DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 12, and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 12/19/25, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellingboe in view of Bilstad have been fully considered. In light of the amendments to the claims, new grounds of rejection have been made as indicated below.
Applicant argues, see page 9, that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to replace Ellingboe’s manual control of the venous line clamp and automated vacuum control with manual control of both, particularly when Ellingboe already provided manual control. However, as discussed below, the system of Bilstad controls the flow through multiple conduits with a single manipulation, thereby automatically coordinating the changes in different conduits with each other using manual control. In the system disclosed by Ellingboe, manual control of the venous line clamp is only coordinated with changes in the reservoir vacuum level by feedback from the sensor system and processor. Modifying the system of Ellingboe with the teaches of Bilstad and Avery simplifies the control of the system by allowing the user to control and coordinate the flow of venous blood and the vacuum level together.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-16, and 18-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellingboe et al. (US 2002/0085952 A1) in view of Bilstad et al. (US 4,425,116 A) and in further view of Avery et al. (WO 2008/079023 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ellingboe discloses a device (Fig. 1, feat. 10; ¶0014, 0032, and 0087) for establishing venous inflow to a blood reservoir (Fig. 2A, feat. 106; ¶0109) of an extracorporeal blood circulation system (¶0014 and 0032) including a venous inflow line from a patient to the blood reservoir (Fig. 2A, feat. 104; ¶0109) and an arterial inflow line extending from the blood reservoir to the patient (Fig. 3A, feat. 122; ¶0150), the device comprising: a restricting unit (Figs. 6A-6E, feat. 46; ¶0109) configured for restricting the venous inflow line (¶0032-0033 and 0110); a vacuum unit (Fig. 11; ¶0142-0144) configured for applying a vacuum to the blood reservoir (¶0143); and a control device (Fig. 1, feat. 50; ¶0183) that includes only one single operating element (Fig. 1, feat. 52; ¶0183 and 0219: knob 52 is turned to control a parameter, and is the only operating element on the user interface) for controlling the restricting unit (¶0219: knob 52 may be turned to control the position of the venous line clamp/restricting unit 46), the single operating element configured to be manipulated in a single manipulation by a user (¶0219: Turning knob 52 is a single manipulation).
Ellingboe discloses that the control device may control the vacuum unit in response to the sensed blood level in the reservoir (¶0144), but does not disclose that the single operating element controls both the restricting unit and the vacuum unit as claimed or that the single manipulation establishes a varying amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir.
Bilstad teaches a flow control system (Col. 1, line 49-65) for controlling the flow through a plurality of collapsible flow conduits (Figs. 1-3, feats. 16, 18, 20, and 22; Col. 3, lines 37-40) using a cam plate (Fig. 1, feat. 32; Col. 3, line 66 – Col. 4, line 6) with a rotational position controlled by a control knob (Figs. 1-2, feat. 47; Col. 4, lines 7-49). When the cams (Figs. 1-3, feat. 38) engage the conduits (16, 18, 20, and 22), they squeeze, or restrict, them between anvils (56) and plungers (57) to compress the conduits and shut off flow (Col. 4, line 50 – Col. 5, line 7). The location of the cams (Fig. 5, feat. 38) on the cam plate (32) determines which flow conduits allow flow, and therefore the rotational position of the control knob simultaneously coordinates and controls the flow through the plurality of collapsible flow conduits (Col. 4, line 43 – Col. 5, line 38). Bilstad teaches that this flow control system advantageously allows for simple manual control and coordination of the fluid flow through multiple, separate, independent fluid flow conduits using a single control (Col. 1, lines 9-16; Col. 1, line 49 – Col. 2, line 16; Col. 6, lines 11-21). By modifying the device of Ellingboe to use the flow control system of Bilstad, the flow through all of the fluid flow lines, including the venous inflow line and vacuum lines, of Ellingboe could be simplified by controlling them with a single manual control. Furthermore, by modifying the device of Ellingboe to use the control system of Bilstad, the amount of flow through the venous line would be controlled simultaneously with amount of vacuum applied by the vacuum unit to the blood reservoir. Furthermore, because the control system of Bilstad employs a manual control knob, it is configured to control the flow through the conduits without the use of any sensors or signals. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Ellingboe so that it uses the control system of Bilstad and the single operating element controls both the restricting unit and the vacuum unit, wherein the control device is configured to control the restricting unit and the vacuum unit without the use of a blood level sensor and blood level signals in order to simplify the operation of the device as taught by controlling and coordinating the flow with a single manual control as taught by Bilstad.
Ellingboe in view of Bilstad does not suggest that the single manipulation establishes a varying amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir.
Avery teaches a flow controller (Figs. 1-7, feat. 1; Page 6, line 26 – Page 7, line 14) comprising a dial (6) which turns a cam (Figs. 3-5, feat. 25; Page 8, lines 18-25), which further controls the motion of a clamp (30; Page 9, lines 10-24) to control and adjust the compression of a tube. This is homologous to the flow controller of Bilstad, which includes a knob (Bilstad: Figs. 1-26 feat. 47) which turns cams (38) to move plungers (57) to compress tubes. The cams of Bilstad have profiles which change sharply (Bilstad: Fig. 5, feat. 38), resulting in sudden adjustments in flow through the tubes. Avery teaches that the engagement surface (Fig. 5, feat. 42) changes continuously with its rotation, which advantageously allows for accurate and continuous flow control through the tube (Page 10, line 31 – Page 11, line 19). By modifying the device suggested by Ellingboe in view of Bilstad so that the cam profile changes continuously as taught by Avery, the device would be able to continuously and accurately adjust the flow rate through the vacuum line, resulting in a single manipulation establishing a varying amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Ellingboe in view of Bilstad so that the single manipulation establishes a varying amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir in order to continuously and accurately adjust the vacuum level as taught by Avery.
Regarding claim 3, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 1, and Ellingboe further discloses a level sensor configured to detect a level of blood in the blood reservoir (Fig. 12, feat. 87; ¶0144).
Regarding claim 4, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 1, and Ellingboe further discloses an inflow amount sensor configured to detect an amount of arterial inflow supplied to the patient (Fig. 3A, feat. 14; ¶0097, 0156, and 0214).
Regarding claim 5, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 1, and Ellingboe further discloses that the control device further comprises a display device (Fig. 1, feats. 54 and 55; ¶0032, 0033, 0218, and 0219) for visual display of a display value corresponding to the venous inflow amount (¶0032, lines 1-8, 25-30).
Regarding claim 6, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 1, and Ellingboe further discloses that the vacuum unit is connected to a vacuum source (Fig. 11, feat. 728; ¶0143) via a line (Fig. 11, feat. 721; ¶0142-0143: vacuum source may be integrated within control unit 10 or be an external source 728 connected via a vacuum line).
Regarding claim 7, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 1, and Ellingboe further discloses that the vacuum unit comprises an integrated vacuum source (¶0142-0143: vacuum source may be integrated within control unit 10 or be an external source 728 connected via a vacuum line).
Regarding claim 8, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 1, and Ellingboe further discloses a vacuum sensor for detecting a vacuum in the blood reservoir (Fig. 11, feat. 725; ¶0143), the vacuum sensor connected to the control device for providing a first measuring signal (¶0143).
Regarding claim 9, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 1, and Ellingboe further discloses a blood pump, disposed along the arterial inflow line (Fig. 3A, feat. 31; ¶0139 and 0140), to which an actuating signal corresponding to a delivery rate of the blood pump established by the user is supplied by the control device to the blood pump (¶0212 and 0213), wherein the delivery rate controls a rate at which blood is pumped from the reservoir to the patient (¶0032, 0139, 0140, 0212, and 0213).
Regarding claim 10, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 1. As discussed above, Ellingboe discloses that the single operating element is a control knob (Fig. 1, feat. 52; ¶0183 and 0219), which has a plurality of operating positions. While Ellingboe does not explicitly compare the venous inflow to the blood reservoir to a basic value established by gravitational conveyance, any value of venous inflow established by the device will be a value at, above, or below a basic value established by gravitational conveyance because “at, above, or below a basic value established by gravitational conveyance” covers all possible values of venous inflow. Therefore, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery further suggests that the single operating element has a plurality of operating positions and the single manipulation established both a degree of restriction of the venous inflow line and an amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir for venous inflow to the blood reservoir at, above, or below a basic value established by gravitational conveyance.
Regarding claim 11, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 10. Ellingboe further discloses that the positions of the operating element, or control knob, (Fig. 1, feat. 52) may correspond to the positions, or degree of restriction, of the restricting unit or venous line clamp (¶0219) and that blood level sensors (Fig. 12, feat. 87) may be used to control the amount of vacuum applied to the reservoir in conjunction with the degree of clamp restriction, among controlling other parameters, in order to transfer fluid back and forth from the patient or maintain a safe reservoir level (¶0144). Therefore, if the control knob is actuated to change the degree of restriction of the venous inflow line, the vacuum level in the reservoir will be changed to transfer fluid back and forth from the patient or maintain a safe reservoir level. Therefore, Ellingboe further discloses that at each operating position of the plurality of operating positions, the control device is configured to supply a different combination of a restricting unit setting that corresponds to the operating position to the restricting unit for establishing the degree of restriction of the venous inflow line to define an extent of restriction of the venous inflow amount to the blood reservoir based on a manipulation of the single operating element in the single manipulation, and a vacuum unit setting that corresponds to the operating position to the vacuum unit for establishing the amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir to define an extent of the increase in the venous inflow amount to the blood reservoir based on the manipulation of the single operating element in the single manipulation.
Regarding claim 12, Ellingboe discloses a device (Fig. 1, feat. 10; ¶0014, 0032, and 0087) for establishing venous inflow to a blood reservoir (Fig. 2A, feat. 106; ¶0109) of an extracorporeal blood circulation system (¶0014 and 0032) including a venous inflow line from a patient to the blood reservoir (Fig. 2A, feat. 104; ¶0109) and an arterial inflow line extending from the blood reservoir to the patient (Fig. 3A, feat. 122; ¶0150), the device comprising: a restricting unit (Figs. 6A-6E, feat. 46; ¶0109) configured for restricting the venous inflow line (¶0032-0033 and 0110); a vacuum unit (Fig. 11; ¶0142-0144) configured for applying a vacuum to the blood reservoir (¶0143); and a control device (Fig. 1, feat. 50; ¶0183) that includes only one single operating element (Fig. 1, feat. 52; ¶0183 and 0219: knob 52 is turned to control a parameter, and is the only operating element on the user interface) for controlling the restricting unit (¶0219: knob 52 may be turned to control the position of the venous line clamp/restricting unit 46), the single operating element configured to be manipulated in a single manipulation by a user (¶0219: Turning knob 52 is a single manipulation), and an inflow amount sensor configured to detect an amount of arterial inflow supplied to the patient (Fig. 3A, feat. 14; ¶0097, 0156, and 0214).
Ellingboe discloses that the control device may control the vacuum unit in response to the sensed blood level in the reservoir (¶0144), but does not disclose that the single operating element controls both the restricting unit and the vacuum unit as claimed or that the single manipulation establishes a varying amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir.
Bilstad teaches a flow control system (Col. 1, line 49-65) for controlling the flow through a plurality of collapsible flow conduits (Figs. 1-3, feats. 16, 18, 20, and 22; Col. 3, lines 37-40) using a cam plate (Fig. 1, feat. 32; Col. 3, line 66 – Col. 4, line 6) with a rotational position controlled by a control knob (Figs. 1-2, feat. 47; Col. 4, lines 7-49). When the cams (Figs. 1-3, feat. 38) engage the conduits (16, 18, 20, and 22), they squeeze, or restrict, them against anvils (56) to compress the conduits and shut off flow (Col. 4, line 50 – Col. 5, line 7). The location of the cams (Fig. 5, feat. 38) on the cam plate (32) determines which flow conduits allow flow, and therefore the rotational position of the control knob simultaneously controls and coordinates the flow through the plurality of collapsible flow conduits (Col. 4, line 43 – Col. 5, line 38). Bilstad teaches that this flow control system advantageously allows for simple manual control and coordination of the fluid flow through multiple, separate, independent fluid flow conduits using a single control (Col. 1, lines 9-16; Col. 1, line 49 – Col. 2, line 16; Col. 6, lines 11-21). By modifying the device of Ellingboe to use the flow control system of Bilstad, the flow through all of the fluid flow lines, including the venous inflow line and vacuum lines, of Ellingboe could be simplified by controlling them with a single manual control. Furthermore, by modifying the device of Ellingboe to use the control system of Bilstad, the amount of flow through the venous line would be controlled simultaneously with amount of vacuum applied by the vacuum unit to the blood reservoir. Furthermore, because the control system of Bilstad employs a manual control knob, it is configured to control the flow through the conduits without the use of any sensors or signals. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Ellingboe so that it uses the control system of Bilstad and the single operating element controls both the restricting unit and the vacuum unit, wherein the control device is configured to control the restricting unit and the vacuum unit without the use of a blood level sensor and blood level signals in order to simplify the operation of the device as taught by controlling and coordinating the flow with a single manual control as taught by Bilstad.
Ellingboe in view of Bilstad does not suggest that the single manipulation establishes a varying amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir.
Avery teaches a flow controller (Figs. 1-7, feat. 1; Page 6, line 26 – Page 7, line 14) comprising a dial (6) which turns a cam (Figs. 3-5, feat. 25; Page 8, lines 18-25), which further controls the motion of a clamp (30; Page 9, lines 10-24) to control and adjust the compression of a tube. This is homologous to the flow controller of Bilstad, which includes a knob (Bilstad: Figs. 1-26 feat. 47) which turns cams (38) to move plungers (57) to compress tubes. The cams of Bilstad have profiles which change sharply (Bilstad: Fig. 5, feat. 38), resulting in sudden adjustments in flow through the tubes. Avery teaches that the engagement surface (Fig. 5, feat. 42) changes continuously with its rotation, which advantageously allows for accurate and continuous flow control through the tube (Page 10, line 31 – Page 11, line 19). By modifying the device suggested by Ellingboe in view of Bilstad so that the cam profile changes continuously as taught by Avery, the device would be able to continuously and accurately adjust the flow rate through the vacuum line, resulting in a single manipulation establishing a varying amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Ellingboe in view of Bilstad so that the single manipulation establishes a varying amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir in order to continuously and accurately adjust the vacuum level as taught by Avery.
Regarding claim 13, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 12, and Ellingboe further discloses a blood pump, disposed along the arterial inflow line (Fig. 3A, feat. 31; ¶0139 and 0140), to which an actuating signal corresponding to a delivery rate of the blood pump established by the user is supplied by the control device to the blood pump (¶0212 and 0213), wherein the delivery rate controls a rate at which blood is pumped from the reservoir to the patient (¶0032, 0139, 0140, 0212, and 0213).
Regarding claim 14, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 12, and Ellingboe further discloses that the control device further comprises a display device (Fig. 1, feats. 54 and 55; ¶0032, 0033, 0218, and 0219) for visual display of a display value corresponding to the venous inflow amount (¶0032, lines 1-8, 25-30).
Regarding claim 15, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 12, and Ellingboe further discloses that the vacuum unit comprises an integrated vacuum source (¶0142-0143: vacuum source may be integrated within control unit 10 or be an external source 728 connected via a vacuum line).
Regarding claim 16, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 12, and Ellingboe further discloses a vacuum sensor for detecting a vacuum in the blood reservoir (Fig. 11, feat. 725; ¶0143), the vacuum sensor connected to the control device for providing a first measuring signal (¶0143).
Regarding claim 18, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 12, and Ellingboe further discloses a level sensor configured to detect a level of blood in the blood reservoir (Fig. 12, feat. 87; ¶0144).
Regarding claim 19, Ellingboe in view of Bilstad and in further view of Avery suggests the device of claim 12, and Ellingboe further discloses that the vacuum unit further comprises a safety device (Fig. 11, feats. 723, 724, and 727; ¶0143) configured such that, upon actuation by the control device (¶0469) or upon failure of the control device, an application of a vacuum to the blood reservoir is interrupted which establishes atmospheric pressure in the blood reservoir (¶0469).
Regarding claim 20, Ellingboe discloses a device (Fig. 1, feat. 10; ¶0014, 0032, and 0087) for establishing venous inflow to a blood reservoir (Fig. 2A, feat. 106; ¶0109) of an extracorporeal blood circulation system (¶0014 and 0032) including a venous inflow line from a patient to the blood reservoir (Fig. 2A, feat. 104; ¶0109) and an arterial inflow line extending from the blood reservoir to the patient (Fig. 3A, feat. 122; ¶0150), the device comprising: a restricting unit (Figs. 6A-6E, feat. 46; ¶0109) configured for restricting the venous inflow line (¶0032-0033 and 0110); a vacuum unit (Fig. 11; ¶0142-0144) configured for applying a vacuum to the blood reservoir (¶0143); and a control device (Fig. 1, feat. 50; ¶0183) that includes only one single operating element (Fig. 1, feat. 52; ¶0183 and 0219: knob 52 is turned to control a parameter, and is the only operating element on the user interface) for controlling the restricting unit (¶0219: knob 52 may be turned to control the position of the venous line clamp/restricting unit 46), the single operating element configured to be manipulated in a single manipulation by a user (¶0219: Turning knob 52 is a single manipulation), and a safety device (Fig. 11, feats. 723, 724, and 727; ¶0143) configured such that, upon actuation by the control device (¶0469) or upon failure of the control device, an application of a vacuum to the blood reservoir is interrupted which establishes atmospheric pressure in the blood reservoir (¶0469).
Ellingboe discloses that the control device may control the vacuum unit in response to the sensed blood level in the reservoir (¶0144), but does not disclose that the single operating element controls both the restricting unit and the vacuum unit as claimed or that the single manipulation establishes a varying amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir.
Bilstad teaches a flow control system (Col. 1, line 49-65) for controlling the flow through a plurality of collapsible flow conduits (Figs. 1-3, feats. 16, 18, 20, and 22; Col. 3, lines 37-40) using a cam plate (Fig. 1, feat. 32; Col. 3, line 66 – Col. 4, line 6) with a rotational position controlled by a control knob (Figs. 1-2, feat. 47; Col. 4, lines 7-49). When the cams (Figs. 1-3, feat. 38) engage the conduits (16, 18, 20, and 22), they squeeze, or restrict, them against anvils (56) to compress the conduits and shut off flow (Col. 4, line 50 – Col. 5, line 7). The location of the cams (Fig. 5, feat. 38) on the cam plate (32) determines which flow conduits allow flow, and therefore the rotational position of the control knob simultaneously controls the flow through the plurality of collapsible flow conduits (Col. 4, line 43 – Col. 5, line 38). Bilstad teaches that this flow control system advantageously allows for simple manual control of the fluid flow through multiple, separate, independent fluid flow conduits using a single control (Col. 1, lines 9-16; Col. 1, line 49 – Col. 2, line 16; Col. 6, lines 11-21). By modifying the device of Ellingboe to use the flow control system of Bilstad, the flow through all of the fluid flow lines, including the venous inflow line and vacuum lines, of Ellingboe could be simplified by controlling them with a single manual control. Furthermore, by modifying the device of Ellingboe to use the control system of Bilstad, the amount of flow through the venous line would be controlled simultaneously with amount of vacuum applied by the vacuum unit to the blood reservoir, because shutting down flow in the vacuum line would prevent the vacuum unit from applying any negative pressure to the reservoir. Furthermore, because the control system of Bilstad employs a manual control knob, it is configured to control the flow through the conduits without the use of any sensors or signals. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Ellingboe so that it uses the control system of Bilstad and the single operating element controls both the restricting unit and the vacuum unit, wherein the control device is configured to control the restricting unit and the vacuum unit without the use of a blood level sensor and blood level signals in order to simplify the operation of the device as taught by controlling and coordinating the flow with a single manual control as taught by Bilstad.
Ellingboe in view of Bilstad does not suggest that the single manipulation establishes a varying amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir.
Avery teaches a flow controller (Figs. 1-7, feat. 1; Page 6, line 26 – Page 7, line 14) comprising a dial (6) which turns a cam (Figs. 3-5, feat. 25; Page 8, lines 18-25), which further controls the motion of a clamp (30; Page 9, lines 10-24) to control and adjust the compression of a tube. This is homologous to the flow controller of Bilstad, which includes a knob (Bilstad: Figs. 1-26 feat. 47) which turns cams (38) to move plungers (57) to compress tubes. The cams of Bilstad have profiles which change sharply (Bilstad: Fig. 5, feat. 38), resulting in sudden adjustments in flow through the tubes. Avery teaches that the engagement surface (Fig. 5, feat. 42) changes continuously with its rotation, which advantageously allows for accurate and continuous flow control through the tube (Page 10, line 31 – Page 11, line 19). By modifying the device suggested by Ellingboe in view of Bilstad so that the cam profile changes continuously as taught by Avery, the device would be able to continuously and accurately adjust the flow rate through the vacuum line, resulting in a single manipulation establishing a varying amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device suggested by Ellingboe in view of Bilstad so that the single manipulation establishes a varying amount of vacuum in the blood reservoir in order to continuously and accurately adjust the vacuum level as taught by Avery.
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 ARJUNA P CHATRATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-8063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 5712727159. 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.
/ARJUNA P CHATRATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781