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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
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 1-3, 5-6, 11-13, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al. (US 2003/0114899) in view of Libbus et al. (US 2009/0076561).
In re claim 1, Woods discloses a method [0012] for programming a stimulator device [0022, 0055] comprising a plurality of electrode nodes (fig. 3A: E1-E16), each electrode node configured to be coupled to a different one of a plurality of electrodes (fig. 3A: each electrode E1-E16 is interpreted as an electrode node) configured to contact a patient's tissue ([0057]: electrode array is implanted), the method comprising:
programming the stimulator device to provide first and second pulses at at least two of the electrode nodes (fig. 3A: E7 and E8 provide pulses; [0072-0073]) to create via the first and second pulses a stimulation current through the patient's tissue [0072-0073],
wherein, at a first electrode node (E8) of the at least two electrode nodes (see above), each first pulse (see Examiner Fig. 1 below: first pulse is combination of first monophasic pulse and first passive charge recovery pulse) comprises
a first monophasic pulse (see Examiner Fig. 1 below) of a first polarity (see Examiner Fig. 1 below) and
a first passive charge recovery pulse (see Examiner Fig. 1 below) of a second polarity opposite the first polarity (see Examiner Fig. 1 below),
the first passive charge recovery pulse being configured to recover charge stored during the first monophasic pulse ([0077]: passive phase period provides a recharge phase period i.e. recovers charge; fig. 3A), and
wherein, at the first electrode node, each second pulse (see Examiner Fig. 1 below: second pulse is combination of second monophasic pulse and second passive charge recovery pulse) comprises
a second monophasic pulse (see Examiner Fig. 1 below) of the second polarity (see Examiner Fig. 1 below) and
a second passive charge recovery pulse (see Examiner Fig. 1 below) of the first polarity (see Examiner Fig. 1 below),
the second passive charge recovery pulse being configured to recover charge stored during the second monophasic pulse ([0077]; fig. 3A).
PNG
media_image1.png
653
1155
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Figure 1 (Annotated Fig. 3A – Woods)
Woods fails to disclose wherein an amplitude, pulse width, or both, of the first and second monophasic pulses is the same.
Libbus teaches a stimulation device (fig. 1: 100) comprising of a series of first and second monophasic pulses ([0062]: series of monophasic pulse trains) having alternating polarities [0062], wherein both the amplitude [0062] and the pulse width [0062] of the first and second monophasic pulses are the same [0062].
Libbus further teaches that the amplitude and pulse width may be the same or different [0062].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for programming a stimulator device taught by Woods, to provide wherein both the amplitude and the pulse width of the first and second monophasic pulses are the same, as taught by Libbus, because the amplitude and pulse width may be either the same or different.
At the time the instant application was filed it would be obvious to try to provide wherein an amplitude, pulse width, or both, of the first and second monophasic pulses is the same. Furthermore, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397, especially since the claimed amplitude and pulse width are not disclosed as being crucial or unexpected.
Even if the proposed combination fails to yield “wherein an amplitude, pulse width, or both, of the first and second monophasic pulses is the same”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein an amplitude, pulse width, or both, of the first and second monophasic pulses is the same, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 2, the proposed combination yields (all mapping is directed to Woods unless otherwise stated) wherein the first and second monophasic pulses are charge balanced at the first electrode node [0106].
In re claim 3, regarding the limitation, “wherein both the amplitude and the pulse width of the first and second monophasic pulses are the same,” see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 1 above. .
In re claim 5, the proposed combination yields (all mapping is directed to Woods unless otherwise stated)
wherein the first passive recovery pulse follows immediately after the first monophasic pulse in the first pulse at the first electrode node (Examiner fig. 1 above), and
wherein the second passive recovery pulse follows immediately after the second monophasic pulse in the second pulse at the first electrode node (Examiner fig. 1 above).
In re claim 6, the proposed combination yields (all mapping is directed to Woods unless otherwise stated) wherein the amplitude of the first and second monophasic pulses comprise constant current amplitudes [0233].
At the time the instant application was filed it would be obvious to try to provide wherein the amplitude of the first and second monophasic pulses comprise constant current amplitudes. Furthermore, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397, especially since the claimed amplitude of the first and second monophasic pulses is not disclosed as being crucial or unexpected.
Even if the proposed combination fails to yield “wherein the amplitude of the first and second monophasic pulses comprise constant current amplitudes”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein the amplitude of the first and second monophasic pulses comprise constant current amplitudes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In re claim 11, the proposed combination yields (all mapping is directed to Woods unless otherwise stated) wherein the second pulses are centered in time with the first pulses at the first electrode node (fig. 3A: first and second phase are centered between a time between them).
In re claim 12, the proposed combination yields (all mapping is directed to Woods unless otherwise stated) wherein the first and second pulses do not overlap at the first electrode (fig. 3A)
In re claim 13, the proposed combination fails to yield
wherein, at a second electrode node of the at least two electrode nodes, each first pulse comprises
a third monophasic pulse of the second polarity and
a third passive charge recovery pulse of the first polarity,
the third passive charge recovery pulse being configured to recover charge stored during the third monophasic pulse,
wherein, at the second electrode node, each second pulse comprises
a fourth monophasic pulse of the first polarity and
a fourth passive charge recovery pulse of the second polarity,
the fourth passive charge recovery pulse being configured to recover charge stored during the fourth monophasic pulse,
wherein the first and third monophasic pulses are coincident in time,
wherein the second and fourth monophasic pulses are coincident in time,
wherein the first and third passive charge recovery pulses are coincident in time, and
wherein the second and fourth passive charge recovery pulses are coincident in time.
Woods teaches that the operation of multiple channels may be used to provide a stimulus pattern through multiple electrodes [0072], that any combinations of electrode pairing may be used [0075], and that each electrode may be independently programmable [0076].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for programming a stimulator device yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the first electrode node is duplicated, including the first and second monophasic pulses and the first and second passive charge recovery pulses, because any combinations of electrode pairings may be made and each electrode may be independently programmable, and also because it would be a duplication of parts, as shown in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
The propose combination would yield the above recited limitations, since the first electrode node would be duplicated to yield third and fourth monophasic pulses and third and fourth passive charge recovery pulses, and wherein the first and third monophasic pulses are coincident in time, wherein the second and fourth monophasic pulses are coincident in time, wherein the first and third passive charge recovery pulses are coincident in time, and wherein the second and fourth passive charge recovery pulses are coincident in time.
At the time the instant application was filed it would be obvious to try to provide wherein the first electrode node would be duplicated to yield third and fourth monophasic pulses and third and fourth passive charge recovery pulses. Furthermore, when there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397, especially since the claimed second electrode node, third and fourth monophasic pulses, and third and fourth passive charge recovery pulses are not disclosed as being crucial or unexpected.
In re claim 17, the proposed combination yields (all mapping is directed to Woods unless otherwise stated)
wherein the stimulator device comprises at least one implantable lead ([0070-0072]: electrode array 110 is part of lead 120, which is implanted),
wherein at least some of the electrodes are located on the at least one implantable lead [0071-0072],
wherein the first electrode node comprises an electrode node coupled to an electrode located on the at least one implantable lead ([0070-0072]: each electrode would be coupled to an electrode node on the implantable lead, including the first electrode node).
In re claim 19, regarding the limitations, “a stimulator device, comprising:
a plurality of electrode nodes, each electrode node configured to be coupled to a different one of a plurality of electrodes configured to contact a patient’s tissue; and
stimulation circuitry configured by stimulation parameters to provide first and second pulses at at least two of the electrode nodes to create via the first and second pulses a stimulation current through the patient’s tissue,
wherein, at a first electrode node of the at least two electrode nodes, each first pulse comprises a first monophasic pulse of a first polarity and a first passive charge recovery pulse of a second polarity opposite the first polarity,
the first passive charge recovery pulse being configured to recover charge stored during the first monophasic pulse, and
wherein, at the first electrode node, each second pulse comprises a second monophasic pulse of the second polarity and a second passive charge recovery pulse of the first polarity,
the second passive charge recovery pulse being configured to recover charge stored during the second monophasic pulse,
wherein an amplitude, pulse width, or both, of the first and second monophasic pulses is the same”,
see in re claim 1 above.
In re claim 20, Woods discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium [0013, 0184] comprising instructions for programming a stimulator device [0014, 0184] comprising a plurality of electrode nodes (see in re claim 1 above), each electrode node configured to be coupled to a different one of a plurality of electrodes configured to contact a patient’s tissue (see in re claim 1 above).
Regarding the limitations, “wherein the instructions when executed are configured perform the following method:
programming stimulation circuitry in the stimulator device to provide first and second pulses at at least two of the electrode nodes to create via the first and second pulses a stimulation current through the patient’s tissue,
wherein, at a first electrode node of the at least two electrode nodes, each first pulse comprises a first monophasic pulse of a first polarity and a first passive charge recovery pulse of a second polarity opposite the first polarity,
the first passive charge recovery pulse being configured to recover charge stored during the first monophasic pulse, and
wherein, at the first electrode node, each second pulse comprises a second monophasic pulse of the second polarity and a second passive charge recovery pulse of the first polarity,
the second passive charge recovery pulse being configured to recover charge stored during the second monophasic pulse,
wherein an amplitude, pulse width, or both, of the first and second monophasic pulses is the same”,
see in re claim 1 above.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al. (US 2003/0114899) in view of Libbus et al. (US 2009/0076561) in view of Johanek (US 2018/0369593).
In re claim 4, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the stimulator device is programmed to provide a repeating sequence of the first and second pulses interleaved at the at least two of the electrode nodes.
Johanek teaches a stimulation device (fig. 2: 14) and teaches wherein the stimulator device is programmed to provide a repeating sequence of first and second pulses interleaved at least two electrode nodes (electrode nodes 24 and 26; [0088]: processing circuitry 30 controls stimulation to alternate delivery of pulses 62 between leads 16A and 16B; fig. 2).
Johanek further teaches that any suitable order of pulses between electrode combinations may be provided as desired [0061, 0088].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for programming a stimulator device yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the stimulator device is programmed to provide a repeating sequence of the first and second pulses interleaved at the at least two of the electrode nodes, as taught by Johanek, because any suitable order of pulses between electrode combinations may be provided as desired.
Claims 7-10, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al. (US 2003/0114899) in view of Libbus et al. (US 2009/0076561) in view of Feldman et al. (US 2018/0140831).
In re claim 7, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the stimulator device comprises stimulation circuitry comprising one or more Digital-to-Analog converters (DACs) configured to actively drive the first and second monophasic pulses at the first electrode node.
Feldman teaches improved current generation [0002] for an implantable pulse generator [0002] and teaches comprising one or more Digital-to-Analog converters (DACs) (fig. 6A: 172; [0017]) configured to actively drive first and second monophasic pulses ([0020]: includes first and second pulses 94a and 94b; [0042-0043]: pulses are monophasic and repeat; fig. 4A: 94a) at a first electrode node (fig. 2A: any one of electrode nodes 61a; [0017, 0042-0043]).
Feldman further teaches that the digital-to-analog convertor receives a stimulation program for the electrodes [0017] and allows for optimal stimulation current to be provided [0012].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for programming a stimulator device yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the stimulator device comprises stimulation circuitry comprising one or more Digital-to-Analog converters (DACs) configured to actively drive the first and second monophasic pulses at the first electrode node, as taught by Feldman, because the digital-to-analog convertor receives a stimulation program for the electrodes and allows for optimal stimulation current to be provided.
In re claim 8, the proposed combination fails to yield
wherein the stimulation circuitry comprises a plurality of passive recovery switches each coupled between one of the electrode nodes and a reference potential,
wherein the first and second passive charge recovery pulses are formed by closing the passive recovery switch coupled to the first electrode node.
Feldman teaches
wherein stimulation circuitry (fig. 2B: 170) comprises a plurality of passive recovery switches (fig. 3A: plurality of passive recovery switches 96(x); [0021-0022]) each coupled between one of the electrode nodes and a reference potential (fig. 3A: 96(2) is between electrode node 61a and Vbat i.e. a reference potential; [0021-0023]),
wherein the first and second passive charge recovery pulses are formed by closing the passive recovery switch coupled to the first electrode node [0021-0023].
Feldman further teaches that closing the passive recovery switches is beneficial because they will recover built up charge [0045].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for programming a stimulator device yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the stimulation circuitry comprises a plurality of passive recovery switches each coupled between one of the electrode nodes and a reference potential and wherein the first and second passive charge recovery pulses are formed by closing the passive recovery switch coupled to the first electrode node, as taught by Feldman, because closing the passive recovery switches recovers built up charge.
In re claim 9, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the one or more DACs are not configured to actively drive the first and second passive charge recovery pulses.
Feldman teaches wherein the one or more DACs are not configured to actively drive the first and second passive charge recovery pulses ([0021]: passive charge recovery does not use active currents provided by the DAC).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for programming a stimulator device yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the one or more DACs are not configured to actively drive the first and second passive charge recovery pulses, as taught by Feldman, for substantially the same reasons as discussed above.
In re claim 10, the proposed combination fails to yield
wherein the one or more DACs comprise one or more positive DACs (PDACs) configured to source a current and one or more negative DACs (NDACs) designed to sink a current,
wherein the first monophasic pulses are actively driven at the first electrode node by at least one of the one or more PDACs, and
wherein the second monophasic pulses are actively driven at the first electrode node by at least one of the one or more NDACs.
Feldman teaches
wherein the one or more DACs comprise one or more positive DACs (PDACs) (fig. 3A: 172p; [0017, 0051]) configured to source a current [0051] and one or more negative DACs (NDACs) (172n; [0051]) designed to sink a current [0051],
wherein the first monophasic pulses are actively driven at the first electrode node by at least one of the one or more PDACs [0017, 0051], and
wherein the second monophasic pulses are actively driven at the first electrode node by at least one of the one or more NDACs [0017, 0051].
Feldman further teaches that the PDAC and NDAC are used to prevent charge from building in tissues [0017].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for programming a stimulator device yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the one or more DACs comprise one or more positive DACs (PDACs) configured to source a current and one or more negative DACs (NDACs) designed to sink a current, wherein the first monophasic pulses are actively driven at the first electrode node by at least one of the one or more PDACs, and wherein the second monophasic pulses are actively driven at the first electrode node by at least one of the one or more NDACs, as taught by Feldman, because the PDAC and NDAC are used to prevent charge from building in tissues.
In re claim 15, the proposed combination fails to yield
wherein the first pulses are issued at a first frequency at the first electrode node and
wherein the second pulses are issued at the first frequency at the first electrode node.
Feldman teaches
wherein first pulses are issued at a first frequency at a first electrode node [0036 0042],
wherein second pulses are issued at the first frequency at the first electrode node (‘T=1/f’ and f i.e. the frequency is the same; [0036, 0042, 0059]).
Feldman further teaches that the first frequency may be adjusted depending on a desired duration of each passive charge recovery phase [0036].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for programming a stimulator device yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the first pulses are issued at a first frequency at the first electrode node and wherein the second pulses are issued at the first frequency at the first electrode node, as taught by Feldman, because the first frequency may be adjusted depending on a desired duration of each passive charge recovery phase.
In re claim 18, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein each electrode node is coupled to its associated electrode through a DC-blocking capacitor.
Feldman teaches wherein each electrode node is coupled to its associated electrode through a DC-blocking capacitor (fig. 2B: DC-blocking capacitor 55 is in between the electrodes at each the electrode node; [0022]).
Feldman further teaches that DC-blocking capacitors provide safety [0009] and ensure that DC current isn’t injected into tissue during a failure [0009].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for programming a stimulator device yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein each electrode node is coupled to its associated electrode through a DC-blocking capacitor, as taught by Feldman, because DC-blocking capacitors provide safety and ensure that DC current isn’t injected into tissue during a failure.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al. (US 2003/0114899) in view of Libbus et al. (US 2009/0076561) in view of Carbunaru et al. (US 2011/0106214).
In re claim 14, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein an interphase period during which no stimulation current flows intervenes between
(i) the first monophasic pulse and the first passive charge recovery pulse in each first pulse, and
(ii) the second monophasic pulse and the second passive charge recovery pulse in each second pulse.
Carbunaru teaches a method [0002] for programming [0040] a stimulator device (fig. 3: 14) comprising a plurality of electrode nodes (fig. 2: plurality of electrodes E1 and E16 on leads 12(1) and 12(2)), each electrode node configured to be coupled to one of a plurality of electrodes (fig. 2; [0038]) configured to contact a patient’s tissue [0068], the method comprising:
programming the stimulator device to provide first (fig. 9b: first pulses are each first stimulation phase per electrode during a bi-phasic pulse; [0069]) and second pulses (fig. 9b: second pulses are each a charge recovery phase per electrode during a bi-phasic pulse; [0069]) at at least two of the electrode nodes to create via the first and second pulses a stimulation current through the patient’s tissue ([0039]: electrodes in array 26 provide stimulation; [0009, 0049] fig. 2),
wherein, at a first electrode node of the at least two electrode nodes, each first pulse comprises
a first monophasic pulse [0006] of a first polarity ([0069]: stimulation phase include a first polarity) and
a first passive charge recovery pulse ([0069]: passive charge recovery phase may be used) of a second polarity opposite the first polarity ([0069]: second phase includes a second opposite polarity),
wherein, at the first electrode node, each second pulse comprises a second monophasic pulse of the second polarity ([0080]: electrodes operated in a bipolar manner, resulting in the second pulse have a second monophasic pulse of the second polarity; [0069]: each phase results in opposite polarity being generated due to a recharge period [0006]) and a second passive charge recovery pulse of the first polarity [0069, 0080], and
an interphase period (fig. 9b: interphase) during which no stimulation current flows intervenes between
(i) the first monophasic pulse and the first passive charge recovery pulse in each first pulse (fig. 9b: no stimulation during the interphase period), and
(ii) the second monophasic pulse and the second passive charge recovery pulse in each second pulse (fig. 9b).
Carbunaru further teaches that the interphase period ensures that phases of a multi-phasic pulse do not interfere with one another [0016].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for programming a stimulator device yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein an interphase period during which no stimulation current flows intervenes between (i) the first monophasic pulse and the first passive charge recovery pulse in each first pulse, and (ii) the second monophasic pulse and the second passive charge recovery pulse in each second pulse, as taught by Carbunaru, because the interphase period ensures that phases of a multi-phasic pulse do not interfere with one another.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woods et al. (US 2003/0114899) in view of Libbus et al. (US 2009/0076561) in view of Feldman et al. (US 2018/0140831) in view of Boggs et al. (US 2018/0056066).
In re claim 16, the proposed combination fails to yield wherein the first frequency is less than 200 Hz.
Boggs teaches an implanted pulse generator [0114] that provides passive charge recovery [0114], wherein a first frequency is less than 200 Hz [0097].
Boggs further teaches that the frequency may be adjusted as desired [0097] between various ranges [0097].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the method for programming a stimulator device yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the first frequency is less than 200 Hz, as taught by Boggs, because the frequency may be adjusted as desired between various range.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide wherein the first frequency is less than 200 Hz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUMAISA R BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-0175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am- 5pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/RUMAISA RASHID BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights