Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - Reissue Declaration
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 251:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
The previous rejection of claims 1-11, 13-15, 21-26 as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above has been withdrawn in light of the new Declaration by the Inventor filed 06/11/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 06/11/2026 has been initialed, signed and dated. All references listed thereon have been reviewed.
Application Data Sheet (ADS)
A corrected ADS was filed on 06/11/2026. The Domestic Benefit section of the corrected ADS should have the entire benefit section underlined since the original ADS (11/01/2026) did not contain any benefit listings. Any correct ADS is marked with respect to the original ADS and not the filing receipt. A new corrected ADS should be filed with each benefit claim underlined in its entirety since none of the domestic benefit claims were included in the original ADS (11/01/2026). It is noted that the listing of application 17126423 being a continuation in part of 16130953 on the corrected ADS filed 06/11/2026 is incorrect since 17126423 is not a direct CIP of 16130953. Instead, 17126423 is a CIP of 16445960 which is a CIP of 16130953.
Additionally, the filing receipt (12/04/2023) is incorrect with the omission of 16/183,670 being a CIP of 16/130,953. The submission of a corrected ADS with a complete domestic benefit section entirely underlined should be filed with a request for corrected filing receipt with a marked up copy of the original filing receipt adding 16/183,670 being a CIP of 16/130,953 underlined on the marked up filing receipt to show it needs to be added.
Claim Objections
The previous objection of claim 26 is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claim filed 06/11/2026.
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 previous rejection of claims 1-6 and 24-26 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 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed 06/11/2026.
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, 4-8, 13-15, 211 and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)] as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 5,582,579 to Chism et al. (“Chism”).
Regarding claim 1, Chism discloses portable lower limb therapy device (see Technical Field), comprising: a support base (at least elements 28-29, 26 and 12) having an exterior surface and an interior surface (inner sole 26), wherein the interior surface is configured to receive a foot of a user (see col. 4, ll. 16-18, “In use, a wearer's foot is inserted through open portion 18, such that the wearer's heel fits against the lower heel 22 and sole 26”) and the exterior surface includes a bottom portion (29); a closed force transfer system (55, see Fig. 2) integral (see col. 4, ll. 41-44, “A pair of spaced foot support straps 56 connects ends 57 and 58, and preferably, are sewn or otherwise attached about the outer periphery of the open toe portion 16 of boot 12.”) with the support base, wherein the closed force transfer system includes at least one discrete cord member (40/70) having a front end (O-ring, see annotated Fig. 2) and an opposing handle end (45) (see Fig. 2); wherein the at least one discrete cord member (40/70) is coupled (via buckle/clip 72) with the support base (at least elements 28-29, 26 and 12) without connecting to the bottom portion (29);
PNG
media_image1.png
722
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and wherein the closed force transfer system is operative to allow force exerted through the at least one discrete cord member to be transferred to the support base (col. 5, ll. 50-51, “When the patient achieves full unassisted flexion, the flexion straps 40 and 70 are utilized to gently flex the joint beyond that point.”).
Regarding claim 4, Chism discloses the portable lower limb therapy device of claim 1 and also teaches wherein said interior surface comprises a resilient pad member (26).
Regarding claim 5, Chism discloses the portable lower limb therapy device of claim 1 and also teaches wherein the at least one discrete cord member has a modulus of elasticity which enables the at least one discrete cord member to provide resistance of a predetermined weight. This limitation is considered inherent to any material used to fabricate the cords since they function to keep the foot in maximum flexion beyond full unassisted flexion. See col. 5, ll. 50+.
Regarding claim 6, Chism discloses the portable lower limb therapy device of claim 1 and also teaches at least one handle member (49) attached to the handle end (45) of the at least one discrete cord member (40/70).
Regarding claim 24, Chism discloses the portable lower limb therapy device of claim 1 and also teaches that the attachment member is defined by a clip (72).
Regarding claim 25, Chism discloses the portable lower limb therapy device of claim 5 and also teaches that the cord member is defined by a resistance band. The cord is inherently considered a resistance band since it maintains the foot in the maximum amount of flexion. See col. 5, ll. 50-51, “When the patient achieves full unassisted flexion, the flexion straps 40 and 70 are utilized to gently flex the joint beyond that point. When the maximum amount of flexion has been reached with the assistance of the flexion straps, the patient is instructed to maintain that flexion for a predetermined amount of time (e.g., 30 seconds).”
Regarding claim 26, see Fig. 2 for both right and left side attachment members and cords.
Regarding claim 7, Chism discloses portable lower limb therapy device (see Technical Field), comprising: a support base (at least elements 28-29, 26 and 12) having an exterior surface and an interior surface (inner sole 26), wherein the interior surface is configured to receive a foot of a user (see col. 4, ll. 16-18, “In use, a wearer's foot is inserted through open portion 18, such that the wearer's heel fits against the lower heel 22 and sole 26”) and the exterior surface includes at least one smooth surface (29) which enables the support base to slide on a discrete surface that is also smooth (see col. 6, ll. 4-11, “It may also be preferred to provide the bottom surface of outer sole 28 and the rear exterior of heel portion 14 with a slide and/or wear surface (e.g., as shown at 29) to facilitate and withstand repeated sliding motion of the user's heel along a surface (e.g., table, floor or bed) on which the user is lying. Slide surface 29 might be provided in the form of a slick coating of wear resistant plastic, nylon material, or the like.”); wherein the support base includes a bottom portion (29), a proximal edge, a distal edge as well as a right and a left side (see Fig. 2); a closed force transfer system (55, see Fig. 2) integral (see col. 4, ll. 41-44, “A pair of spaced foot support straps 56 connects ends 57 and 58, and preferably, are sewn or otherwise attached about the outer periphery of the open toe portion 16 of boot 12.”) with the support base, wherein the closed force transfer system includes a plurality of connection members (60/61) each having a back end (72) and at least one discrete cord member (40/70) having a front end (O-ring, see annotated Fig. 2) and an opposing handle end (45) (see Fig. 2); wherein the at least one connector member (60/61/72) is integral with the support base (straps 56 being sewn to the boot 12 make the connector member integral with the support base, see col. 4, ll. 41-44) at both a location adjacent
PNG
media_image2.png
714
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
to the proximal edge and a location adjacent to the distal edge but not a location which contacts the bottom portion (29) with the back end positioned closer to the location adjacent to the distal edge (see Fig. 2); wherein the front end (O-ring, see annotated Fig. 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
722
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
of the at least one discrete cord member is selectively coupled with the back end (72) of the connector member (60/61); and wherein the closed force transfer system is operative to allow force exerted through the at least one discrete cord member to be transferred to the support base (col. 5, ll. 50-51, “When the patient achieves full unassisted flexion, the flexion straps 40 and 70 are utilized to gently flex the joint beyond that point.”).
Regarding the claim limitation of the plurality of connector members being integral with the support base at both a location adjacent to the proximal edge and a location adjacent to the distal edge with the back end position closer to the location adjacent the distal edge, see annotated Fig. 2, above.
Regarding claim 8, Chism discloses the portable lower limb therapy device of claim 7 and also teaches wherein a first connector member among the plurality of connector members is positioned adjacent to the right side of the support base and a second connector member among the plurality of connector members is positioned adjacent to the left side of the support base. See Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 13, Chism discloses the portable lower limb therapy device of claim 1 and also teaches wherein said interior surface comprises a resilient pad member (26).
Regarding claim 14, Chism discloses the portable lower limb therapy device of claim 1 and also teaches wherein the at least one connector member has a higher modulus of elasticity than the at least one discrete cord member. This limitation is considered inherent to any material used to fabricate the flexible cords versus the stiff material of the connector members (72).
Regarding claim 15, Chism discloses the portable lower limb therapy device of claim 1 and also teaches at least one handle member (49) attached to the handle end (45) of the at least one discrete cord member (40/70).
Regarding claim 21, Chism discloses portable lower limb therapy device (see Technical Field), comprising: a support base (at least elements 28, 26 and 12) having an exterior surface and an interior surface (inner sole 26), wherein the interior surface is operative to receive a foot of a user (see col. 4, ll. 16-18, “In use, a wearer's foot is inserted through open portion 18, such that the wearer's heel fits against the lower heel 22 and sole 26”) and the exterior surface includes a bottom portion (29); wherein the support base includes a proximal edge, a distal edge as well as a right and a left side (see Fig. 2); a closed force transfer system (55, see Fig. 2) integral (see col. 4, ll. 41-44, “A pair of spaced foot support straps 56 connects ends 57 and 58, and preferably, are sewn or otherwise attached about the outer periphery of the open toe portion 16 of boot 12.”) with the support base, wherein the closed force transfer system includes a cord member (70/55/40) extending from a first discrete handle on a right side of the portable lower limb therapy device to the right side of the portable lower limb therapy device to a left side of the portable lower limb therapy device and to a second discrete handle on the left side. See the combination of Figs. 1 and 2. As shown in the figures the cord (40 and 70) extends away from both the left and right sides of the device and never connecting to the bottom portion (29).
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 15, 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)] as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2015/0343261 to Liptack (“Liptack”).
Regarding claims 1, Liptack discloses portable lower limb therapy device (see Title of Invention and Figs. 6a and 6b), comprising: a support base (see Fig. 5, specifically, platform supporting the outlined shoe) having an exterior surface (any surface outside the outlined shoe) and an interior surface (any surface in Fig. 5 that would come in contact with the outlined shoe), wherein the interior surface is configured to receive a foot of a user (see Fig. 5 and outline of shoe) and the exterior surface includes a bottom portion (24/26); a closed force transfer system (80) integral with the support base (see Fig. 5), wherein the closed force transfer system includes at least one discrete cord member (86/89) having a front end (see Fig. 6b attached to 87) and an opposing handle end (see handle in Fig. 6b); wherein the at least one discrete cord member is coupled (at 87) with the support base (see Fig. 6b) without connecting to the bottom portion (24/26); and wherein the closed force transfer system is operative to allow force exerted through the at least one discrete cord member to be transferred to the support base (see paras. [0070-0071], “as shown in FIG. 6a user (83) can grasp the cord (86) and assist in pushing the arrangement during the extended or forward circumferential range of motion as illustrated through the use of arrow (88). In FIG. 6b the cord (89) could be attached to the rear (87) of the main housing (84) and once again the user (83) could engage the cord (89) and assist in the movement of the motion of the leg shown by way of arrow (90).”)
Regarding claim 6, Liptack discloses the portable lower limb therapy device of claim 1 and also teaches at least one handle member (see Fig. 6b) attached to the handle end of the at least one discrete cord member (89).
Regarding claim 24, Liptack discloses the portable lower limb therapy device of claim 1 and also teaches that the attachment member is defined by a clip (76/78).
PNG
media_image3.png
316
629
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Liptack discloses portable lower limb therapy device (see Title of Invention and Figs. 6a and 6b), comprising: a support base (see Fig. 5, specifically, platform supporting the outlined shoe) having an exterior surface (any surface outside the outlined shoe) and an interior surface (any surface in Fig. 5 that would come in contact with the outlined shoe), wherein the interior surface is configured to receive a foot of a user (see Fig. 5 and outline of shoe) and the exterior surface includes at least one smooth surface (wheels 28) which enables the support base to slide on a discrete surface that is also smooth (see mat 64); wherein the support base includes a bottom portion (24/26), a proximal edge, a distal edge as well as a right and a left side (see Fig. 1); a closed force transfer system (80) integral (via attachment to clips 76/78) with the support base, wherein the closed force transfer system includes a plurality of connection members (86/89) each having a back end (at handle) and at least one discrete cord member (86/89) having a front end (connected to clips 76/78) and an opposing handle end (see handles in Figs. 6a-6b); wherein the at least one connector member (clips 76/78) is integral with the support base (see Fig. 1) at both a location adjacent to the proximal edge and a location adjacent to the distal edge but not a location which contacts the bottom portion (24/26) with the back end positioned closer to the location adjacent to the distal edge (see Fig. 6a); wherein the front end of the at least one discrete cord member is selectively coupled with the back end of the connector member (86/89); and wherein the closed force transfer system is operative to allow force exerted through the at least one discrete cord member to be transferred to the support base (see paras. [0070-0071], “as shown in FIG. 6a user (83) can grasp the cord (86) and assist in pushing the arrangement during the extended or forward circumferential range of motion as illustrated through the use of arrow (88). In FIG. 6b the cord (89) could be attached to the rear (87) of the main housing (84) and once again the user (83) could engage the cord (89) and assist in the movement of the motion of the leg shown by way of arrow (90).”).
Regarding the claim limitation of the plurality of connector members being integral with the support base at both a location adjacent to the proximal edge and a location adjacent to the distal edge with the back end position closer to the location adjacent the distal edge, see Liptack Fig. 6a.
Regarding claim 15, Liptack discloses the portable lower limb therapy device of claim 1 and also teaches at least one handle member (see Figs. 6a and 6b) attached to the handle end of the at least one discrete cord member (86/89).
Regarding claim 21, Liptack discloses portable lower limb therapy device (see Title of Invention and Figs. 6a and 6b), comprising: a support base (see Fig. 5, specifically, platform supporting the outlined shoe) having an exterior surface (any surface outside the outlined shoe) and an interior surface (any surface in Fig. 5 that would come in contact with the outlined shoe), wherein the interior surface is configured to receive a foot of a user (see Fig. 5 and outline of shoe) and the exterior surface includes a bottom portion (24/26); wherein the support base includes a right and a left side (see Fig. 1); a closed force transfer system (80) integral (via attachment to clips 76/78) with the support base, wherein the closed force transfer system includes a cord member (86/89) extending from a first discrete handle on a right side to to a second handle on the left side. See Fig. 6a. As shown in the figures the cord (86) extends away from both the left and right sides of the device and does not connect to the bottom portion (24/26).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liptack in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0296420 to Andrews (“Andrews”).
Liptack meets the portable lower limb therapy device of claims 1 and 7 above, but fails to teach a wearable anchor configured to be secured to a body of a user and having at least one support member and at least one locking component, wherein said at least one support member includes a top surface and a bottom surface and is configured to be placed against the body of the user with the bottom surface contacting the body of the user; and wherein said locking component is configured to receive and selectively secure the at least one discrete cord member (claims 2 and 11); and wherein the locking component is defined by a pair of slot members that each extend up vertically from the top surface (claim 3).
However, Andrews teaches a wearable anchor (110/410/510) configured to be secured to a body of a user (see Figs. 7a-17B) and having at least one support member (110/410/510) and at least one locking component (569 in Fig. 5), wherein said at least one support member includes a top surface (outside surface of 110/410/510) and a bottom surface and is configured to be placed against the body of the user with the bottom surface contacting the body of the user (inside surface of 110/410/510); and wherein said locking component (569 in Fig. 5) is configured to receive and selectively secure the at least one discrete cord member (via hooks 568); and wherein the locking component is defined by a pair of slot members that each extend up vertically from the top surface (see loops of 569 which define a slot for the hook 568; the loops extend up vertically from the top/outside surface of the support member 510).
Furthermore, Andrews discusses the disadvantages of devices that do not utilize an anchor in para. [0003], stating “Past devices for leg stretching include simple bands or belts which are looped around the foot of the user. The user subsequently holds a length of belt in each hand and pulls the belt towards themselves in order to initiate a stretch of a leg muscle. However, due to the opposed forces applied to the belt applied via the arms of the user the shoulders and upper spine typically roll forward, creating an unwanted bend in the upper spine as well as placing unnecessary stress on the lower back. Such devices typically do not cater for users of differing height, girth and/or flexibility, and can thus inappropriately pre-tension the user's muscles or misplace the user's limbs prior to use or when finishing use.”
Therefore, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize an anchor as taught by Andrews in the invention of Liptack. Both devices are analogous in leg stretching and/or exercising; therefore, a combination is proper. Additionally, the motivation for the incorporation is provided by Andrews which teaches that the addition of the anchor provides a way to lower stress on other parts of the body when stretching the legs, see disclosure above.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chism in view of US Pat. No. 9,186,536 to Strachan (“Strachan”).
Chism meets the portable lower limb therapy device of claims 8 and 21 above, but fails to teach wherein the closed force transfer system includes a cross member positioned above the support base at a cross location between the proximal edge and the distal edge (claim 9); the cross member is integral with both the first connector member and the second connector member (claim 10); wherein the closed force transfer system includes a cross member positioned between the proximal edge and the distal edge, with the cord member passing through the cross member in order to extend from the right side of the portable lower limb therapy device to the left side (claim 22); and wherein the cross member is positioned above the support base (claim 23).
Strachan teaches such a configuration. See Fig. 8. As stated by Strachan in col. 5, ll. 28-51, “As such, the second support member 40 is shaped and dimensioned to fit about the forefoot of the user. With this mind, and to ensure a snug fit at the forefoot of a user, the second support member 40 is provided with first and second eyelets 74, 76 on opposite first and second lateral sides 60, 62 thereof allowing the second support member 40 to be wrapped about the forefoot of the user. In particular, and as will be discussed below in greater detail, a resilient strap is run through the first and second eyelets 74, 76 connecting the first and second lateral sides 60, 62 of the second support member 40. When the resilient strap is secured to the belt 12 as discussed herein, the first and second lateral sides 60, 62 of the second support member 40 are pulled together with the forefoot of the user secured in the loop defined by the second support member 40. It is appreciated this configuration allows for the second support member 40 to accommodate various foot sizes. It is appreciated it may be desirable to space the first lateral side 60 from the second lateral side 62 when the resilient strap is pulled drawing the first lateral side 60 toward the second lateral side 62. Where this is desired a rigid spacer cylinder may be positioned over the resilient strap in the area between the first eyelet 74 of the first lateral side 60 and the second eyelet 76 of the second lateral side 62.”
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious by one skilled in the art to incorporate this structure of Strachan into the invention of Chism. Both devices are analogous in the art of rehab/training devices; therefore, a combination is proper. Additionally, one would have been motivated to make this incorporation in order to “to ensure a snug fit at the forefoot of a user” as taught by Strachan above. One would also expect predictable results the in combination continuing to function as disclosed in Chism.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to require that the “claimed cord member to not connect to the bottom of Applicant’s claimed support base.” However, this claim amendment is broad and Chism teaches this limitation since the term bottom, by itself without further limitations, is met by feature 29 in Chism which does not connect to the cord member. See rejection above.
Applicant also argues that Stachan cannot make up for the deficiency as noted above in Chism. However, Stachan is not relied upon to teach any limitations in claims 1, 7 and 21.
Further, Applicant argues “[n]either of these devices teach the use of a cord that is connected in multiple places;” however, applicant is arguing that which is not claimed. None of the claim limitations require that the cord be connected in multiple places.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 2-3 and 11 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Liptack in view of Andrews in the IDS filed 06/11/2026. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) are provided above.
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.
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 06/11/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. See the rejection of the claims by Liptack and over Liptack in view of Andrews above.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 CATHERINE SERKE WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-4970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday core hours 8am-4pm 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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/CATHERINE S WILLIAMS/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
CONFEREES:/WILLIAM C DOERRLER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/ SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 Claim 21 was included in the body of the rejection in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/11/2026 on page 12; however, the claim was inadvertently omitted from the first sentence of the rejection. Claim 21 is now being listed in the first line of the rejection to correct the inadvertent omission in the previous Non-Final Office Action.
Prosecution Insights