DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 4/23/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and additionally do not address the new grounds of rejection and/or interpretation below necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-14, 24-27, 30-32,33-34 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the term “devoid of rotational symmetry” lacks support in the original disclosure and as such is deemed new matter and must be removed. Specifically, although Fig. 1 shows a root shape implant, it does not clearly show, nor does the specification state that it is not rotationally symmetric. Deletion is required.
Regarding claim 24, the term “wherein the second microscale surface texture has a pattern different from the first microscale surface texture or the second nanoscale surface topography has a pattern different from the first nanoscale surface topography” lacks support in the original disclosure and as such is deemed new matter and must be removed. Specifically, the original disclosure does not support a root portion and abutment portion having different microscale or nanoscale topography. Deletion is required.
Regarding claim 30, the term “wherein the second machined microscale surface texture has a pattern different from the first machined microscale surface texture” lacks support in the original disclosure and as such is deemed new matter and must be removed. Specifically, the original disclosure is silent to a root portion and abutment portion having different microscale textures. Deletion is required.
Regarding claim 33, the term “the second functionalized surface includes a microscale surface texture with a pattern different than the plurality of machined micropores” lacks support in the original disclosure and as such is deemed new matter and must be removed. Specifically, the original disclosure is silent to a root portion and an abutment portion having different microscale textures. Deletion is required.
Regarding claim 34, the term “the second functionalized surface includes a second microscale surface texture with a pattern different than the first machined microscale texture” lacks support in the original disclosure and as such is deemed new matter and must be removed. Specifically, the original disclosure is silent to a root portion and an abutment portion having different microscale surface textures as required. Deletion is required.
Regarding claim 37, the term “the second machined microscale surface texture has a different pattern than the first machined microscale surface texture; or the second nanoscale surface topography has a different pattern than the first nanoscale surface topography” lacks support in the original disclosure and as such is deemed new matter and must be removed. Specifically, the original disclosure is silent to a root portion and an abutment portion having different microscale or nanoscale surface textures. Deletion is required.
All other claims not specifically mentioned above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 10, 13-14, 18, 19-20, 23, 24, 26-27 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2-4, 10, 19, 20, 23 and 35, the term “predominantly” is indefinite as the meets and bounds of the claim term are unclear. Specifically, “predominantly” is a term of degree, the exact requirements thereof being variable. Applicant does not provide a special definition to the term and as such it is examined with its broadest reasonable interpretation of “mainly; for the most part”, which again, is a term of degree with variable interpretation between users. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 18, the term “correlates” is indefinite as the meets and bounds of the claim term are unclear. Specifically, “correlates” is a term of degree, the exact requirements thereof being variable. Applicant provides a special definition, but relies on another variable term to do so (e.g. “substantially matching a similar shape”) which does not provide any clarity to the term as both “substantially” and “similar” are variable. When comparing the shape of a components to a patient’s anatomy, what one user considers to correlate, may vary from that of another. Clarification is required.
Regarding claims 7-9, the term “endosseous implant portion” is indefinite as it is unclear what the structural distinction is between the endosseous portion and the root portion. As best understood by Examiner, the specification appears to disclose different types of implants, which can comprise either a root portion or an endosseous portion. Further, the claim requires the first surface to be on the endosseous portion, but depends from claim 1 which requires it to be on the root portion. Still further, claim 8 recites that the root portion includes the endosseous portion, however it remains unclear what the structural distinction is between the components. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10, the term “periodontal tissue” is indefinite as it is unclear what specific tissue is included in the term. Further, it is unclear how “periodontal tissue” is distinct from “oral mucosa” and/or other soft tissues of the mouth. Still further, it is unclear how the root portion, which contains the first surface, and is disclosed to be implanted into bone, would “predominantly” contact periodontal tissue. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 24, the claim requires a first microscale surface texture OR a first nanoscale surface topography, and “a second microscale surface texture a second nanoscale surface topography”. It is unclear if between the second microscale and second nanoscale, an “and” or “or” should be present. Further, the last paragraph of the claim requires an “or” clause. However, as best understood by the Examiner, within the scope of the claim, is a first microscale texture and a second nanoscale texture. Accordingly, it is unclear how either option of the last paragraph could be fulfilled. Clarification is required.
All other claims not specifically addressed above are rejected based on their dependency on a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 9, 10, 12, 21-22, 24, 26-27, 30-31, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reddy et al (US 2013/0260339 A1).
Regarding the above claims, Reddy et al discloses an implant (see Figs. 1-7b) comprising: a root portion (20) including a first functionalized surface operable to be integrated with a first type of mammalian tissue (e.g. bone and periodontal tissue at the top and bottom respectively), the first functionalized surface including: a first laser-machined (“laser machined” is a product by process limitation; as noted in MPEP 2113 product by process limitations are not limited by the particular process, only by the structure imparted thereby; capable of being machined by laser) macroscale shape of spatial extension (e.g. threads 36 and/or rings 28), a first machined (product by process limitation, see above and MPEP 2113) microscale surface texture formed onto the first laser-machined macroscale shape (e.g. micro textured depressions/pores, see [0010], [0043]-[0045]), and a first nanoscale surface topography formed onto the first machined microscale surface texture (e.g. nano textured depressions/pores; see citations above), and an abutment portion (50) including a second functionalized surface operable to be integrated with a second type of mammalian tissue (e.g. soft tissues), the second functionalized surface including: a second laser-machined (product by process limitation, see above) macroscale shape of spatial extension (64), a second machined (product by process limitation, see above and MPEP 2113) microscale surface texture formed onto the second laser-machined macroscale shape (microscale texture on abutment, see above and [0010], [0061]), and a second nanoscale surface topography superimposed on the second machined microscale surface texture (e.g. nanoscale texture on abutment, see above).
Reddy et al further discloses wherein the root portion includes an endosseous implant portion (32) and the first time of tissue predominately includes bone (implant capable of being implanted into bone; per claim 2); wherein the abutment includes a transmucosal implant portion (60) and the second type of tissue includes mucosa (abutment capable of being placed in mucosa; per claim 3); further comprising a trans-cutaneous portion implant portion (24) wherein the it includes a third functionalized surface operable to integrate with a third type of tissue predominantly including cutaneous or subcutaneous tissue (capable of being placed as such if so desired; per claim 4); wherein the second type of tissue is a different type than the first type (bone vs soft tissue; per claim 6); further comprising an endosseous implant portion (32), a transmucosal implant portion (60) wherein the implant is configured for dental implantation (capable of use as such), the endosseous implant portion includes the first functionalized surface (see above), the transmucosal implant portion includes the second surface (see above), the first type of tissue is jawbone (see above) and the second type of tissue is oral mucosa (see above; per claim 7); wherein the implant is configured as a two piece assembly, including the root and abutment portion being detachable from the root portion (see Figs), the root portion includes the endosseous implant portion and the abutment portion includes the transmucosal portion (see Figs. and above; per claim 9); further comprising a transmucosal implant portion (60) wherein the implant is configured for implantation (see above), the transmucosal implant portion includes the second surface (see above), the first type of tissue includes predominately periodontal tissue (e.g. as best understood by the Examiner bone or tissue surrounding tooth socket at coronal end of the implant is considered periodontal tissue) and the second type of tissue is oral mucosa (see above per claim 10); wherein the implant is configured as a two piece assembly including the root portion and the abutment portion that is detachable from the root portion (see above) and the abutment portion includes the transmucosal implant portion (see above; per claim 12); wherein the implant includes a substrate material (e.g. interior titanium material (see [0034]), and the first nanoscale surface topography is at least partially erected by crystals, crystallites, and/or nanopores (e.g. either by crystalline structure of titanium oxide coating [0045] or by nanopores formed; per claim 21); and wherein the implant includes a thin film coating (e.g. titanium oxide thin amorphous layer) and the first nanoscale surface topography is at least partially formed by crystals, crystallites, and/or nanopores (see above; per claim 22).
Regarding claims 30-31, Reddy et al discloses a dental implant comprising: a root portion having a first functionalized surface operable to integrate with human periodontal tissue (see above, at least at portion 24), the first functionalized surface including: a first laser-machined (product by process limitation, see above and MPEP 2113) macroscale shape of spatial extension (see above), and a first machined (product by process limitation, see above and MPEP 2113) microscale surface texture superimposed on the first laser machined macroscale shape (see above); and an abutment portion (see above) including a second functionalized surface operable to integrate with human oral mucosa, the second functionalized surface including: a second laser-machined (product by process, see above and MPEP 2113) macroscale shape of spatial extension (see above) and a second machined (product by process limitation; see MPEP 2113) microscale surface texture superimposed on the second laser- machined macroscale shape (see above), wherein the second machined microscale surface texture has a pattern different from the first machined microscale surface texture (for example in embodiment wherein root portion has a microscale texture with the nanoscale texture therein and the abutment portion just has the microscale texture; encompassed by Reddy, see citation above); and wherein the root portion includes a mineral or a mineral aggregate (e.g. TiO2 layer; see citations above; per claim 31).
Regarding claim 33, Reddy et al discloses an implant comprising: a first functionalized surface formed onto a root portion operable to be integrated with a first type of mammalian tissue (see above in regards to claim 1), the first functionalized surface includes a plurality of machined (product by process limitation, see MPEP 2113 and above) micropores (e.g. micro texture depressions), and the plurality of machined micropores includes an inner surface with a laser ablation (product by process limitation, see above and MPEP 2113) pattern (e.g. nano texture depressions/pores); and a second functionalized surface formed onto an abutment portion operable to be integrated with a second type of mammalian tissue (see above), the second functionalized surface includes a microscale surface texture (microscale texture) with a pattern different than the plurality of machined micropores (for example in embodiment wherein root portion has a microscale texture with the nanoscale texture therein and the abutment portion just has the microscale texture; encompassed by Reddy, see citations above).
Regarding claim 24, Reddy et al discloses an implant system comprising: a root portion (see above in regards to claim 1) including a first functionalized surface operable to integrate with a first type of mammalian tissue (capable of being used as such, see above), the first functionalized surface including: a first laser-machined (product by process limitation, see above and MPEP 2113) macroscale shape of spatial extension (see above), and a first microscale surface texture or a first nanoscale surface topography formed onto the first laser-machined macroscale shape (e.g. Examiner chooses option of only the first microscale texture, see above); and an abutment portion including a second functionalized surface operable to integrate with a second type of mammalian tissue (capable of being used as such, see above), the second functionalized surface including: a second laser-machined (product by process limitation, see above and MPEP 2113) macroscale shape of spatial extension (see above); and a second microscale surface texture [or] a second nanoscale surface topography formed onto the second laser-machined macroscale shape (e.g. Examiner chooses option of only the second nanoscale texture, see above; as best understood by the Examiner); wherein the second microscale surface texture has a pattern different from the first microscale surface texture or the second nanoscale surface topography has a pattern different from the first nanoscale surface topography (e.g. the first microscale texture is different than the second as the second is not present and the second nanoscale surface topography has a pattern different from the first as the first is not present; as best understood by the Examiner). Regarding claims 26-27, Reddy et al disclose wherein the first microscale surface texture formed onto the first laser-machined macroscale shape is a machined (product by process limitation, see MPEP 2113 and above) microscale surface; and wherein, the first nanoscale surface topography formed onto the first laser-machined macroscale shape is a machined (product by process limitation, see MPEP 2113 and above) nanoscale surface topology (capable of being machined; first nanoscale texture not required as interpreted above).
Regarding claim 34, Reddy et al discloses an implant comprising: a first functionalized surface formed onto a root portion operable to be integrated with a first type of mammalian tissue (see above in regards to claim 1), the first functionalized surface includes a first machined (product by process limitation, see above and MPEP 2113) microscale texture having machined (product by process limitation, see above and MPEP 2113) microscale undercuts (e.g. microstructure depressions/pores located over the thread edges), and the machined microscale undercuts include a surface with a laser ablation (product by process limitation, see above and MPEP 2113) pattern or a laser spallation pattern (see above; Examiner chooses a laser ablation pattern; nanostructure pattern, see above); and a second functionalized surface formed onto an abutment portion operable to be integrated with a second type of mammalian tissue (see above), and the second functionalized surface includes a second microscale surface texture (see above) with a pattern different than the first machined microscale texture (e.g. should only the first or second surface comprise the microscale pattern with the nanoscale pattern, then it would different from the other surface with the microscale pattern without the nanoscale pattern).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al in view of Hurson et al (US 2002/0182567 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, Reddy et al teaches wherein the root portion includes the endosseous implant portion and the abutment portion includes the transmucosal portion (see above), but does not explicitly teach that the implant and abutment are configured as one-piece as required.
Hurson et al, however, teaches that it is old and well known to provide implants as either a one piece or two piece construction (see [0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Reddy to include Hurson’s teaching of providing a one piece implant, as such modification would merely involve making formerly separate structure into an integral construction which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)).
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al in view of Mount (US 2007/0264612 A1).
Regarding claims 13-14, Reddy et al does not teach wherein, the first functionalized surface is custom-shaped, devoid of rotational symmetry, and correlates to a shape of a root of a tooth of a pre-identified patient, or to a shape of an alveolar socket of the pre-identified patient or correlates to a shape of a tooth of a pre-identified patient, to a shape of a gingival margin of the pre-identified patient, or to a shape of a bone crest adjacent an alveolar socket of the pre-identified patient as required.
Mount however, teaches a dental implant comprising a first macroscale shape (at 42) on a functionalized surface that is custom shaped and devoid of rotational symmetry and correlates to a shape of a root of a tooth of patient, shape of an alveolar socket of the patient, shape of a tooth of the patient, a shape of the gingival margin, or a shape of a bone crest adjacent an alveolar socket of the patient (see abstract and Figs. 1-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Reddy to include Mount’s custom shape devoid of rotational symmetry, as such modification would provide a closer match of the implant to the socket and/or gingival area, improving aesthetics of the device. The Examiner notes that should the device of Reddy be modified with the teachings of Mount, the macroscale shape of threads of Reddy would be modified with the equivalent macroscale structures of Mount.
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al in view of Hansson (US 2011/0306016).
Regarding claims 15-17, Reddy et al discloses all the features of the claimed invention, including wherein the first functionalized surface includes a pattern. Additionally the Examiner notes that the particular means to achieve the pattern (e.g. with a laser) is a product by process limitation. However, Reddy does not explicitly discloses that deterministic, periodic interferometric or stochastic spallation patterns can be achieved by the processes of forming the surface thereof.
Hansson, however, teaches a similar implant with a functionalized surface pattern which can be formed with a laser (see [0074]), and therefore would be capable of forming deterministic laser ablation patterns, periodic laser interferometric ablation patterns and stochastic laser spallation patterns as required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Reddy to include Hansson’s laser forming patterns, as such modification would make use of an old and well known machining device, configured to apply various controlled patterns onto the implant as desired.
Claims 18-19 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al in view of McEntire et al (US 2013/0236854).
Regarding claims 18-19 and 35, Reddy discloses all the features of claim 1 (as explained above). Reddy additionally discloses an implant comprising: a root portion, wherein: the root portion is formed of a chemical composition (titanium) and includes a machined (product by process limitation, see above and MPEP 2113) functionalized surface operable to be integrated with mammalian tissue (see above), and the machined functionalized surface includes a pattern (micro or nano texture, see above) resulting predominately from a laser process (product by process limitation, see above and MPEP 2113); and an abutment portion including a chemical composition (e.g. Titanium, see above) on or adjacent the machined functionalized surface (per claim 35). Reddy et al however, does not teach wherein the chemical composition of the root portion predominantly includes silicon nitride and is different than that of the abutment, wherein the implant predominantly includes silicon nitride, or wherein the implant includes a body of material adjacent he first surface having a nanoscale crystallite grain structure, and the first nanoscale surface topography includes a structure that correlates at least partially with another structure of the grain structure as required.
McEntire et al, however, teaches forming dental implant root portions of silicon nitride “in order to reduce or eliminate bacterial colonization” of the implant (note paragraph [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Reddy to include McEntire’s teaching of using silicon nitride of the implant, as such modification would take advantage of its antibacterial properties. The Examiner notes that should the root portion of Reddy be modified with McEntire’s use of silicon nitride, as combined above, the root portion would include the silicon nitride and be of a different chemical composition than the abutment (titanium; per claim 35), wherein the implant predominantly includes silicone nitride (per claim 19); and wherein the implant would include a body of material adjacent the surface having the nanoscale crystallite grain structure (from the silicone nitride), and the first nanoscale surface topography would include a structure that correlates at least partially with the nanoscale grain structure (as best understood by the Examiner, as they are both on the nanometer scale; per claim 18).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al in view of Ortner et al (US 2021/0236246).
Reddy et al does not teach wherein the implant is predominantly includes zirconia or alumina as required.
Ortner et al teach forming dental implants of zirconia in order to improve osteointegration of the implant (note paragraph [0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Reddy et al to include Ortner’s use of zirconia, as such modification would take advantage of its osteointegration and aesthetic properties.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al in view of Mochizuki et al (US 2013/0108879).
Regarding claim 23, Reddy et al does not teach wherein the thin film coating predominately includes carbon.
Mochizuki et al teaches that it is desirable to provide a thin carbon film coating of titanium implants in order to improve stability and durability (note paragraphs [0002], [0004], [0006], [0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Reddy to include Mochizuki’s thin carbon film coating, as such modification would improve the implant’s stability and durability.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al in view of Westover (US 2015/0196371 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Reddy et al does not teach wherein the root portion includes at least traces of natural or denaturized mammalian dentin applied prior to clinical insertion of the implant as required.
Westover, however, teaches a dental implant where the root portion includes at least traces of natural or denaturized mammalian dentin applied prior to clinical insertion of the implant (see claims 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Reddy to include Westover’s use of dentin, as such modification would improve osseointegration and biocompatibility of the implant.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al in view of Schone (US 2022/0226080 A1)
Regarding claim 37, Reddy et al does not teach wherein the second machined microscale surface texture has a different pattern than the first machined microscale surface texture; or the second nanoscale surface topography has a different pattern than the first nanoscale surface topography as required.
Schone, however, teaches a dental implant and abutment, where the surface roughness pattern (e.g. depth of degree of roughness) is different in various parts of the implant/abutment, including a root portion with a first surface, and an abutment with a second and/or third surface (2/3; see [0011] and [0014]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the device of Reddy et al to include Schone’s teaching of providing different surface texture patterns at different parts of the implant, as such modification would provide improved adhesion with the specific type of tissues and cells the particular part of the implant is intended to contact (see Schone above).
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 EDWARD MORAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM-4 PM 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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD MORAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
