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 Office action is in response to the applicant’s communication filed 07/08/2026.
Status of the claims:
Claims 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are pending in the application.
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 are amended.
Specification
The objections to specification in the previous action dated 03/09/2026 have been maintained as the appropriate corrections were not made. The objection has been repeated below for convenience.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1 – 4, 6, 8, 12, and 15 in the previous action dated 03/09/2026 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 07/08/2026. Specifically, the objection to claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, and 15, regarding the phrase “the hollow needle” and/or “the needle”, the objection to claims 1, 8, and 15, regarding the phrases “the distal cutting end”, “the distal end”, and “a patient”, the objections to claims 4 and 8, regarding the phrase “against device advancement”, the objection to claim 6, regarding the phrase “through it into a body cavity”, and the objection to claims 8 and 15, regarding the phrase “configured to automatically halting distal movement” have all been withdrawn as the claims have been cancelled or the appropriate corrections have been made.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation “means for biasing” in claim 8. Furthermore, there are no structural modifiers either preceding or following the limitation. For the purpose of examination, the “means for biasing” in claim 8 will be read as a spring (which is the disclosed corresponding structure, as described in paragraph [0016] of the instant specification) or an equivalent structure (which is any structure that performs the identical function of the generic placeholder(s) specified in the claim in substantially the same way).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The generic placeholders are “a manual resetting mechanism” in claim 8 coupled to the functional language “configured to reset the stabilizer” and “a stabilizer resilient biasing mechanism” in claim 9 coupled to the language “to bias”. Furthermore, there are no structural modifiers either preceding or following the generic placeholders. For the purpose of examination, the “manual resetting mechanism” in claim 8 will be read as a spring coupled with a push button, etc., (which is the disclosed corresponding structure, as described in paragraph [0022] of the instant specification), and the “a stabilizer resilient biasing mechanism” in claim 9 will be read as a spring (which is the disclosed corresponding structure, as described in paragraph [0022] of the instant specification) or an equivalent structures thereof (which are any structure that performs the identical function of the generic placeholder(s) specified in the claim in substantially the same way).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The rejection of claim 7 under U.S.C 35 112(b) regarding indefiniteness, recited in the previous action dated 03/09/2026 have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments filed 07/08/2026. Specifically, the rejection of claim 7, regarding the lack of antecedent basis of "the stabilizer", has been withdrawn as claim 7 has been cancelled, the rejection of claim 9 regarding the lack of clarity of the phrase the phrase "a resetting mechanism" has been withdrawn as the appropriate corrections have been made, and the rejection of 11 for being dependent on an indefinite claim as claim 11 is no longer dependent on an indefinite claim. However, the other rejection of claim 9 and the rejection of claim 12 under U.S.C 35 112(b) regarding indefiniteness have been maintained as the appropriate corrections have not been made. The rejections have been repeated below for convenience.
Claims 9 and 12 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 claim 9, the phrase "it" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant is intending for “it” to be a place holder for the “mechanical lock” or the “stabilizer”. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, specifically, specification paragraph [0022], the Examiner will read the phrase to mean the later, such that the “stabilizer is caused to reset” when biased by the “stabilizing resilient biasing member”.
Claim 12 is rejected as being indefinite for being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson et al (US 2021/0106344 A1) (herein referred to as Donaldson 2021’) (previously cited), and in view of Chen et al (US 2023/0064225 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 13, and 14, Donaldson 2021’ discloses a device (device 10) for forming and/or maintaining an access pathway into a body of a patient (abstract, paragraphs [0067], [0070 – 0074], and Figs. 1-3,7-10), comprising:
a housing (main body 50) defining an open interior and having a proximal end and a distal end (paragraphs [0067], [0070] and Figs. 1-3,7-10), the housing including one or more openings (Figs. 1-3,7-10);
a generally hollow needle (needle 30) extending distally from the distal end of the housing (paragraphs [0067], [0070] and Figs. 1-3,7-10), the generally hollow needle having a cutting distal end (tip 32) (paragraph [0071]);
a probe (stylet 20) slidably disposed within the generally hollow needle (paragraphs [0067], [0070 – 0074], and Figs. 1-3,7-10), the probe having a blunt distal end (paragraph [0037]) and one or more openings adjacent to the distal end (Figs. 1-3,7-10);
means for biasing (spring 54 / means for biasing) the distal end of the probe (stylet 20) into a position distal to the distal cutting end of the hollow needle (needle 30) such that a force on the distal end of the probe can overcome the bias to move the probe (stylet 20) proximally relative to the hollow needle (paragraphs [0070 – 0073] and claim 1);
a mechanical lock (lock 55) configured to automatically halt distal movement of the hollow needle and probe in response to the distal end of the probe returning to the position distal to the distal cutting end of the hollow needle upon the hollow needle entering a body cavity of a patient (paragraphs [0069 – 0073], Figs. 7-10, and claim 1); and
a stabilizer (stabilizer 40) configured to provide counterforce against device advancement (paragraph [0072]); and
a resetting mechanism (key 52) configured to reset the stabilizer to a more distal position (position in Fig. 7) relative to the distal end of the probe after initial use (paragraphs [0070 – 0071] and seen in progression from Fig. 7 to Fig. 10).
However, Donaldson 2021’ is silent regarding (i) wherein the resetting mechanism is manual and causes the stabilizer to be reset via a user interacting with a manually actuated input.
As to the above, Chen teaches a device (vitrectomy probe 100; which equates to the device 10 of Donaldson 2021’) comprising a probe (which equates to the stylet 20 of Donaldson 2021’) within a stiffening sleeve 132 (which equates to the stabilizer 40 of Donaldson 2021’), and a mechanical lock (shaft 144; which equates to the lock 55 of Donaldson 2021’) and a manual resetting mechanism with a stabilizer resilient biasing mechanism (control member 138 with biasing device 149; which equates to the key 52 and spring 56 of Donaldson 2021’, respectively) to halt the movement and reset the position of the stiffening sleeve 132 relative to the probe, wherein the resetting mechanism is manually actuated input (abstract, paragraphs [0031], [0038], [0048 – 0053], and Fig. 4A,4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the resetting mechanism of Donaldson 2021’ to be a manual resetting mechanism, with a manually actuatable input, based on the teachings of Chen, as Donaldson 2021’ already teaches an automatic resetting mechanism and it is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to replace an automatic means with a manual means in the same way it is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to replace a manual means with an automatic means (see In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)); and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the automatic resetting mechanism a manual resetting mechanism (with a manually actuatable input / button)).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the automatic resetting mechanism of Donaldson 2021’ a manual resetting mechanism with an actuatable input / button as taught by Chen. Additionally, Donaldson 2021’ discloses wherein the resetting mechanism (key 52) causes the mechanical lock (lock 55) to disengage with the stabilizer (stabilizer 40) such that, biased by a stabilizer resilient biasing mechanism (spring 56), it (stabilizer 40) is caused to reset when the distal end of the probe is placed onto the patient (paragraph [0071]).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the automatic resetting mechanism of Donaldson 2021’ a manual resetting mechanism with an actuatable input / button as taught by Chen. Additionally, the Chen teaches wherein the manually actuated input is a button (control member 138 of Chen) (Fig. 4A of Chen). Therefore, the combination encompasses the limitations above.
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the automatic resetting mechanism of Donaldson 2021’ a manual resetting mechanism with an actuatable input / button as taught by Chen. Additionally, Donaldson 2021’ discloses wherein the more distal position (position in Fig. 7) is an original position of the stabilizer (stabilizer 40) relative to the distal position of the probe (stylet 20) prior to use (see progression of the stabilizer 40 and the stylet 20 (i.e., the probe) from Fig. 7 to Fig. 10).
Claims 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson et al (US 2014/0046303 A1) (herein referred to as Donaldson 2014’) and in view of Chen et al (US 2023/0064225 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Donaldson 2014’ discloses a device (device 10) for forming and/or maintaining an access pathway into a body of a patient (abstract, paragraphs [0042], [0089], [0103], [0107 – 0111], and Figs. 14 – 18), comprising:
a housing (holder 40) defining an open interior and having a proximal end and a distal end (paragraphs [0089], [0107] and Figs. 14 – 18), the housing including one or more openings (Figs. 14 – 18);
a generally hollow needle (needle 20) extending distally from the distal end of the housing (paragraphs [0089], [0107] and Figs. 14 – 18), the generally hollow needle having a distal cutting end (tip 22) (paragraph [0107]);
a probe (probe 50) slidably disposed within the generally hollow needle (claim 1), the probe having a blunt distal end and one or more openings adjacent to the distal end (paragraph [0042], Figs. 14 – 18, and claim 1);
means for biasing (biasing member/ spring 80) the distal end of the probe into a position distal to the distal cutting end of the hollow needle such that a force on the distal end of the probe can overcome the bias to move the probe proximally relative to the hollow needle (paragraphs [0094], [0108], [0110], Figs. 15 – 18, and claim 1);
a mechanical lock (phalanges 49) configured to automatically halt distal movement of the hollow needle and probe in response to the distal end of the probe returning to the position distal to the distal cutting end of the hollow needle upon the hollow needle entering a body cavity of a patient (paragraphs [0050], [0108 – 0110], [0120], and Figs. 16 – 18); and
a stabilizer (stabilizer 30) configured to provide counterforce against device advancement (paragraph [0110]);
a resetting mechanism (holder 60) configured to reset the stabilizer to a more distal position (position in Fig. 16) relative to the distal end of the probe (probe 50) after initial use (paragraph [0109]).
However, Donaldson 2014’ is silent regarding (i) wherein the resetting mechanism is manual and causes the stabilizer to be reset via a user interacting with a manually actuated input.
As to the above, Chen teaches a device (vitrectomy probe 100; which equates to the device 10 of Donaldson 2014’) comprising a probe (which equates to the probe 50 of Donaldson 2014’) within a stiffening sleeve 132 (which equates to the stabilizer 30 of Donaldson 2014’), and a mechanical lock (shaft 144; which equates to the phalanges 49 of Donaldson 2014’) and a manual resetting mechanism (control member 138; which equates to the holder 60 of Donaldson 2014’) to halt the movement and reset the position of the stiffening sleeve 132 relative to the probe, wherein the resetting mechanism is manually actuated input (abstract, paragraphs [0031], [0038], [0048 – 0053], and Fig. 4A,4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the resetting mechanism of Donaldson 2014’ to be a manual resetting mechanism, with a manually actuatable input, based on the teachings of Chen, as Donaldson 2014’ already teaches an automatic resetting mechanism and it is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to replace an automatic means with a manual means in the same way it is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to replace a manual means with an automatic means (see In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)); and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making the automatic resetting mechanism a manual resetting mechanism (with a manually actuatable input / button)).
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the automatic resetting mechanism of Donaldson 2014’ a manual resetting mechanism with an actuatable input / button as taught by Chen. Additionally, Donaldson 2014’ discloses wherein the resetting mechanism (holder 60) causes the mechanical lock (phalanges 49) to disengage with the stabilizer (stabilizer 30) such that, biased by a stabilizer resilient biasing mechanism (spring 84), it (stabilizer 30) is caused to reset when the distal end of the probe is placed onto the patient (paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the automatic resetting mechanism of Donaldson 2014’ a manual resetting mechanism with an actuatable input / button as taught by Chen. Additionally, the Chen teaches wherein the manually actuated input is a button (control member 138 of Chen) (Fig. 4A of Chen). Therefore, the combination encompasses the limitations above.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, Donaldson 2014’ discloses the device of claim 9. Additionally, Donaldson 2014’ discloses wherein the stabilizer resilient biasing mechanism (spring 84) is a spring (paragraph [0107]).
However, Donaldson 2014’ is silent regarding (i) wherein the stabilizer resilient biasing mechanism / the spring is disposed around the needle that interfaces with the stabilizer.
As to the above, Donaldson 2014’ in paragraph [0120], recites wherein the specific arrangement of parts of the stabilizer is not critical to the overall function of the stabilizer and the resetting mechanism of the stabilizer such that other arrangements / configurations of the parts would work equally as well as the inherently disclosed arrangement. Therefore, the Examiner contends it would be obvious, and well within the purview, of one of ordinary skill in the art to move the spring 84 inside the space between the rods 32, below the bottom surface of the phalanges 49, and extending to the top of the bottom plate of the stabilizer, such that the spring 84 surrounds the needle and biases the top surface of the bottom plate portion of the stabilizer 30 distally (in the same manner that the spring 84 biases the rods 32 distally) such that in the absence of force the stabilizer will be reset to the more distal position relative to the probe 50, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification, such that the results of the modification would be predictable and result in the modified device being operable for its intended use. The Examiner notes that this rejection is based on In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the automatic resetting mechanism of Donaldson 2021’ a manual resetting mechanism with an actuatable input / button as taught by Chen. Additionally, Donaldson 2014’ discloses wherein the more distal position (position in Fig. 16) is an original position of the stabilizer (stabilizer 30) relative to the distal position of the probe (probe 50) prior to use (see progression of the stabilizer 30 and the probe 50 from Fig. 16 to Fig. 18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. More specifically:
Regarding Applicant’s arguments regarding “Chen’s control member is not a manual resetting mechanism configured for resetting a stabilizer”, the Examiner disagrees. Although, Chen’s control member 138, when manually pressed, is used for “locking the stiffener in position”, it also is used to “unlock” and therefore, allow the stiffener to be reset to its original position. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the prior art, the control member 138 is a manual resetting mechanism. Furthermore, the Examiner is relying only on Chen to change the already existing, automatic, resetting mechanisms of Donaldson 2014’ and Donaldson 2021’ into manually resetting mechanisms via an actuatable button so that the user can manually reset the locking mechanisms and the position of the stabilizer; moreover, the Examiner is not relying on Chen for the resetting mechanism being configured to reset a stabilizer, as stated in the rejection above, both Donaldson 2021’ and Donaldson 2014’ already disclose the resetting mechanism being configured to reset a stabilizer. Lastly, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). And it is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to make an automatic mechanism a manually operated one.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Restaino whose telephone number is (571)272-4748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 4:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at 571-272-7134. 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.
/Andrew Restaino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights