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 . 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 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.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 04/29/2026 (“Amendment”).
Claims 17 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to the nonelected specie i. (Fig. 7), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/07/2026, but this requirement was made FINAL in the response of 01/29/2026.
Accordingly, claims 14-16, 18-24, and 26-33 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 14, 17-19, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, and 30.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sensor implant device” in claims 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29-31, and 33, and “anchoring features” in claims 14, 18-21, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 32, and 33.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (e.g. for “sensor implant device,” as shown in Fig. 8B; for “anchoring features,” as shown in Fig. 8B).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 14-16, 18-20, and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2014/0213916 (“Doan”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2002/0077555 (“Schwartz”) and US Patent Application Publication 2007/0021665 (“Hettrick”).
Regarding claim 14, Doan teaches [a] method comprising: percutaneously delivering a sensor implant device within a catheter to a tissue wall (Figs. 22A-22D and/or 23A-23G, delivering sensor device 100 within a sheath 2204 to wall 110), the sensor implant device comprising one or more anchoring features held in a compressed form by the catheter (Figs. 22A and 23A, anchoring element 104); piercing the tissue wall to embed at least a portion of the sensor implant device … at least partially within the tissue wall (as shown in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 22D, 23G, 24, etc. – also see ¶ 0105, a passage formed in a septal wall of the heart by a needle, ¶ 0137, etc.); and removing the sensor implant device from the catheter, wherein the one or more anchoring features are configured to assume an expanded form following removal from the catheter (Figs. 22B-22D and 23B-23G) … .
Doan does not appear to explicitly teach embedding the one or more anchoring features at least partially within/into the tissue wall.
Schwartz teaches a sensor implant device comprising a pointed tip configured to pierce a tissue wall, as well as anchoring features configured to embed within/into the wall (Fig. 4, ¶ 0074, piercing tip 55 and tissue barbs 59).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sensor implant device of Doan with a pointed tip and barbs, as in Schwartz, for the purpose of simplifying the components of the delivery/retrieval system by e.g. eliminating the need for dilator 2116 and needle 2120 (Doan: ¶ 0131, Figs. 21A-21C), for the purpose of firmly anchoring the sensor (Schwartz: ¶ 0074), and as the simple substitution of one sensor delivery method for another with predictable results (Schwartz: Fig. 4, ¶¶s 0073, 0074, etc.).
Based on the combination, the one or more anchoring features (i.e., the barbs of Schwartz) are no longer held in a compressed form by the catheter (although biasing in an expanded form is still contemplated - Doan: ¶¶s 0139 (elastically rebounding), 0146, 0087, etc.; Schwartz: biasing towards a deployed configuration - Fig. 13B, ¶ 0123 – also see ¶ 0121 and Fig. 12A, showing the deployed position).
Hettrick teaches a barbed anchoring feature that is movable between expanded and retracted positions (Fig. 6B, ¶ 0029, tine 220b pivots to extend or retract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the barbs of the combination movable as in Hettrick, for the purpose of making forward movement easier, as well as enabling selective retraction (Hettrick: ¶ 0029). It would have been obvious to bias the barbs in the expanded form, for the purpose of making implantation/anchoring easier (Doan: ¶¶s 0139, 0146, 0087, etc.; Schwartz: ¶¶s 0123, 0121, etc.). Thus, the anchors are held in a compressed form by the catheter.
Regarding claim 15, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick teaches all the features with respect to claim 14, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick further teaches wherein the catheter comprises a pointed tip, and piercing the tissue wall is performed using the pointed tip of the catheter (Schwartz teaches using a needle catheter with a pointed tip to create an opening in a heart wall, and then introducing a sensor through the opening (¶ 0111). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the catheter of Doan have a pointed piercing tip, as in Schwartz, for the purpose of simplifying the components of the delivery/retrieval system by e.g. eliminating the need for dilator 2116 and needle 2120 (Doan: ¶ 0131, Figs. 21A-21C), and as the simple substitution of one sensor delivery method for another with predictable results (Schwartz: ¶ 0111, anchoring of the sensor device at the target location)).
Regarding claim 16, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick teaches all the features with respect to claim 14, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick further teaches wherein the sensor implant device comprises a pointed tip, and wherein piercing the tissue wall is performed using the pointed tip of the sensor implant device (Schwartz: Fig. 4, ¶ 0074, piercing tip 55).
Regarding claim 18, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick teaches all the features with respect to claim 14, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick further teaches wherein the sensor implant device comprises one or more receptors forming indentations in a surface of the sensor implant device, and wherein the one or more anchoring features are sized to fit within the one or more receptors in the compressed form (Hettrick teaches a barbed anchoring feature that is positioned to lay against a surface of its carrier (in e.g. a receptor that forms an indentation) in the compressed form (Fig. 6B, ¶ 0029, tine 220b could be fully retracted within prong 200’).
Regarding claim 19, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick teaches all the features with respect to claim 14, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick further at least partially retracting the sensor implant device while embedded within the tissue wall to drive the one or more anchoring features into the tissue wall (Schwartz: Fig. 4, based on the shape of the barbs; Hettrick: ¶ 0029, pulling backwards).
Regarding claim 20, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick teaches all the features with respect to claim 14, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick further teaches wherein the one or more anchoring features are biased in the expanded form (as above).
Regarding claim 29, Doan teaches [a] method of anchoring a sensor implant device within a tissue wall, the method comprising: percutaneously delivering a sensor implant device to a tissue wall (Figs. 22A-22D and/or 23A-23G, delivering sensor device 100 within a sheath 2204 to wall 110), the sensor implant device comprising a sensor component (e.g. Fig. 22A, sensor 102) and one or more anchoring features that flexibly move between a compressed form and an expanded form (Figs. 22A-22D and/or 23A-23G, anchoring element 104)); and piercing the tissue wall to embed at least a portion of the sensor implant device … at least partially within the tissue wall (as shown in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 22D, 23G, 24, etc. – also see ¶ 0105, a passage formed in a septal wall of the heart by a needle, ¶ 0137, etc.), wherein the one or more anchoring features are biased to assume the expanded form within the tissue wall to … anchor the sensor implant device to the tissue wall (Figs. 22B-22D and 23B-23G).
Doan does not appear to explicitly teach embedding the one or more anchoring features at least partially within/in the tissue wall.
Schwartz teaches a sensor implant device comprising a pointed tip configured to pierce a tissue wall, as well as anchoring features configured to embed within/into the wall (Fig. 4, ¶ 0074, piercing tip 55 and tissue barbs 59).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sensor implant device of Doan with a pointed tip and barbs, as in Schwartz, for the purpose of simplifying the components of the delivery/retrieval system by e.g. eliminating the need for dilator 2116 and needle 2120 (Doan: ¶ 0131, Figs. 21A-21C), for the purpose of firmly anchoring the sensor (Schwartz: ¶ 0074), and as the simple substitution of one sensor delivery method for another with predictable results (Schwartz: Fig. 4, ¶¶s 0073, 0074, etc.).
Based on the combination, the one or more anchoring features (i.e., the barbs of Schwartz) no longer flexibly move between a compressed form and an expanded form (although biasing in an expanded form is still contemplated - Doan: ¶¶s 0139 (elastically rebounding), 0146, 0087, etc.; Schwartz: biasing towards a deployed configuration - Fig. 13B, ¶ 0123 – also see ¶ 0121 and Fig. 12A, showing the deployed position).
Hettrick teaches a barbed anchoring feature that is movable between expanded and retracted positions (Fig. 6B, ¶ 0029, tine 220b pivots to extend or retract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the barbs of the combination movable as in Hettrick, for the purpose of making forward movement easier, as well as enabling selective retraction (Hettrick: ¶ 0029). It would have been obvious to bias the barbs in the expanded form, for the purpose of making implantation/anchoring easier (Doan: ¶¶s 0139, 0146, 0087, etc.; Schwartz: ¶¶s 0123, 0121, etc.). Thus, the anchors flexibly move between the expanded and compressed forms.
Regarding claim 30, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick teaches all the features with respect to claim 29, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick further teaches wherein the sensor implant device comprises one or more receptors forming indentations into a surface of the sensor implant device, and wherein the one or more anchoring features are sized to fit within the one or more receptors in an unexpanded form (Hettrick teaches a barbed anchoring feature that is positioned to lay against a surface of its carrier (in e.g. a receptor that forms an indentation) in an unexpanded form (Fig. 6B, ¶ 0029, tine 220b could be fully retracted within prong 200’).
Regarding claim 31, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick teaches all the features with respect to claim 30, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick further teaches wherein the one or more receptors are situated at an end portion of the sensor implant device (Hettrick: Fig. 6B – also see Schwartz: Fig. 4, an end portion).
Regarding claim 32, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick teaches all the features with respect to claim 29, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick further teaches wherein the one or more anchoring features are spring-loaded (Schwartz teaches using spring-loading to bias anchors towards a deployed configuration (Fig. 13B, ¶ 0123 – also see ¶ 0121 and Fig. 12A, showing the deployed position). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to spring-load the anchors of the combination, for the purpose of facilitating movement towards the deployed position (Schwartz: ¶ 0123), for allowing greater anchor material choices (Schwartz: ¶ 0126), and as the simple substitution of one type of biasing arrangement for another with predictable results (Schwartz: ¶¶s 0029, 0126, etc.).
Regarding claim 33, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick teaches all the features with respect to claim 29, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick further teaches wherein the sensor implant device comprises a conical end portion, and wherein the one or more anchoring features are coupled to the conical end portion of the sensor implant device (Schwartz: Fig. 4, ¶ 0074, tissue barbs 59).
Claims 21-24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2014/0213916 (“Doan”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2002/0077555 (“Schwartz”), US Patent Application Publication 2007/0021665 (“Hettrick”), and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0220609 (“Arndt”).
Regarding claim 21, Doan teaches [a] method of implanting a sensor implant device within a tissue wall (¶ 0105, a passage formed in a septal wall of the heart by a needle – also see ¶ 0137, etc.) …, the method comprising: percutaneously delivering a sensor implant device within a catheter to a tissue wall (Figs. 22A-22D and/or 23A-23G, delivering sensor device 100 within a sheath 2204 to wall 110) …, the sensor implant device comprising one or more anchoring features that flexibly move between a compressed form and an expanded form (Figs. 22A-22D and/or 23A-23G, anchoring element 104); piercing the tissue wall to embed at least a portion of the sensor implant device … at least partially within the tissue wall (as shown in Figs. 1, 3, 4, 22D, 23G, 24, etc. – also see ¶ 0105, a passage formed in a septal wall of the heart by a needle, ¶ 0137, etc.); and removing the sensor implant device from the catheter, wherein the one or more anchoring features are biased to assume the expanded form following removal from the catheter to … anchor the sensor implant device within the tissue wall (Figs. 22B-22D and 23B-23G, ¶ 0139, etc.).
Doan does not appear to explicitly teach embedding the one or more anchoring features at least partially within the tissue wall.
Schwartz teaches a sensor implant device comprising a pointed tip configured to pierce a tissue wall, as well as anchoring features configured to embed within/into the wall (Fig. 4, ¶ 0074, piercing tip 55 and tissue barbs 59).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the sensor implant device of Doan with a pointed tip and barbs, as in Schwartz, for the purpose of simplifying the components of the delivery/retrieval system by e.g. eliminating the need for dilator 2116 and needle 2120 (Doan: ¶ 0131, Figs. 21A-21C), for the purpose of firmly anchoring the sensor (Schwartz: ¶ 0074), and as the simple substitution of one sensor delivery method for another with predictable results (Schwartz: Fig. 4, ¶¶s 0073, 0074, etc.).
Based on the combination, the one or more anchoring features (i.e., the barbs of Schwartz) no longer flexibly move between a compressed form and an expanded form (although biasing in an expanded form is still contemplated - Doan: ¶¶s 0139 (elastically rebounding), 0146, 0087, etc.; Schwartz: biasing towards a deployed configuration - Fig. 13B, ¶ 0123 – also see ¶ 0121 and Fig. 12A, showing the deployed position).
Hettrick teaches a barbed anchoring feature that is movable between expanded and retracted positions (Fig. 6B, ¶ 0029, tine 220b pivots to extend or retract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the barbs of the combination movable as in Hettrick, for the purpose of making forward movement easier, as well as enabling selective retraction (Hettrick: ¶ 0029). It would have been obvious to bias the barbs in the expanded form, for the purpose of making implantation/anchoring easier (Doan: ¶¶s 0139, 0146, 0087, etc.; Schwartz: ¶¶s 0123, 0121, etc.). Thus, the anchors flexibly move between the expanded and compressed forms.
Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick does not appear to explicitly teach the implantation being within a tissue wall separating a left atrium and a coronary sinus.
Arndt teaches implanting a pressure sensor probe in the tissue wall separating the left atrium and the coronary sinus (¶ 0008).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the sensor of the combination in the tissue wall separating the left atrium and coronary sinus, as in Arndt, for the purpose of measuring pressure in the left atrium directly while avoiding a transseptal puncture, thereby lowering risk (Arndt: ¶ 0008).
Regarding claim 22, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt further teaches wherein the sensor implant device comprises a conical end portion and a pointed tip, and wherein piercing the tissue wall is performed using the pointed tip of the sensor implant device (Schwartz: Fig. 4, ¶ 0074, piercing tip 55).
Regarding claim 23, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt teaches all the features with respect to claim 22, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt further teaches wherein the one or more anchoring features are disposed along the conical end portion (Schwartz: Fig. 4, tissue barbs 59).
Regarding claim 24, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt further teaches wherein the sensor implant device comprises one or more receptors forming indentations into a surface of the sensor implant device, and wherein the one or more anchoring features are sized to fit within the one or more receptors in the compressed form (Hettrick teaches a barbed anchoring feature that is positioned to lay against a surface of its carrier (in e.g. a receptor that forms an indentation) in the compressed form (Fig. 6B, ¶ 0029, tine 220b could be fully retracted within prong 200’).
Regarding claim 26, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt further teaches wherein the one or more anchoring features are biased in the expanded form (as above).
Regarding claim 27, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt teaches all the features with respect to claim 21, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt further teaches wherein the sensor implant device comprises an implant body and a sensor component (Doan: Figs. 22A and 23A, sensor device 100 including a housing and sensor 102 – also see Fig. 2 and ¶ 0064).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt in view of US Patent Application Publication 2004/0116992 (“Wardle”).
Regarding claim 28, Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt teaches all the features with respect to claim 27, as outlined above. Doan-Schwartz-Hettrick-Arndt does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the sensor component is disposed at an end portion of the implant body and has a greater width relative to the implant body.
Wardle teaches a sensor implant device comprising a sensor component disposed at an end portion of an implant body and having a greater width relative to the implant body (Fig. 8, sensor 120 (including pressure sensing face 162) having a greater width than lead-attachment interface 164 and e.g. lead 226 as shown in Fig. 20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sensor component having a greater width relative to the implant body in the combination as in Wardle, for the purpose of achieving lead-based implantation as well (Wardle: ¶¶s 0068, 0080, 0097 (enabling pacing), etc. – also see Arndt: ¶¶s 0004, 0021, 0027, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to the amendments and arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103, they are persuasive to the extent that the anchors of Doan do not themselves embed in the tissue wall. However, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Schwartz and Hettrick, and all claims remain rejected in light of the prior art.
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 ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm PT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights