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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosmer (2333009) in view of Kettwig (9180027B2).
In regard to claim 1, Hosmer teaches a prosthetic device for engaging a residual limb (transradial socket, see figs 1-2), the prosthetic device comprising:
a plurality (defined as two or more) of elongate counters 23,25 extending proximally from a chassis (interpreted as a base) 30 (see fig 1) and configured to receive at least a portion of the residual limb within a volume defined by the plurality of elongate counters 23,25 (capable of receiving a limb due to the hollow design), wherein each respective elongate counter 23, 25 of the plurality of elongate counters is configured to counteract forces applied to the residual limb via the prosthetic device (capable of by distributing the force across the limb as shown in figures 1-2);
and a selective adjustment system (see straps, 35, 17) configured to secure the prosthetic device to the residual limb and configured to provide selective adjustment of compression of the socket around the residual limb.(see strap buckles on 35, laces on 17)
While Homser does teach a lining material (33-34, sponge rubber), Hosmer does not teach a lower and upper textile socket.
Kettwig teaches a socket (fig 1) configured to engage with the residual limb, wherein the socket comprises:
a lower textile socket 21 coupled to the plurality of elongate counters (couples to the socket counter 4 as shown in figure 4 through 22, 32);
and an upper textile socket 22 coupled to the lower textile socket 21 (see figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the socket of Kettwig within the outer socket frame of Hosmer because the interface can act as a liner or inner socket (Col 2, lines 40-45) which by its nature will protect the residual limb from the socket and further because the socket will have a low resistance to insertion and high resistance to counter the direction of insertion (Col 3, lines 1-10) which will improve suspension.
In regard to claim 2, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and further teaches the prosthetic device is configured such that a dynamic volume is created within the socket, wherein the dynamic volume is configured to account for and accommodate changes in shape of the residual limb through a range of motion of the residual limb. (The straps are adjustable as shown by the buckle on 35 in figures 1; by adjusting the outer socket any inner volume or inner textile socket will be compressed and therefore also adjusted. The user is capable of adjusting the strap throughout the day). As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Kettwig teaches the socket. When inserted into the adjustable counters of Hosmer, the inner socket of Kettwig will also be adjusted.
In regard to claim 4, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach the socket as claimed.
Kettwig further teaches the socket (21, 22) is breathable and moisture-wicking. (col 3, lines 50-55: improve transport of moisture from the skin of the user is obtained; claim 1: improve heat and moisture exchange from the skin)
In regard to claim 5, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and further teaches the plurality of elongate counters (23, 25) are configured to be customized for individual patients, and wherein a contact length of each respective elongate counter is patient-specific. These are product-by-process limitations, patentable only based on the resulting structure or a prosthetic socket with elongate counters. Further, the counters of Hosmer are fully capable of being adjusted by cutting them given the right tool during the manufacturing process.
In regard to claim 6, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and further teaches the plurality of elongate counters (23, 25) comprises a plurality of forearm counters that are configured to be positioned surrounding a residual forearm of a patient (Fig 1-2), and wherein the plurality of forearm counters 23, 25 are configured to terminate distal to a cubital fold region of the patient when the prosthetic device is donned. As shown in figures 1-2, the counters terminate below the hinge joint which is where the cubital fold would be located when the socket is donned.
In regard to claim 8, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach the textile socket or interface pads.
Kettwig teaches the lower textile socket 21 comprises one or more interface pads 24 (Col 4, lines 48-50: air cushion and elastic padding are provided by the supporting threads 24) configured to provide cushioning for one or more bony prominences of the residual limb (intended use; since the padding extends around the entire limb, the padding will provide cushioning for bony prominences), wherein the one or more interface pads 24 are configured to be positioned between the plurality of elongate counters and the residual limb. Since the textile socket is positioned between the counter 4 and the limb, when applied to the socket of Hosmer, the pads will be located between the counters and residual limb. (Col 2, lines 40-45: acts as liner or inner socket)
In regard to claim 9, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 8, but does not teach the textile socket or interface pads.
Kettwig further teaches the one or more interface pads 24 comprise one or more forearm interface pads (when applied to the device of Hosmer, which is a transradial socket, the pads will be forearm interface pads; further the neutral socket shape shown in figure 1 could be for any amputation level), wherein the one or more forearm interface pads 24 comprise an elongate portion configured to be positioned to extend substantially parallel to a radius of the residual limb and an ulna of the residual limb (see figure 3, the socket itself including 24 is elongate; due to covering the entire socket, the padding is capable of being parallel to a radius and ulna),
and wherein the one or more forearm interface pads 24 comprise a curved portion configured to be positioned such that the curved portion extends substantially perpendicularly to the radius of the residual limb and the ulna of the residual limb. (figure 4; padding 24 extends around the entire socket and is therefore curved and can be interpreted as perpendicular to a radius in the width direction)
In regard to claim 15, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and further teaches the selective adjustment system (straps, 35, 17) is configured to provide selective adjustment of compression of the lower textile socket of the socket and the upper textile socket of the socket independently from one another around the residual limb. As shown in figure 1, adjustment system 17 is separate from the lower strap system 35, 28, 27. Accordingly, each will provide independent compression adjustments of any textile socket within. While Hosmer does not teach the socket, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, Kettwig teaches the inner socket. Since the socket of Kettwig will be within the counters of Hosmer, when the counters are adjusted by the strap system of Hosmer, the inner socket of Kettwig will also have compression adjusted.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosmer (2333009) in view of in view of Kettwig (9180027B2) and further in view of Butler (2013/0103166A1).
In regard to claim 3, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, but does not teach the socket is configured to tighten around the residual limb if forces applied to a distal end of the chassis cause the socket to be pulled away from the residual limb.
Butler teaches the socket is configured to tighten around the residual limb if forces applied to a distal end region of the chassis cause the socket to be pulled away from the residual limb. (see sleeve in figure 6 around the entire socket and frame; tightening in figures 5A-B; [0017-0018]) Since the sleeve tightens around the entire socket and counters, the socket itself will also be tightened by the external forces if external forces cause the socket to be pulled away from the limb.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the suspension sleeve of Butler over the socket and counters of Hosmer because the sleeve provides increased attachment force [0080].
Claim(s) 18-21, 27-28, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosmer (2333009) in view of in view of Kettwig (9180027B2) and further in view of Mahon (2011/0071647A1).
In regard to claim 18, Hosmer teaches a prosthetic device for engaging a residual limb (figs 1-2), the prosthetic device comprising:
a plurality (defined as two or more) of elongate counters (23, 25) extending proximally from a chassis 30 and configured to receive at least a portion of the residual limb within a volume defined by the plurality of elongate counters (capable of due to the hollow volume and shape as shown in figures 1-2),
wherein each respective elongate counter 23, 25 of the plurality of elongate counters is configured to counteract forces applied to the residual limb via the prosthetic device (capable of counteracting forces by redistributing the forces along the limb);
and a selective adjustment system (straps 17, 35, 28) configured to secure the prosthetic device to the residual limb and configured to provide selective adjustment of compression of the socket around the residual limb (see buckle on strap 35, in figure 2),
wherein the selective adjustment system comprises at least one fixed line (fixed line is defined in the instant disclosure as any of wires, fibers, laces, lines, cables or similar structures and also states the fixed lines may be adjustable but less frequently) having a predetermined length (28 does not have a buckle and can be interpreted as a similar structure since the structure is a cross-band; see fig 1).
However, Hosmer does not teach a socket (interpreted as best understood to refer to an inner socket) or that the selected adjustment system comprises at least one lace having a selectively adjustable length.
Kettwig teaches a socket 1 configured to engage with the residual limb (see figure 3, capable of engaging due to the hollow shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the socket of Kettwig within the outer socket counters of Hosmer because the interface can act as a liner or inner socket (Col 2, lines 40-45) which by its nature will protect the residual limb from the socket and further because the socket will have a low resistance to insertion and high resistance to counter the direction of insertion (Col 3, lines 1-10) which will improve suspension.
Mahon teaches at least one lace 914 having a selectively adjustable length. (fig 20, adjusted by lace and knob 950 [0112]) which can be used in a transradial device [0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the tightening system of Mahon in the device of Kettwig in place of adjustable strap 35 of Kettwig because the system allows adjustment without the addition of sockets [0056] and the dial allows one-handed adjustment.
In regard to claim 19, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 18, and further teaches the chassis 30 comprises an end effector attachment unit (38, attached via 36, 37; see fig 5),
and wherein the prosthetic device further comprises an independent counter 18, 19, wherein the independent counter is positioned proximal to the plurality of elongate counters 23, 25 (see fig 1),
and wherein the end effector attachment unit 38 is configured to receive and operatively couple to the chassis 30 one or more selected from the group comprising a terminal device (pg 1, lines 15-25 attaches to a tool or utensil 40 which is a type of terminal device), an end effector, a leg end effector, a leg pylon, and a prosthetic foot.
In regard to claim 20, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 19, and further teaches the end effector attachment unit 38 is positioned within a distal end region of the chassis 30 (see fig 5) such that the chassis 30 is configured to operatively and removably couple one or more of the terminal device 40, the end effector, the leg end effector, the leg pylon, and the prosthetic foot to the residual limb. (pg 1, lines 15-25 attaches to a tool or utensil which is a type of terminal device; couples to the limb via the socket portion shown in fig 1-2)
In regard to claim 21, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 19, and further teaches the end effector attachment unit 38 is selectively adjustable between a lock configuration (ball 37 attached to 38 locks; col 2, lines 40-45), a caster configuration (interpreted as best understood to refer to a swivel configuration; Claim 4: tool supporting member rotatably mounted (via 37)), and a release configuration (see figure 5; by backing out screw 42, the seat 41 will sit inwards thereby allowing the release of ball 37),
wherein in the lock configuration, the end effector attachment unit 38 is configured to secure one or more of the terminal device 41, the end effector, the leg end effector, the leg pylon, and the prosthetic foot with respect to the chassis 30 such that the terminal device, the end effector, the leg end effector, the leg pylon, and/or the prosthetic foot has a fixed position and orientation with respect to the chassis, (ball 37 attached to 38 locks at different angles; col 2, lines 40-45; 38 attaches to the terminal device 41; pg 1, lines 15-25 attaches to a tool or utensil which is a type of terminal device),
wherein in the caster configuration, the end effector attachment unit 38 is configured to secure one or more of the terminal device 41, the end effector, the leg end effector, the leg pylon, and the prosthetic foot with respect to the chassis 30 such that the terminal device 41, the end effector, the leg end effector, the leg pylon, and/or the prosthetic foot is free to rotate with respect to the chassis 30, (interpreted as best understood to refer to a swivel configuration; Claim 4: tool supporting member rotatably mounted (via 37); see fig 5),
and wherein in the release configuration, the end effector attachment unit 38 is configured to release one or more of the terminal device 41, the end effector, the leg end effector, the leg pylon, and the prosthetic foot such that the terminal device, the end effector, the leg end effector, the leg pylon, and/or the prosthetic foot may be selectively removed from the chassis 30. (as shown in figure 5, the end effector 38 is fully capable of being detached from the terminal device 41; further it is capable to release 38 all together from the socket 41 by removing the screws 42 and screws within 30)
In regard to claim 27, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 19, but does not teach the independent counter 18, 19 comprises a magnetic attachment point.
Martin teaches the independent counter (upper socket) comprises a magnetic attachment point configured for selective coupling of the prosthetic device to a harness 800 worn by a patient. (see fig 8)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the harness of Martin to assist in suspending the socket of Hosmer because the harness in addition to assisting in suspension, allows the system to not be attached as tightly and allows any forces to be spread over a broader surface area and therefore experiences less force per square inch (Col 17, lines 12-19).
In regard to claim 28, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 18, but does not teach the socket as claimed.
Kettwig further teaches the socket 1 comprises a plurality (defined as two or more) of layers (21, 22, 24, 32) that integrate with each other (see figure 3)
and with the plurality of elongate counters (integrates with the counter 4/outer socket in figure 3 by attaching) such that the socket 1 is configured to reinforce a connection between the residual limb and a terminal device or an end effector coupled to the chassis. (Col 3, lines 1-10: the socket will have a low resistance to insertion and high resistance to counter the direction of insertion; by preventing the limb from being removed the connection between the limb and terminal device is reinforced) When applied to Hosmer, the socket of Kettwig will be within and therefore integrated by being attached to the counters of Hosmer.
In regard to claim 30, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 19, but does not teach the socket as claimed.
Kettwig further teaches the socket 1 comprises:
a lower textile socket 21 coupled to the plurality of elongate counters (couples to 4 indirectly, see fig 3); and an upper textile socket 22 coupled to the lower textile socket 21,
wherein the independent counter 4 is directly coupled to the upper textile socket 22 of the socket. At least the lower portion of 22 appears to be directly coupled to the counter 4 as shown in figure 3. Even held against the counter can be considered coupling under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
When applied to Hosmer, the socket of Kettwig will be within and therefore integrated by being attached to the counters of Hosmer.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosmer (2333009) in view of in view of Kettwig (9180027B2) and further in view of Mahon (2011/0071647A1) and further in view of Bache (2012/0101597A1).
In regard to claim 31, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 19, but does not teach one or more internal lace guides.
Bache further teaches the independent counter (216; 218, strut) comprises one or more internal lace guides 236 extending through a thickness of the independent counter (fig 19) herein one or more laces 212 of the selective adjustment system are configured to pass through the independent counter via the one or more internal lace guides 236 (see fig 19). When applied to the socket of Hosmer, the lace guides would be provided through the independent counters 19 as this is the strut portion of Hosmer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the tensioning and lace guide system of Mahon in place of the upper tensioning system and lace guides of Hosmer (at 17 of Hosmer) because the adjustment system allows the user to quickly adjust the tension on the entire socket and allows incremental adjustments [0105] and further the dial allows one handed adjustment.
Claim(s) 32-33, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosmer (2333009) in view of in view of Kettwig (9180027B2) and further in view of Mahon (2011/0071647A1) and further in view of Martin (10278837B1).
In regard to claim 32, Hosmer teaches a system comprising:
The prosthetic device according to claim 19 (see the rejection of claims 18-19).
However, Hosmer does not teach a harness.
Martin teaches a harness 800 configured to be worn by a patient while the prosthetic device is worn (fig 8), wherein the harness 800 is coupled to the prosthetic device (via 804, fig 8) and configured to reinforce securement of the prosthetic device to the residual limb (this is the purpose of a harness, see fig 8), and wherein the harness 800 comprises at least one portion comprising a stretch material and at least a second portion comprising a non-stretch material. (Col 14, lines 5-15: fabric may be elastic or non-elastic; stabilizing unit may be fabricated of aluminum, plastics, laminates or fiberglass (non-stretch materials); Col 8, lines 38-40: hook and loop, which is non-stretch; cable 802 may be wire Col 16, lines 34-39)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the harness of Martin to assist in suspending the socket of Hosmer because the harness in addition to assisting in suspension, allows the system to not be attached as tightly and allows any forces to be spread over a broader surface area and therefore experiences less force per square inch (Col 17, lines 12-19).
In regard to claim 33, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 32, but does not teach the harness as claimed.
Martin teaches the prosthetic device is coupled to the harness 800 via a coupler (couplers 804) and wherein the coupler is fixed to the upper socket of the prosthetic device (fig 8). Since the harness 800 is coupled via couplers 804 to the socket frame (fig 8), the coupling of Martin will be applied to the independent counter of Hosmer (upper portion of the socket) when the harness of Martin is applied.
Martin further teaches the connectors may be magnetic couplers (Col 17, lines 1-5) configured to be selectively coupled and de-coupled using one hand (Col 17, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the harness of Martin to assist in suspending the socket of Hosmer because the harness in addition to assisting in suspension, allows the system to not be attached as tightly and allows any forces to be spread over a broader surface area and therefore experiences less force per square inch (Col 17, lines 12-19) and obvious to use the magnetic connectors of Martin to connect the socket of Hosmer to the harness of Martin because they are simple to operate for one-handed users (Col 17, lines 1-5).
In regard to claim 35, Hosmer meets the claim limitations as discussed in the rejection of claim 32, and further teaches one or more selected from the group consisting of the terminal device (pg 1, lines 39-50: may be a fork; 40), the end effector, the leg pylon, the leg end effector, and the prosthetic foot,
wherein the end effector attachment unit 38 of the prosthetic device is configured to selectively and removably receive any one of the terminal device 40, the end effector, the leg pylon, the leg end effector, or the prosthetic foot, at a time. (figure 5, capable of receiving various terminal devices since the end 40 is detachable; pg 1, lines 39-50 may be any other desired article)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7, 10-14, 17, 22-26, 29, 34 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
If the objected to claims are rolled up for allowance after final, please ensure any withdrawn claims are in form to be rejoined or are cancelled,
Response to Arguments
In regard to the 112b rejection of claim 35 for an improper Markush group, the amendment overcomes the rejection.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9 15 as unpatentable over Hosmer (2333009) in view of Kettwig (9180027B2), the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The applicant argues that Kettwig uses top or bottom terminology for liner layers 21,22 but actually means outer and inner layers. The applicant states that bottom layer 21 of Kettwig is not coupled to a plurality of elongate counters and states that Kettwig only teaches a single counter 4. The inner socket of Kettwig was substituted into the outer socket of Hosmer and therefore Hosmer was used to teach the counters. The applicant argues that Kettwig teaches inner and outer layers of a liner rather than an inner and outer socket. For all intensive purposes there is no real different between an inner layer and an inner socket. Regardless of the terminology, the limitations have been met by Kettwig. The applicant further argues Kettwig does not teach a lower textile socket. Lower can be interpreted as within and does not need to be proximal or distal. The applicant states that upper and lower refer to proximal and distal, but has not amended the claim limitations accordingly. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 2, the applicant argues that a strap to tighten the socket does not rise to the level of a dynamic volume within the socket. The applicant argues that the volume of the socket in the instant invention may be redistributed during use of the prosthetic device throughout the range of motion. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In regard to claim 3, the applicant argues that the socket is configured to tighten around the residual limb when pulled distally and that Butler’s sleeve pushes against the limb and the socket does not. The sleeve of Butler is a Chinese finger trap design and not a traditional sleeve and therefore tightens when pulled vertically or distally as shown in figure 5. When the sleeve contracts around the outer socket of Hosmer, the socket counters will contract due to the adjustable socket design, just like the straps 35 of Hosmer, tighten the socket of Hosmer as shown in figure 2.
The applicant further argues that the sleeve of Butler would interfere with the functionality of the device of Hosmer because it would block access to attach a tool. The sleeve as shown in figure 6 only attaches around the distal end of the socket, not around the distal end of the prosthesis (see the exposed knee joint in figure 6). The sleeve has open distal and proximal ends by definition and furthermore one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a prosthetic sleeve is not applied to the entire device as the sleeve only offers socket suspension. The examiner strongly disagrees with this argument.
The applicant argues that increased suspension is not a good reason to apply the sleeve of Butler to the socket of Hosmer because Hosmer does not provide suggestion this is needed. The examiner respectfully disagrees as alternative modes of suspension provide backup against failure and additional hold for heavy lifting.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claims 18-21, 27-28, 30 as unpatentable over Hosmer (2333009) in view of Kettwig (9180027B2) and further in view of Mahon (2011/0071647A1), the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. The applicant argues that cross band 28 of Hosmer is secured by welding and does not adjust the device. Regardless, straps 35 and 17 adjust the socket. The applicant argues that 28 does not provide selective adjustment. The claim requires one fixed line and does not state the fixed line must be adjustable. This language is confusing. Please amend the claim to clarify what is actually being claimed. Further, during fabrication, the length of 28 is fully capable of being selected or changed.
The applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to use the tightening system of Mahon in the socket of Hosmer because this would require a redesign of the socket of Hosmer. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applying a tensioning line to a socket does not require redesigning the socket for the line to work as intended. The line is simply run through the socket counters. The applicant appears to argue the tensioning system of Mahon would destroy the socket of Hosmer because the line is more complicated and expensive. The USPTO does not determine the cost of components during examination. Being more complicated or expensive is not destroying the primary reference’s intended operation.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claim 31 as unpatentable over Hosmer (2333009) in view of Kettwig (9180027B2) and further in view of Mahon (2011/0071647A1) and further in view of Bache (2012/0101597A1), no further arguments have been submitted.
In regard to the 103(a) rejection of claims 32-33, 35 as unpatentable over Hosmer (2333009) in view of Kettwig (9180027B2) and further in view of Mahon (2011/0071647A1) and further in view of Martin (10278837B1), the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. The applicant argues that Martin does not teach both a stretch and non stretch fabric. Martin clearly teaches both stretch and non stretch fabrics may be used as noted in the rejection. If the invention has certain portions that are stretch or non stretch in particular, that should be pointed out in the claims.
Claims 7, 10-14, 17, 22-26, 29 and 34 were objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. However, they were not rewritten in independent form and therefore the objections are maintained.
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 CHRISTIE BAHENA whose telephone number is (571)270-3206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-3.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/CHRISTIE BAHENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights