly coupled to the recessed compartment (Fig 5-6 conduit port 128), the reduced-pressure port adapted to be coupled to the reduced-pressure source (Fig 1, 106 couples to 128 via tube 108); a pressure-detection port extending through the conduit housing and adapted to be fluidly coupled to a pressure sensor (Fig 1, 5-7 ¶[0067] a pressure sensor is included in the connector 122 to measure the pressure provided to the cavity 130, whereby the pressure sensor includes a pressure sensing lumen routed through the conduit port 128 and fluidically coupled to the reduced pressure source 106); a pressure-detection chamber fluidly coupled to the pressure-detection port (Fig 6-7 ¶[0067], cavity 130 would act as a pressure detection chamber) and having an orifice disposed within the recessed compartment (Fig 6-7, the orifice by which the pressure sensing lumen routed though the conduit port 128 opens to the cavity 130 at end 127); and a liquid-air separator closing the orifice of the pressure-detection chamber to limit the flow of liquids into the pressure-detection chamber (Fig 5-7 ¶[0056] hydrophobic filter 133 disposed within aperture 132 closes fluid communication between the wound exudates and the orifice by which the pressure sensing lumen routed through the conduit port 128 opens to the cavity 130 at end 127), wherein the orifice has an edge (Fig 5, end 127 is considered the edge of the orifice by which the pressure sensing lumen is routed through the conduit port 128 opens to the cavity 130), the dressing interface further comprising a weld disposed between the liquid-air separator and the edge of the orifice (Fig 5 ¶[0056] the filter 133 may be welded to the base 124, which is contiguous with the edge 127, thus the weld is disposed between the filter and the edge of the orifice).
Pratt teaches does not teach an adhesive.
However, Collinson teaches a fluidic connector for negative pressure wound therapy, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein the orifice has an edge (Fig 5C, orifice 541 has an edge), the dressing interface further comprising an adhesive disposed between the liquid-air separator and the edge of the orifice (Fig 5C ¶[0116] filter 530 may be adhesively coupled to the edge of orifice 541 of bottom layer 540) to act as a liquid barrier, to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (¶[0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pratt so that an adhesive is disposed between the liquid-air separator and the edge of the orifice, as taught by Collinson to act as a liquid barrier, to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (as motivated by Collinson ¶[0116]).
Regarding Claim 2, Pratt discloses that the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter (Fig 5 ¶[0056] 133 may be hydrophobic).
Regarding Claim 8, Pratt is silent regarding an adhesive disposed over the liquid-air separator and the edge of orifice.
However, Collinson teaches a fluidic connector for negative pressure wound therapy, thus from the same field of endeavor, including an adhesive disposed over the liquid-air separator and the edge of orifice (Fig 5C ¶[0116] filter 530 may be adhered on its top and bottom surfaces to surfaces of spacer layer 520 and bottom layer 540, which includes the orifice 541) to act as a liquid barrier, to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (¶[0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pratt so that an adhesive is disposed over the liquid-air separator and the edge of orifice, as taught by Collinson to act as a liquid barrier, to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (as motivated by Collinson ¶[0116]).
Regarding Claim 9, Pratt is silent whether the adhesive comprises an adhesive gel curable by UV light.
However, Collinson teaches a fluidic connector for negative pressure wound therapy, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein the adhesive comprises an adhesive gel curable by UV light (¶[0116] adhesive may be UV curable) to act as a liquid barrier, to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (¶[0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pratt so that the adhesive comprises an adhesive gel curable by UV light as taught by Collinson to act as a liquid barrier, to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (as motivated by Collinson ¶[0116]).
Regarding Claim 11, Pratt discloses a dressing interface (Fig 1 ¶[0052] connector 122) for connecting a reduced-pressure source (Fig 1 ¶[0021] reduced-pressure source 106) to a manifold (Fig 1, dressing 104) to treat a tissue site with reduced pressure (¶[0006]), the dressing interface comprising: a conduit housing having a cavity (Fig 5, cavity 130) defined by a recessed compartment (Fig 5, interior space of 130) and an opening (Fig 5-7, opening of cavity 130 adjacent to aperture 132 above filter 133); a base having a manifold-contacting surface and an aperture surrounding the opening (Fig 5, base 124 has a lower surface contacting dressing 104 and aperture 132); a reduced-pressure conduit extending through the conduit housing and fluidly coupled to the recessed compartment (Fig 5-6 conduit port 128); a pressure-detection conduit extending through the conduit housing and having at least one lumen with an orifice disposed within the recessed compartment (Fig 1, 5-7 ¶[0067] a pressure sensor is included in the connector 122 to measure the pressure provided to the cavity 130, whereby the pressure sensor includes a pressure sensing lumen routed from cavity 130 through the conduit port 128 and fluidically coupled to the reduced pressure source 106); and a liquid-air separator closing the orifice of the at least one lumen (Fig 5-7 ¶[0056] hydrophobic filter 133 disposed within aperture 132 closes fluid communication between the wound exudates and the orifice by which the pressure sensing lumen routed through the conduit port 128 opens to the cavity 130 at end 127), wherein the at least one lumen has walls (Fig 5, vertical portion of end 127 within cavity 130 is considered a wall of the pressure sensing lumen), the dressing interface further comprising a weld disposed between the liquid-air separator and the walls of the at least one lumen (Fig 5 ¶[0056] the filter 133 may be welded to the base 124, which is contiguous with the edge 127, thus the weld is disposed between the filter and the wall of the at least one lumen).
Pratt does not explicitly disclose an adhesive.
However, Collinson teaches a fluidic connector for negative pressure wound therapy, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein the liquid-air separator is secured using an adhesive (Fig 5C ¶[0116] filter 530 may be adhesively coupled to the edge of orifice 541 of bottom layer 540) to act as a liquid barrier, to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (¶[0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pratt so that the liquid-air separator is secured using an adhesive, as taught by Collinson to act as a liquid barrier, to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (as motivated by Collinson ¶[0116]).
Regarding Claim 12, Pratt discloses that the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter (Fig 5 ¶[0056] 133 may be hydrophobic).
Regarding Claim 13, Pratt discloses that the liquid-air separator is disposed within the lumen (Fig 5 ¶[0067] 133 is disposed within the lumen beginning at aperture 132 and extending through conduit port 128).
Regarding Claim 16, Pratt discloses a dressing interface (Fig 1 ¶[0052] connector 122) for connecting a reduced-pressure source (Fig 1 ¶[0021] reduced-pressure source 106) to a manifold (Fig 1, dressing 104) to treat a tissue site with reduced pressure (¶[0006]), the dressing interface comprising: a conduit housing having a cavity (Fig 5, cavity 130) defined by a recessed compartment (Fig 5, interior space of 130) and an opening (Fig 5-7, opening of cavity 130 adjacent to aperture 132 above filter 133); a base having a manifold-contacting surface and an aperture surrounding the opening (Fig 5, base 124 has a lower surface contacting dressing 104 and aperture 132); a reduced-pressure port extending through the conduit housing and fluidly coupled to the recessed compartment (Fig 5-6 conduit port 128); a pressure-detection port extending through the conduit housing and forming a chamber having an orifice disposed within the recessed compartment (Fig 1, 5-7 ¶[0067] a pressure sensor is included in the connector 122 to measure the pressure provided to the cavity 130, whereby the pressure sensor includes a pressure sensing lumen routed from cavity 130 through the conduit port 128 and fluidically coupled to the reduced pressure source 106); and a liquid-air separator closing the orifice of the chamber (Fig 5-7 ¶[0056] hydrophobic filter 133 disposed within aperture 132 closes fluid communication between the wound exudates and the orifice by which the pressure sensing lumen routed through the conduit port 128 opens to the cavity 130 at end 127, which is an extension of the orifice).
Pratt teaches that the liquid-air separator is welded to the orifice (¶[0056]), and does not explicitly disclose a UV curable adhesive.
However, Collinson teaches a fluidic connector for negative pressure wound therapy, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein the dressing interface is produced by the steps comprising: applying a first bead of adhesive gel to the orifice that is curable by UV light; placing the liquid-air separator on the adhesive gel over the orifice to close the chamber; and curing the adhesive gel with UV light to form a semi-rigid structure when cured by the UV light (Fig 5C ¶[0116] filter element 530 may be welded or adhered using a UV curable adhesive on the top and bottom surfaces, implying at least two beads of adhesive) to act as a liquid barrier, to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (¶[0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pratt so that the dressing interface is produced by the steps comprising: applying a first bead of adhesive gel to the orifice that is curable by UV light; placing the liquid-air separator on the adhesive gel over the orifice to close the chamber; and curing the adhesive gel with UV light to form a semi-rigid structure when cured by the UV light, as taught by Collinson to act as a liquid barrier, to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (as motivated by Collinson ¶[0116]).
Regarding Claim 17, Pratt is silent regarding applying a second bead of adhesive gel to the liquid-air separator opposite the first bead of adhesive gel over the orifice that is curable by UV light; and curing the second bead of adhesive gel with UV light to form a semi-rigid structure when cured by the UV light.
However, Collinson teaches a fluidic connector for negative pressure wound therapy, thus from the same field of endeavor, including applying a second bead of adhesive gel to the liquid-air separator opposite the first bead of adhesive gel over the orifice that is curable by UV light; and curing the second bead of adhesive gel with UV light to form a semi-rigid structure when cured by the UV light (Fig 5C ¶[0116] filter element 530 may be welded or adhered using a UV curable adhesive on the top and bottom surfaces, implying at least two beads of adhesive) to act as a liquid barrier, to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (¶[0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pratt so that the liquid-air separator opposite the first bead of adhesive gel over the orifice that is curable by UV light; and curing the second bead of adhesive gel with UV light to form a semi-rigid structure when cured by the UV light, as taught by Collinson to act as a liquid barrier, to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (as motivated by Collinson ¶[0116]).
Regarding Claim 18, Pratt further discloses that the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter (Fig 5 ¶[0056] 133 may be hydrophobic).
Regarding Claim 19, Pratt is silent whether the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising PTFE.
However, Collinson teaches a fluidic connector for negative pressure wound therapy, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising PTFE (Fig 5C ¶[0116] filter element 514 may include PTFE) to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (¶[0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pratt so that the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising PTFE, as taught by Collinson to substantially prevent or inhibit liquids from escaping from the wound dressing, as well as an odor barrier (as motivated by Collinson ¶[0116]).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt (US 20150073361 A1) in view of Collinson (US 20160339158 A1), in view of Adiletta (US 4210697 A).
Regarding Claim 3, Pratt/Collinson is silent whether the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising PTFE.
However, Adiletta teaches methods of producing hydrophobic sheets for use as filters, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising PTFE (Col 2 ln 1-11 hydrophobic fibrous sheet impregnated with polytetrafluoroethylene) to impart remarkable hydrophobicity, which is retained after repeated wettings (Col 5 ln 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid-air separator of Pratt/Collinson so that the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising PTFE, as taught by Adiletta to impart remarkable hydrophobicity, which is retained after repeated wettings (as motivated by Adiletta Col 5 ln 6-7).
Regarding Claim 4, Pratt/Collinson is silent whether the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising a woven fiberglass membrane coated with PTFE.
However, Adiletta teaches methods of producing hydrophobic sheets for use as filters, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising a woven fiberglass membrane coated with PTFE (Col 2 ln 52-Col 3 ln 12 Adiletta describes a filter made of a woven glass cloth with glass fibrous material attached thereto and treated with polytetrafluoroethylene) to impart remarkable hydrophobicity, which is retained after repeated wettings (Col 5 ln 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid-air separator of Pratt/Collinson so that the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising a woven fiberglass membrane coated with PTFE, as taught by Adiletta to impart remarkable hydrophobicity, which is retained after repeated wettings (as motivated by Adiletta Col 5 ln 6-7).
Regarding Claim 5, Pratt/Collinson is silent whether the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising a woven base cloth.
However, Adiletta teaches methods of producing hydrophobic sheets for use as filters, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising a woven base cloth (Col 2 ln 52-Col 3 ln 12 hydrophobic filter may include a woven cloth substrate) to impart remarkable hydrophobicity, which is retained after repeated wettings (Col 5 ln 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid-air separator of Pratt/Collinson so that the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising a woven base cloth, as taught by Adiletta to impart remarkable hydrophobicity, which is retained after repeated wettings (as motivated by Adiletta Col 5 ln 6-7).
Regarding Claim 6, Pratt/Collinson is silent whether the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising woven base cloth having warp threads and weft threads.
However, Adiletta teaches methods of producing hydrophobic sheets for use as filters, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising woven base cloth having warp threads and weft threads (Col 2 ln 52-Col 3 ln 12 hydrophobic filter may include a woven cloth substrate formed in any type of weave, such as square weave, twill weave, dutch twill weave, all of which have warp and weft threads) to impart remarkable hydrophobicity, which is retained after repeated wettings (Col 5 ln 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid-air separator of Pratt/Collinson so that the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising woven base cloth having warp threads and weft threads, as taught by Adiletta to impart remarkable hydrophobicity, which is retained after repeated wettings (as motivated by Adiletta Col 5 ln 6-7).
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt (US 20150073361 A1) in view of Collinson (US 20160339158 A1), in view of Locke (US 20140121615 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Pratt/Collinson is silent regarding a second pressure-detection chamber fluidly coupled to a second pressure-detection port and having an orifice disposed within the recessed compartment and a second liquid-air separator closing the orifice of the second pressure-detection chamber to limit the flow of liquids into the second pressure detection chamber.
However, Locke teaches a connector for a negative pressure wound therapy system, thus from the same field of endeavor, a second pressure-detection chamber (Figs 5, 6A-B ¶[0045][0052-0053] sensing probes with a plurality of probe lumens 686 analogous to the single probe lumen 186 of sensing probe 180 depicted in Fig 5) fluidly coupled to a second pressure-detection port (Fig 6A ¶[0053-0054] space at distal ends 684 of probe lumens 686) and having an orifice disposed within the recessed compartment (Fig 6A-B ¶[0053-0054] cavity aperture 666); and a second liquid-air separator closing the orifice of the second pressure-detection chamber to limit the flow of liquids into the second pressure detection chamber (¶[0047] manifold 112 acts as an filter to limit the flow of fluids into sensing probe 180 and the associated lumen 144. This would be the case for the plurality of probe lumens 686, thus including a plurality of liquid-air separators) because additional pressure sensing probes may allow the pressure sensors to determine misalignment by identifying a particular sensing probe where the communicated pressure differs from the expected pressure (¶[0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pratt/Collinson to include a second pressure-detection chamber fluidly coupled to a second pressure-detection port and having an orifice disposed within the recessed compartment and a second liquid-air separator closing the orifice of the second pressure-detection chamber to limit the flow of liquids into the second pressure detection chamber, as taught by Locke because additional pressure sensing probes may allow the pressure sensors to determine misalignment by identifying a particular sensing probe where the communicated pressure differs from the expected pressure (as motivated by Locke ¶[0054]).
Regarding Claim 15, Pratt/Collinson discloses that the at least one lumen is a first lumen (Fig 5 the lumen beginning at aperture 132 and extending through conduit port 128 is considered a first lumen).
Pratt/Collinson is silent regarding a second lumen having an orifice disposed within the recessed compartment; and a second liquid-air separator closing the orifice of the second lumen.
However, Locke teaches a connector for a negative pressure wound therapy system, thus from the same field of endeavor, including a second lumen Figs 5, 6A-B ¶[0045][0052-0053] sensing probes with a plurality of probe lumens 686 analogous to the single probe lumen 186 of sensing probe 180 depicted in Fig 5) having an orifice disposed within the recessed compartment (Fig 6A-B ¶[0053-0054] cavity aperture 666); and a second liquid-air separator closing the orifice of the second lumen (¶[0047] manifold 112 acts as an filter to limit the flow of fluids into sensing probe 180 and the associated lumen 144. This would be the case for the plurality of probe lumens 686, thus including a plurality of liquid-air separators) because additional pressure sensing probes may allow the pressure sensors to determine misalignment by identifying a particular sensing probe where the communicated pressure differs from the expected pressure (¶[0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Pratt/Collinson to include a second lumen having an orifice disposed within the recessed compartment; and a second liquid-air separator closing the orifice of the second lumen, as taught by Locke because additional pressure sensing probes may allow the pressure sensors to determine misalignment by identifying a particular sensing probe where the communicated pressure differs from the expected pressure (as motivated by Locke ¶[0054]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pratt (US 20150073361 A1) in view of Collinson (US 20160339158 A1), further in view of Adiletta (US 4210697 A).
Regarding Claim 20, Pratt/Collinson is silent whether the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising a woven base cloth.
However, Adiletta teaches methods of producing hydrophobic sheets for use as filters, thus from the same field of endeavor, wherein the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising a woven base cloth (Col 2 ln 52-Col 3 ln 12 hydrophobic filter may include a woven cloth substrate) to impart remarkable hydrophobicity, which is retained after repeated wettings (Col 5 ln 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquid-air separator of Pratt/Collinson so that the liquid-air separator is a hydrophobic filter comprising a woven base cloth, as taught by Adiletta to impart remarkable hydrophobicity, which is retained after repeated wettings (as motivated by Adiletta Col 5 ln 6-7).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY LEE FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-8255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5 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, Rebecca 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.
TIMOTHY LEE. FLYNN
Examiner
Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights