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 .
Claims 5 and 14 are cancelled. A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21 appears herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, regarding prior art reference Subramaniam (US 2015/0105645 A1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Subramaniam for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 11, 15, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (US 6,036,689) in view of Edwards (US 2002/0072738 A1) in view of Wu (US 2017/0319139 A1) in view of Viswanathan (US 10,130,423 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Tu teaches
an elongate body including one or more lumens for mechanical, electrical, and fluid communication (Fig. 5 and 4C, Char. 21: inner catheter) between a proximal portion (Fig. 2) and a distal portion, (Fig. 5: The portion of the device distal to inner catheter (21)) the distal portion including a plurality of flexible shafts (Fig. 5, Char. 4: electrode means) arranged around an actuation element and coupled between the elongate body and a distal tip section (Fig. 5: Electrode means (4) are disposed between inner catheter (21) and distal joint (22));
a balloon attached to the distal tip section and positioned within a space delimited by the flexible shafts, (Fig. 5, Char. 53: balloon) the balloon being connected via the one or more lumens to receive a fluid; (Fig. 5 and Col. 6, Lines 49-52)
The Fig 5 embodiment of Tu, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the flexible shafts being arranged around an actuation element; the distal tip section being the distal tip section of the actuation element; longitudinal movement of the actuation element with respect to the elongate body flexes the flexible shafts; the expandable element being attached to the distal tip section and a plurality of electrodes arranged along the flexible shafts and electrically connected via the one or more lumens to receive electrical energy for delivery to a target tissue; wherein, when the balloon is in an inflated state, the plurality of electrodes includes a first electrode having a portion thereof covered with a layer of an electrically insulating material, the layer being in direct contact with a skin of the inflated balloon.
Tu, in another embodiment, teaches an elongate body including one or more lumens for mechanical, electrical, and fluid communication (Fig. 4, Char. 21: inner catheter) between a proximal portion (Fig. 2) and a distal portion, (Fig. 4: The portion of the device distal to inner catheter (21)) the distal portion including a plurality of flexible shafts (Fig. 4, Char. 4: electrode means) arranged around an actuation element (Col. 5, Lines 48-54, and Fig. 4, Char. 23: connecting shaft) and coupled between the elongate body and a distal tip section (Fig. 4: Electrode means (4) are disposed between inner catheter (21) and distal joint (22)) of the actuation element such that longitudinal movement of the actuation element with respect to the elongate body flexes the flexible shafts. (Fig. 4 and Col. 5, Lines 48-57; Pulling connecting shaft (23) in the proximal direction with respect to catheter (21) would result in flexing of electrode means (4))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the Fig. 5 embodiment of Tu to incorporate the teachings of the Fig. 4 embodiment of Tu, and include the connecting shaft (23) of Tu as an additional actuation means configured to expand/retract electrode means (4). Doing so would provide a backup actuation means, ensuring the electrode means (4) could still be deployed/retracted even if balloon (53) malfunctions or breaks.
Modified Tu, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the expandable element being attached to the distal tip section and a plurality of electrodes arranged along the flexible shafts and electrically connected via the one or more lumens to receive electrical energy for delivery to a target tissue; wherein, when the balloon is in an inflated state, the plurality of electrodes includes a first electrode having a portion thereof covered with a layer of an electrically insulating material, the layer being in direct contact with a skin of the inflated balloon.
Edwards, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a device comprising a balloon disposed within a basket structure, wherein the balloon is attached to the basket structure at the proximal and distal ends of said basket structure. (Fig. 6-7)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Tu, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Edwards, and configure the balloon (53) of Tu to be attached to the distal joint (22). Doing so would provide a second point of attachment within the basket structure of Tu, minimizing the risk of balloon (53) becoming dislodged or mispositioned outside of said basket structure during inflation.
The combination of Tu/Edwards, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding a plurality of electrodes arranged along the flexible shafts and electrically connected via the one or more lumens to receive electrical energy for delivery to a target tissue; wherein, when the balloon is in an inflated state, the plurality of electrodes includes a first electrode having a portion thereof covered with a layer of an electrically insulating material, the layer being in direct contact with a skin of the inflated balloon.
Wu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches plurality of electrodes arranged along flexible shafts (Fig. 3 and Par. [0039]) and electrically connected via one or more lumens to receive electrical energy for delivery to a target tissue. (Par. [0033]: the central lumen can accommodate a puller wire, lead wires, sensor cables, and any other wires, cables, or tubes)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Tu/Edwards, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Wu, and include at least the spines (18), electrodes (20), and lead wires of Wu in place of electrode means (4) of Tu. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one basket electrode/tine structure for another for the predictable result of delivering electrosurgical energy to a target tissue.
In this combination, the spines (18) and electrodes (20) of Wu would contact the balloon (53) of Tu, similar to electrode means (4) contact balloon (53) of Tu in the Fig. 5 embodiment of Tu.
The combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding when the balloon is in an inflated state, the plurality of electrodes includes a first electrode having a portion thereof covered with a layer of an electrically insulating material, the layer being in direct contact with a skin of the inflated balloon.
Viswanathan, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a basket catheter (Fig. 33A) comprising a plurality of electrodes (Fig. 33A, Char. 3332: distal electrodes) in which an inward facing portion thereof is covered with a layer of electrically insulating material. (Col. 38, Lines 26-30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Viswanathan, and configure the inward facing portions of the electrodes (20) of Wu to comprise the insulative layer of Viswanathan. Doing so would ensure that only the outward facing expose portions of the electrodes (20) are exposed for delivery of ablation energy, as suggested in Viswanathan, (Col. 38, Lines 26-30) thereby minimizing any risk of damage from occurring to the device due to ablative energy being applied anywhere other than surrounding tissue.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding in the inflated state, the balloon takes up less than 70% by volume of the space delimited by the flexible shafts; and in the inflated state, the balloon takes up less than 50% by volume of the space delimited by the flexible shafts.
Absent a statement of criticality AND unexpected results, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the balloon (53) of Tu of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, including of a size and shape such that balloon (53) takes up less than 50% by volume of the space delimited by the spines (18) of Wu. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches a fluid delivery conduit connected via the one or more lumens to receive the fluid and configured to release the fluid from one or more openings, apertures, or ports thereof within the balloon. (Tu: Fig. 5 and Col. 6, Lines 44-56)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 9 above, teaches the fluid delivery conduit is in fluid communication with a fluid supply source connected to the proximal portion. (Tu: Fig. 5 and Col. 6, Lines 44-56)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches when the balloon is in the inflated state, the layer of the electrically insulating material is configured to cause the first electrode to project electrical currents away from the balloon. (In the rejection to claim 1 above, the inward facing portions of electrodes (20) of Wu were covered with the insulative layer of Viswanathan, leaving an outward facing portion exposed. This configuration would direct electrical currents away from the balloon (53) of Tu.)
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches retraction of the of the actuation element causes the plurality of flexible shafts to flex away from the actuation element thereby increasing in volume the space delimited by the flexible shafts. (Tu: Fig. 4 and Col. 5, Lines 48-57; Pulling connecting shaft (23) in the proximal direction with respect to catheter (21) would result in flexing of electrode means (4))
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches when the balloon is in the inflated state, the plurality of electrodes includes a second electrode having a respective portion thereof covered with a respective layer of the electrically insulating material, the respective portion oriented towards the actuating element; (In the rejection to claim 1 above, the inward facing portions of electrodes (20) of Wu were covered with the electrically insulating layer of Viswanathan.) and wherein the layer of the electrically insulating material on the first electrode and the respective layer of the electrically insulating material on the second electrode are configured to cause the first and second electrodes to project electrical currents away from the space delimited by the flexible shafts. (Due to the inward facing portions of the electrodes (20) of Wu being covered with the electrically insulative layer of Viswanathan in the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 1 above, the electrical currents would naturally be directed away from the space delimited by the flexible shafts.)
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (US 6,036,689) in view of Edwards (US 2002/0072738 A1) in view of Wu (US 2017/0319139 A1) in view of Viswanathan (US 10,130,423 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Caplan (US 2015/0141987 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding a plurality of retention elements, each of the retention elements being coupled between a respective one of the flexible shafts and the balloon to anchor a corresponding portion of the balloon to the respective one of the flexible shafts.
Caplan, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a basket catheter comprising a plurality of electrodes (Fig. 10 and 10B, Char. 137: electrodes) and retention elements (Fig. 10 and 10B, Char. 149: spacers) disposed on splines of a basket structure; (Fig. 10 and 10B, Char. 141: splines) wherein each of the retention elements being coupled between a respective one of the flexible shafts and the expandable element to anchor a corresponding portion of the expandable element to the respective one of the flexible shafts. (Fig. 10B and Par. [0208] Spacers (149) are at least partially holding electrodes (137) in place relative to each other and ensuring electrodes (137) don’t move along splines (141))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Caplan, and include the spacers (149) of Caplan on either side of/in between each electrode (20) of Wu. Doing so would minimize the risk of electrodes (20) becoming dislodged or moving along spines (18) of Wu.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan/Caplan, as applied to claim 2 above, teaches the plurality of retention elements includes a first retention element located between the distal tip section and the first electrode of the plurality of electrodes on the respective one of the flexible shafts. (Attached “Annotated Wu Fig 3” below: The spacer (149) of Caplan disposed in “Area B” would be between “Electrode A” and the distal tip section – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan/Caplan based on the rejection to claim 2 above.)
Annotated Wu Fig 3
PNG
media_image1.png
413
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan/Caplan, as applied to claim 3 above, teaches the plurality of retention elements includes a second retention element located between the first electrode and a second electrode of the plurality of electrodes on the respective one of the flexible shafts. (Attached “Annotated Wu Fig 3” above: The spacer (149) of Caplan disposed in “Area A” would be between “Electrode A” and “Electrode B” – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan/Caplan based on the rejection to claim 2 above.)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (US 6,036,689) in view of Edwards (US 2002/0072738 A1) in view of Wu (US 2017/0319139 A1), in view of Viswanathan (US 10,130,423 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nagale (US 2017/0035496 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding a skin of the balloon is made of an electrically insulating material.
Nagale, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an ablation device comprising a balloon made of an electrically insulating material. (Par. [0009]: The balloon may be formed of rubbers or other non-electrically conductive material.)
It has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination”- MPEP 2144.07 In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits or suitability of the disclosed materials (e.g. cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Nagale and have the balloon (53) of Tu be/include one of the electrically insulating materials taught by Nagale since these materials offer the benefits of cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc, as stated above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (US 6,036,689) in view of Edwards (US 2002/0072738 A1) in view of Wu (US 2017/0319139 A1), in view of Viswanathan (US 10,130,423 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harlev (US 10,219,860 B2).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 9 above, is silent regarding the fluid delivery conduit has a segment thereof disposed circumferentially, spirally, or helically within the balloon around the actuation element.
Harlev, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a fluid delivery conduit having a segment thereof disposed spirally around a central shaft within a balloon. (Fig. 16 and Col. 37, Lines 4-9)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 9 above, to incorporate the teachings of Harlev, and configure the inflation tubing to comprise a segment thereof disposed circumferentially, spirally, or helically within the balloon around the actuation element. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one fluid delivery structure for another for the predictable result of delivering an inflation fluid to a balloon element.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (US 6,036,689) in view of Edwards (US 2002/0072738 A1) in view of Wu (US 2017/0319139 A1), in view of Viswanathan (US 10,130,423 B1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Loeb (US 2014/0088575 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 11 above, teaches the fluid supply source comprises a pressurized bottle filled with a fluid refrigerant or a gas.
Loeb, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a fluid source (Par. [0229]: the system comprising at least the container of uninfused fluid, the pump used to inflate said balloon, and the collection bottle used to receive returned fluid) configured to inflate a balloon with a gas; (Par. [0229]) wherein the fluid source comprises a pressurized bottle filled with the gas. (Par. [0229]: The collection bottle would be filled with a pressurized gas)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 11 above, to incorporate the teachings of Loeb, and configure the fluid delivery system of Tu to comprise a fluid return such that fluid returns to a pressurized bottle for reuse/disposal, and to use a gas to inflate the balloon (53) of Tu. Including the fluid return comprising a pressurized bottle would allow for a user to easily reuse or dispose of returned fluid as said fluid would be automatically collected in a single container. Using a gas to inflate the balloon (53) of Tu would be a simple substitution of one inflation medium for another for the predictable result of inflating said balloon.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (US 6,036,689) in view of Edwards (US 2002/0072738 A1) in view of Wu (US 2017/0319139 A1), in view of Viswanathan (US 10,130,423 B1), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Inoue (US 4,619,247).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 11 above, is silent regarding the fluid supply source comprises a syringe filled with a physiological solution.
Inoue, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches using a syringe to supply a physiological saline solution through a fluid delivery lumen to a treatment site, such that said saline solution acts washes a portion of a fiberscope. (Col. 2, Lines 36-45)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 11 above, to incorporate the teachings of Inoue, and configure the balloon (53) of Tu to include at least one opening and to be supplied with physiological saline solution via a syringe. Doing so would allow for any debris on the spines (18) and electrodes (20) of Wu to be safely washed away/removed.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (US 6,036,689) in view of Edwards (US 2002/0072738 A1) in view of Wu (US 2017/0319139 A1), in view of Viswanathan (US 10,130,423 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng (US 2007/0225729 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the plurality of flexible shafts includes a braided shaft.
Cheng, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a basket structure in which the splines (legs) of the basket comprise at least two materials braided together. (Fig. 6-9 and Par. [0029])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Cheng, and include the braided legs (22) of Cheng in place of spines (18) of Wu. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one basket tine structure for another for the predictable result of creating a basket structure around balloon (53) of Tu on which to support electrodes (20) of Wu.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan/Cheng, as applied to claim 16 above, teaches the braided shaft comprises a plurality of braided strands including: a first type of strands comprising a first electrically conducting wire; and a second type of strands comprising an electrically insulating fiber. (Cheng: Par. [0032]: Legs can be formed from braded metal wires and ceramic fibers – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan/Cheng combination based on the rejection to claim 16 above.)
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (US 6,036,689) in view of Edwards (US 2002/0072738 A1) in view of Wu (US 2017/0319139 A1), in view of Viswanathan (US 10,130,423 B1), in view of Cheng (US 2007/0225729 A1), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of McGovern (US 2001/0003798 A1)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan/Cheng, as applied to claim 17 above, teaches the plurality of braided strands further includes a third type of strands comprising a second electrically conducting wire. (Fig. 5 and Par. [0031] – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Tu/Edwards/Wu/Cheng combination based on the rejection to claim 16 above.)
Cheng further teaches the metal wires can comprise a plurality of metals (Par. [0028])
The combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Cheng, as applied to claim 17 above, is silent regarding the first electrically conducting wire and the second electrically conducting wire comprising different respective electrically conducting materials, wherein the first and second electrically conducting wires form a thermocouple junction for temperature measurements at the target site.
It has been held that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination”- MPEP 2144.07 In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefits or suitability of the disclosed materials (e.g. cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc.) Absent a statement of criticality AND unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Cheng, as applied to claim 17 above, to have the second electrically conducting wire be/include a different metal (e.g. stainless steel, cobalt chromium, nickel, titanium, and nitinol listed by Cheng) as the first electrically conducting wire since these materials offer the benefits of cost-effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility, etc, as stated above, and are recognized in the art as each being suitable materials.
The combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Cheng, as applied to claim 17 above, is silent regarding wherein the first and second electrically conducting wires form a thermocouple junction for temperature measurements at the target site.
McGovern, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a thermocouple junction disposed on an outer portion of a catheter for temperature sensing. (Fig. 2 and Par. [0078])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Cheng, as applied to claim 17 above, to incorporate the teachings of McGovern, and configure the first and second electrically conducting wires to form a thermocouple junction for temperature measurements at the target site. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one temperature sensing mechanism for another for the predictable result of measuring a tissue temperature at the treatment site.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu (US 6,036,689) in view of Edwards (US 2002/0072738 A1) in view of Wu (US 2017/0319139 A1), in view of Viswanathan (US 10,130,423 B1), in view of Cheng (US 2007/0225729 A1), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hettel (US 2017/0164999 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan/Cheng, as applied to claim 17 above, is silent regarding the braided shaft further comprises a central elastic member; and wherein the braided strands form a braided jacket around the central elastic member.
Hettel, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an ablation catheter comprising a basket structure formed of a plurality of splines having a central elastic member (Par. [0039]: Spines (32) are composed of a stainless-steel core with a non-conductive coating) and a braided jacket around the central elastic member. (Par. [0039]: a braided polymer tube such as PEBAX)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Tu/Edwards/Wu/Viswanathan/Cheng, as applied to claim 17 above, to incorporate the teachings of Hettel, and configure the legs (22) of Cheng to comprise the stainless-steel core of Hettel, such that the wires (30) and fibers (32) of Cheng form a braided jacked around the stainless steel core of Hettel. Doing so would allow for the stainless-steel core to provide more elasticity to the legs of Cheng.
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 NICHOLAS SHEA BORSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM EST.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 5712724764. 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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/N.S.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3794