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 Amendments
The amendments to claims 5, 7, 19, and 24 are acknowledged and the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 23 is acknowledged and is now in condition for allowance.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/25/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on 18/471,655 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3, filed 10/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Zannis in view of Mizuno have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner agrees that neither Zannis nor Mizuno discloses or suggests “an extended shaft with a distal portion comprising a beveled face”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Maeda et al. (US 20080294093).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-12, 14-17, 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 3), claim 4 (line 2), claim 5 (line 3), claim 7 (lines 2 and 4), claim 8 (line 3), claim 9 (line 3), claim 11 (lines 1-3), claim 12 (line 1), claim 14 (line 2), claim 15 (lines 5 and 7), claim 16 (line 2-3), claim 23 (line 3): “the shaft” should recite “the extended shaft” for consistency purposes.
Claim 5 (lines 4-5), claim 6 (line 2), claim 7 (lines 3 and 6), claim 15 (lines 6 and 9), claim 16 (line 4), claim 17 (line 3): “the second configuration” should recite “the substantially cylindrical second configuration” for consistency purposes.
Claim 6 (lines 1-2): “the first configuration” should recite “the substantially flat first configuration” for consistency purposes.
Claim 7 (line 5): “proximal direction” should recite “the proximal direction”.
Claim 7 (line 5): “a sleeve” should recite “the sleeve”.
Claim 8 (line 3): “a one or more rigid members” should recite “one or more rigid members”.
Claim 8 (lines 3-4): “the flat sheet of elastically deformable material” should recite “the at least one flat sheet of elastically deformable material”.
Claim 15 (line 8): “the distal direction” should recite “a distal direction”.
Claim 17 (line 3) and claim 19 (line 3): “the device” should recite “the implant delivery device”.
Claim 22 (line 2) and claim 23 (line 9): “the implant” should recite “the sheet-like implant”.
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
“a deformation mechanism” in claim 1. The limitation introducing the deformation mechanism in claim 1 fails to include sufficient structure to perform the recited function of “deformation". In the specification, the deformation mechanism is described as comprising “at least one ramp-like structure” which is also referred to as “angled edges” and/or “a wire” (page 7 lines 18-20 and lines 24-29; page 8 lines 29-30). Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted as at least one ramp-like structure, angled edges, a wire, or any structural equivalent thereof capable of deforming the deformable plate between a substantially flat first configuration and a substantially cylindrical second configuration.
“a retainer mechanism” in claim 2. The limitation introducing the deformation mechanism in claim 2 fails to include sufficient structure to perform the recited function of “retaining". In the specification, the retainer mechanism is either a pin or a clip (page 9 line 21). Therefore, the limitation will be interpreted as a pin, clip, or any structural equivalent thereof capable of retaining and releasably holding a sheet-like implant against the first surface of the deformable plate.
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 § 102
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 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) 1-2, 4-7, 11-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda et al. (US 20080294093) [hereinafter Maeda].
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses an implant delivery device 10 (Fig. 1, para. 0044; see note below in regards to intended use) comprising:
an extended shaft 12, 17 with a distal portion (interpreted as portion comprising connecting member 17) comprising a beveled face (see Figs. 4, 7-8, para. 0047, 0053);
a deformable plate 13 attached to the distal portion of the shaft 12 (Figs. 1, 3, 7, para. 0044, 0046-0047), the deformable plate 13 comprising a first surface 13a (Figs. 10-11, para. 0086), the beveled face of the shaft 12 sloping toward the first surface 13a (see Fig. 7 of Maeda); and
a deformation mechanism (interpreted as at least one ramp-like structures or angled edges 13c of the deformable plate as defined in the 112(f) interpretation above) that deforms the deformable plate 13 between a substantially flat first configuration (Fig. 11, para. 0053) and a substantially cylindrical second configuration (Fig. 15, para. 0055).
Regarding claims 2 and 21, Maeda discloses further comprising a retainer mechanism (interpreted as frictional coating/adhesive layer described in para. 0059 which is a structural equivalent thereof capable of retaining and releasably holding a sheet-like implant against the first surface of the deformable plate, see 112f interpretation above) on the deformable plate 13 (Fig. 11, para. 0059), the retainer mechanism operable to releasably hold a sheet-like implant 30 against the first surface 13a (Fig. 11, para. 0059).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda discloses further comprising a sleeve 11 with the extended shaft 12 extending through the sleeve 11 (Figs. 1-2, para. 0044) wherein the shaft 12 can slide in a proximal and distal direction through the sleeve 11 (Figs. 1-2, para. 0044).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Maeda discloses wherein the deformation mechanism comprises at least one ramp-like structure 13c at a proximal edge of the deformable plate 13 (Fig. 3, para. 0046), wherein, when the sleeve 11 translates in a distal direction relative to the shaft 12, the sleeve applies pressure to the ramp-like structure 13c and deforms the plate 13 into the second configuration (Fig. 12, para. 0053).
Regarding claim 6, Maeda discloses wherein the deformable plate 13 assumes the first configuration at rest (Fig. 11, para. 0046) and is elastically deformed into the second configuration by the deformation mechanism (Fig. 12, para. 0053).
Regarding claim 11, Maeda discloses wherein the distal portion of the shaft 12 comprises a first radius (Fig. 8, para. 0048), and a distal end of the shaft 12 comprises a second radius smaller than the first radius (see Fig. 8 which illustrates a beveled, tapered end of the shaft 12 such that the distal end of the shaft has a smaller radius than the distal portion), wherein the distal end of the shaft meets a proximal portion of the deformable plate 13 at a ramp or step (Figs. 7-8, para. 0048).
Regarding claim 12, Maeda discloses wherein a distal end of the shaft 12 presents at least a portion of a cylindrical surface to the deformable plate 13 (see Fig. 7 of Maeda which illustrates a distal face of the distal end of the shaft having at least a portion of a cylindrical surface), inhibiting the deformable plate 12 from collapsing into configurations other than the substantially cylindrical second configuration (Figs. 11-15, para. 0053-0055).
Regarding claim 13, Maeda discloses wherein when an implant 30 is loaded onto the deformable plate 13 and the deformable plate 13 is deformed into the substantially cylindrical second configuration (Figs. 11-15, para. 0004, 0053-0055), then the deformable plate 13 substantially surrounds and covers the implant 30 (Figs. 14-15, para. 0053-0055).
Regarding claim 14, Maeda discloses further comprising a sleeve 11 (Figs. 1-2, para. 0044), with the extended shaft 12 extending through the sleeve (Figs. 1-2, para. 0044), wherein the shaft 12 can slide in a proximal and distal direction through the sleeve 11 (Figs. 1-2, para. 0044) and further wherein, when an implant 30 is loaded onto the deformable plate 13 and the deformable plate 13 is deformed into the substantially cylindrical second configuration (Figs. 11-15, para. 0004, 0053-0055), then the deformable plate 13 substantially inhibits contact between the implant 30 and the sleeve 11 (Figs. 14-15, para. 0053-0055).
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.
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 20080294093) [hereinafter Maeda] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zannis et al. (US 20040267277) [hereinafter Zannis].
Regarding claim 3, Maeda discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 1. However, Maeda fails to disclose further comprising at least one hole through the deformable plate through which a surgical fastening tool can deliver an anchor or suture to an implant carried by the plate.
Zannis in the same field of endeavor of implant delivery devices 10C (Figs. 10-11, para. 0085-0086) teaches a deformable plate 24C comprising at least one hole 42 through the deformable plate 24C (Figs. 10-11, para. 0087) for the purpose of temporarily securing the deformable plate 24C to an implant 16 via. sutures 44 (Figs. 10-11, para. 0087), through which a surgical fastening tool can deliver an anchor or suture to an implant 16 carried by the deformable plate (Figs. 10-11, see note below).
The substitution of one known retainer mechanism of the deformable plate (plurality of holes for suture attachment as shown in Zannis) for another (retainer mechanism as shown in Maeda, para. 0059 of Maeda) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the plurality of holes for suture attachment shown in Zannis would have yielded predictable results, namely, an alternative way to secure the implant to the deformable plate (para. 0087 of Zannis); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Note: The limitation “through which a surgical fastening tool can deliver an anchor or suture to an implant carried by the plate” is interpreted as functional language that describes the intended use of the holes. Therefore, the limitation is not interpreted as a structural component of the claimed invention, but interpreted as a functional component that the claimed invention is capable of doing. Modified Maeda discloses the structural component i.e. at least one hole through the deformable plate (Figs. 10-11, para. 0087 of Zannis) to necessitate the functional language of claim 3. For example, the user can position the deformable plate to a target site, cut and remove the sutures from the holes such that the user is capable of using a surgical fastener tool to deliver an anchor or suture small enough to fit through the holes of the deformable plate to the implant. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 20080294093) [hereinafter Maeda] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kucklick (US 20220338910).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Maeda discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 1. Maeda further disclose wherein the deformable plate 13 comprises at least one flat sheet of elastically deformable material (para. 0058). However, Maeda fails to disclose wherein the flat sheet of the elastically deformable material is reinforced in a longitudinal direction parallel to an axis of the shaft with a one or more rigid members attached to the flat sheet of elastically deformable material (claim 8)/ wherein the deformable plate comprises one or more reinforcing structures that inhibit deformation of the deformable plate in a longitudinal direction parallel to an axis of the shaft (claim 9).
Kucklick in the same field of endeavor of implant delivery devices comprise a flat sheet of deformable material 52 reinforced in a longitudinal direction parallel to an axis of a shaft with one or more rigid members/reinforcing structures 52A attached to the flat sheet of deformable material 52 (Figs. 13, 18 para. 0043-0044), wherein the one or more reinforcing structures 52A inhibit deformation of the deformable plate in the longitudinal direction parallel to an axis of the shaft (Fig. 18, para. 0044; see note below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deformable plate in Maeda to include the one or more rigid members/reinforcing structures of Kucklick in order to provide structural support to the plate in the longitudinal direction as well as the orthogonal direction (para. 0044 of Kucklick), thereby directing the deformation along those directions to provide dimensional stability when the plate transitions from the first configuration to the second configuration (para. 0044 of Kucklick).
Note: “wherein the one or more reinforcing structures inhibit deformation of the deformable plate in the longitudinal direction parallel to an axis of the shaft” is interpreted as functional language. Therefore, the limitation is not interpreted as a structural component of the claimed invention, but interpreted as a functional component that the claimed invention is capable of doing. The modification of claims 8 and 9 resulted in the reinforcing structure of Kucklick being provided on the deformable plate of Maeda. Since the newly modified Maeda includes all of the structure required for the claim (i.e. the one or more reinforcing structures 52A of Kucklick in the longitudinal direction parallel to an axis of the shaft, Fig. 18, para. 0043-0044 of Kucklick ) to necessitate the functional language, modified Maeda also meets the functional limitation of the claim. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10, modified Maeda discloses wherein the reinforcing structures (interpreted as the strut-like members forming spring material component 52A) comprise living hinges of the deformable plate 49 (Figs. 12-13, 18, para. 0043-0044 of Kucklick illustrate that the reinforcing structures bend and fold during delivery of the plate 52, therefore the structures comprise living hinges).
Regarding claim 20, Maeda discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 1. However, Maeda fails to disclose wherein the deformable plate comprises at least two flat pieces of material joined together to form a substantially flat sheet of elastically deformable material.
Kucklick in the same field of endeavor of implant delivery devices comprise a at least two flat pieces of material 52 joined together to form a substantially flat sheet of elastically deformable material and a reinforcing structure 52A (Fig. 18, para. 0044 teaches that two sheets may be laminated together to attach a reinforcing structure therebetween).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the deformable plate in Maeda to include the at least two flat pieces of material and reinforcing structure of Kucklick in order to provide structural support to the plate in the longitudinal direction as well as orthogonal direction (para. 0044 of Kucklick), thereby directing the deformation along those directions to provide dimensional stability when the plate transitions from the first configuration to the second configuration (para. 0044 of Kucklick).
Claim(s) 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 20080294093) [hereinafter Maeda] as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Seiler et al. (US 20090209804) [hereinafter Seiler].
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Maeda discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claims 1 and 5. Maeda further discloses wherein the deformable plate 13 comprises at least one flat sheet of elastically deformable material (Fig. 11, para. 0058) with angled edges 13c at a proximal portion of the deformable plate (Fig. 3, para. 0046), the device further comprising: a sleeve 11 slidably disposed over the extended shaft 12 (Figs. 1-2, para. 0044), wherein when the sleeve 11 translates in a distal direction relative to the shaft 12, the sleeve 11 applies pressure to the angled edges 13c and deforms the plate into the second configuration (Figs. 11-15, para. 0053-0055); a handle 15 at a proximal end of the shaft operable to push the sleeve 11 in the distal direction over the shaft 12 to deform the plate into the second configuration (Figs. 1-2, para. 0044).
However, modified Maeda fails to disclose the device/the deformation mechanism further comprising a slider knob operable to push the sleeve in the distal direction over the shaft to deform the plate into the second configuration.
Seiler in the same field of endeavor teaches an implant delivery device (Figs. 2A-B, para. 0037) comprising a handle 210 at a proximal end of a shaft 250 (Fig. 3, para. 0037); and a slider knob 220 on the handle 210 operable to push a sleeve 240 in a distal direction 204 over the shaft 250 to retain an implant 202 (Figs. 5A-C, para. 0039).
The substitution of one known handle (handle comprising slider knob as shown in Seiler) for another (finger ring handle as shown in Maeda) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the slider knob handle shown in Seiler would have yielded predictable results, namely, an alternative way to actuate the sleeve during use (Figs. 5A-C, para. 0039 of Seiler); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 17, modified Maeda discloses wherein the handle 210 includes a ridge 338 operable to lock the slider knob 220 in a position to thereby hold the plate in the second configuration, enclosed within a distal portion of the sleeve 240, during the use of the device (Figs. 3, 5A, para. 0044-0045, 0050 of Seiler).
Regarding claim 18, modified Maeda discloses wherein the slider knob 220 includes a spring (interpreted as the resilient member formed by slits 331a-b) that biases the slider knob 220 into a locked position at the ridge (Figs. 5A-B, para. 0042 of Seiler).
Regarding claim 19, modified Maeda discloses wherein the deformation mechanism allows a user to deliver the graft through an incision and to a surgical site holding the device with only one hand and only by the handle of the device (Figs. 2A-B, para. 0039, 0050 of Seiler).
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (US 20080294093) [hereinafter Maeda] as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Euteneuer et al. (US 20120209401) [hereinafter Euteneuer].
Regarding claim 22, modified Maeda discloses all of the limitations set forth above in claim 21. However, modified Maeda fails to disclose wherein the retainer mechanism on the deformable plate comprises one or more clips operable to elastically hold the implant to the first surface by a pressure.
Euteneuer in the same field of endeavor in implant delivery devices teaches that it is known in the art of retainer mechanisms to comprise one or more clips 520, 522 operable to elastically hold an implant 50 (Figs. 14-15, para. 0087) as opposed to a retainer mechanism comprising sutures 146 (Figs. 10A-B, para. 0075).
The substitution of one known retainer mechanism (clips as taught by Euteneuer) for another (retainer mechanism as shown in Maeda) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the clips as taught by Euteneuer would have yielded predictable results, namely, an alternative way to retain the implant on the deformable plate during delivery to prevent separation or disengagement of the implant (para. 0087 of Euteneuer); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-24 are allowable due to the claim amendment filed on 10/30/2025 (see reasons for allowance in the office action filed 07/31/2025).
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 LAUREN DUBOSE whose telephone number is (571)272-8792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:30 pm.
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.
/LAUREN DUBOSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3771 /SARAH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771