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 .
Any References cited but not appearing in any current Form 892 may be found in previous Form 892’s or IDS’s.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 07/08/2026 has been entered. In the amendment, claims 1-3 and 26 are cancelled. Claims 4, 8, 11, 17, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31 and 34 are amended. Claims 4-8, 11, 17, 22-25, 27-35 are pending.
The cancellation of claim 1 renders the 112b rejection to claim 1 moot.
The amendment to claim 17 overcomes the 112b rejection with regard to that claim.
The amendment to claim 22 overcomes the 112b rejection with regard to claim 22.
The amendment to claim 30 overcomes the 112b rejection with regard to claim 30.
The amendment to claim 31 overcomes the 112b rejection with regard to that claim.
The amendment to claim 34 overcomes the 112b rejection with regard to that claim.
The amendment to claim 22 overcomes the objection with regard to that claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to independent claim 30, Applicant argues at page 8:
In support of the rejection of claim 30, which recites ranges of indentation force deflection (IFD) rating, the Examiner cites In re Wertheim and In re Woodruff for the proposition that "[i]n cases where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists." However, Marcus discloses no IFD rating range. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that there is no prima facie case of obviousness in the present case.
The PTO has the burden of showing a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Harris, 409
F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (cited in MPEP $2144.05 and citing In re Woodruff). If the PTO does so, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut. Id. at 1343. Otherwise, the burden is not on the applicant to show that the invention would not have been obvious.
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest a heel offloading device comprising a first foam
layer having an indentation force deflection (IFD) rating of approximately 32 ± 3; and a second foam layer underlying said first foam layer, said second layer having an IFD rating of approximately 120 ± 15, as claimed in claim 30.
Examiner respectfully submits that the arguments are not persuasive. As indicated in the Non-Final Rejection dated 06/16/2026, at pages 9-10, the Marcus reference at [0058] was cited and indicated that that citation discloses that the device has a first foam layer (40) and a second foam layer (20). Marcus at [0058] discloses that these layers can be constructed from any material including foam and that the foam layers have a firmness of foam ([0058]) and thus it is implied that these layers have an indentation force deflection (IFD) rating. Additionally, Marcus discloses in [0058] that the first layer 20 can have an increased firmness compared to the second layer. Marcus discloses in [0058] that in some examples, the second component can be made of memory foam. Marcus discloses at [0058] that the first component 20 [layer] can be made of a material that has an increased firmness compared to the material of the second component 40 [layer] and that a reduced firmness of the second component can be provided. Thus, Marcus discloses that the second component can be foam and of any IFD [firmness] less than the value of the first component. Thus the second component is implicitly disclosed to have an IFD that includes a range of values less than the IFD of the first component. Further, Marcus discloses that the first component can be foam and of any IFD greater than the value of the second component. Thus the first component is implicitly disclosed to have an IFD that includes a range of values greater than the IFD value of the second component. Thus, Marcus at [0058] implicitly discloses ranges of indentation force deflection rating relative to the layers and the general conditions of the claim.
As discussed in the Non-Final Rejection dated 06/16/2026, Applicant has appeared to place no criticality on the claimed ranges. Although Marcus does not disclose the exact ranges, it discloses the general conditions of the claim i.e. the IFD of the foam layer being less than the IFD of the second layer and as discussed previously Applicant does not appear to disclose criticality of the ranges and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026, with respect to claim 33 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, at pages 8-9 that Libbey is anecdotal and does not evidence that denser foam is more resilient foam and that Marcus merely states a density range and does not teach that the component 20 should have a greater density than component 40.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As provided in Libbey, col. 2, lines 42-43, (emphasis added) “[t]he pad is most dense and therefore has a higher modulus and is slightly more resilient” evidencing that foam as a material when it is more dense has a higher modulus and is slightly more resilient. Further, the second layer is disclosed in Marcus ([0058]) to have an embodiment that includes a material that is much more dense (e.g. 26 lb/ft3) than the first layer (e.g. 1 lb/ft3) so it would follow that there is an embodiment where the second layer therefore has a higher modulus and is slightly more resilient than the first layer.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the strap affixed to one of said fastening ends and configured to cover the majority of space between the opposite side portions of the U-shaped cavity must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Examiner notes that a strap 124 is shown in Fig. 5A but a strap covering the majority of space between opposite side portion of the U-shaped cavity is not shown. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 30 recites “an indentation force deflection (IFD) rating of approximately 32 ± 3” and “said second layer having an indentation force deflection (IFD) rating of approximately 120 ± 15”.
The term “approximately” in claim 30 is a relative term which renders the claim unclear. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 30 is objected to because the values 32 ± 3” and 120 ± 15” are lacking units that are applicable to IFD e.g. pound-force (lbf).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 17 and 22 is rejected 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the majority" in 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as –a majority--.
As claim 22 depends from claim 17, it is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 22.
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.
Claim(s) 30 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcus (US 2022/0160568) in view of Boone (US 4150442), and as evidenced by Libbey (US 5324252) with regard to claim 33.
Regarding claim 30, Marcus discloses a heel offloading device (10) ([0067], reducing weight off heel; [0046]; [0047]; Fig. 2; Fig. 3) configured to be secured to the calf of a patient's lower leg (Fig. 8A, Fig. 8B, [0094]), the heel offloading device comprising: a first foam layer (40) ([0058]) having an indentation force deflection (IFD) rating ([0058], firmness of foam; NOTE: Marcus at [0058] discloses that these layers can be constructed from any material including foam and that the foam layers have a firmness of foam [0058]and thus it is implied that these layers have an indentation force deflection (IFD) rating. Marcus discloses at [0058] that the second component can be made of memory foam thus implicitly providing an IFD range for the material of memory foam. Additionally, Marcus discloses in [0058] that the first layer 20 can have an increased firmness compared to the second layer. Marcus discloses at [0058] that the first component 20 [layer] can be made of a material that has an increased firmness compared to the material of the second component 40 [layer] and that a reduced firmness of the second component can be provided. Thus, Marcus discloses that the second component can be foam and of any IFD [firmness] less than the value of the first component. Thus the second component is implicitly disclosed to have an IFD that includes a range of values less than the IFD of the first component. Further, Marcus discloses that the first component can be foam and of any IFD greater than the value of the second component. Thus the first component is implicitly disclosed to have an IFD that includes a range of values greater than the IFD value of the second component. Thus, Marcus at [0058] implicitly discloses ranges of indentation force deflection rating ranges for each layer); a second foam layer (20) ([0058]) underlying said first foam layer (Fig. 2), said second layer having an indentation force deflection (IFD) rating ([0058]; NOTE: see description above with regard to the first layer indicating that the IFD rating for each of the first and second foam layers is implicitly a range); wherein the first and second layers define a U-shaped cavity (annotated Fig. 8A below)
PNG
media_image1.png
715
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
configured to receive the patient's calf therethrough ([0094]; Fig. 8A; see in Applicant’s specification [0068], which recites, where a U-shape is sometimes referred to as a C-shape and in Fig. 3A-3D the U- shape curves inwardly as it does in Marcus as seen in Fig. 2 thus the cavity shape in Marcus [See for example Fig. 7 the cavity in each of the layers 20 and 40] is considered a U-shape as the cavities have sides and a central portion as in a U and the sides curve as in Figs. 3A-3D of the Applicant’s specification), the U-shaped cavity having opposite side portions extending upwardly from a central portion (annotated Fig. 8A above), and an interior width between the side portions equal to the width of the patient's calf (Fig. 8A, [0084]; NOTE: user’s calf width varies so depending on the calf width the interior width may be equal to the user’s calf width).
Marcus discloses that the first foam layer has an IFD rating less than the second layer but does not explicitly disclose a first foam layer having an indentation force deflection (IFD) rating of approximately 32 ± 3; said second layer having an indentation force deflection (IFD) rating of approximately 120 ± 15; a cover disposed within the U-shaped cavity and defining a lower leg contact surface configured to underlie the patient's calf received in the U-shaped cavity.
However, Marcus discloses the first foam layer having an IFD rating less than the second foam layer and thus discloses the claimed IFD aspect of the invention except for a first foam layer having an indentation force deflection (IFD) rating of approximately 32 ± 3; said second layer having an indentation force deflection (IFD) rating of approximately 120 ± 15.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the indentation force deflection rating of the first foam layer of Marcus to a rating of rating of approximately 32 ± 3 and to modify the indentation force deflection rating of the second foam layer of Marcys to a rating of approximately 120 ± 15 for the purpose of comfort and to reduce the risk of irritation (Marcus, [0058]) as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (Applicant’s specification paragraph [0069] recites that the second layer IFD is an example, and [0071] recites a broader range IFD e.g. 18-120; [0070] recites an example of a first layer IFD is 30; [0069] recites the outer layer may have a higher IFD value than the inner layer), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (see above regarding lack of criticality), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Marcus discloses the invention as described above.
Marcus does not disclose a cover disposed within the U-shaped cavity and defining a lower leg contact surface configured to underlie the patient's calf received in the U-shaped cavity.
Boone teaches pad means (12, 13, 20, 21) (col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 8; Fig. 5) having an analogous first layer 21 (bottom panel 21, col. 3, lines 38-51) and an analogous upper surface of the inner layer (inherent that panel has an upper surface) and an analogous U-shaped cavity (Fig. 5; col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 8; Fig. 5) and a cover 23 (textile fabric 23, col. 3, lines 25-37) disposed within the U-shaped cavity (Fig. 5), and defining an analogous appendage (foot/lower leg) contact surface (col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 8; NOTE: patient’s heel is received and thus a lower leg contact surface is defined).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide that the heel offloading device of Marcus is comprising a cover disposed within the U-shaped cavity, defining a lower leg contact surface configured to underlie the patient's calf received in the U-shaped cavity in order to provide an improved pressure offloading device that provides a soft inner surface (Boone, col. 1, lines 40-63).
Regarding claim 33, Marcus in view of Boone discloses the invention as described above.
Marcus further discloses wherein said second layer (20) is made of more resilient foam then said first layer ([0058], first and second layer foams are made of a foam with a density that is between a density range of 1lb to 26lb/ft3 ; it is implied that a firm that is more dense will be more resilient and as Marcus discloses that the second layer may be a density value that is greater than the first layer it is implicitly more resilient; as evidenced by Libbey which indicates that a foam pad that is most dense is slightly more resilient than a pad that is less dense, col. 4, lines 26-34; col. 2, lines 30-48; col. 4, lines 26-34, (emphasis added) “[t]he pad is most dense and therefore has a higher modulus and is slightly more resilient” evidencing that foam, as a material, when it is more dense has a higher modulus and is slightly more resilient. Further, the second layer is disclosed in Marcus ([0058]) to have an embodiment that includes a material that is more dense [e.g. 26 lb/ft3] than the first layer [e.g. 1 lb/ft3] and therefore would have a higher modulus and is slightly more resilient).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcus (US 2022/0160568) in view of Boone (US 4150442) as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of DuDonis (US 2008/0178390).
Regarding claim 34, Marcus in view of Boone discloses the invention as described above with regard to claim 30.
Marcus in view of Boone does not disclose further comprising a protective cover fully enclosing said layers, said protective cover constructed in a U-shape conforming to the shape of the device and including said cover disposed within the U-shaped cavity, said protective cover contributing to the U-shape of said layers in the layered construction.
DuDonis teaches an analogous heel offloading device (Fig. 5) ([0062]) having analogous layers (27, 25) ([0062]) and comprising an analogous U-shaped cavity (Fig. 5) and further comprising protective cover fully (90) enclosing said layers, said protective cover constructed in a U-shape conforming to the shape of the device ([0062], Fig. 5) and including said cover disposed within the U-shaped cavity (Fig. 5), said protective cover contributing to the U-shape of said layers in the layered construction (Fig. 5, insofar as the cover is a U-shape and the layers are a U-shape, the cover is contributing to the U-shaped of said layers).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to provide that the heel offloading device of Marcus in view of Boone is further comprising a protective cover fully enclosing said layers, said protective cover constructed in a U-shape conforming to the shape of the device and including said cover disposed within the U-shaped cavity, said protective cover contributing to the U-shape of said layers in the layered construction, as taught by DuDonis, in order to provide an improved heel offloading device that has a water-resistant material that encloses the device (DuDonis, [0017]; [0062]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 11, 17, 22-25 and 27-29 are allowed.
Claims 31-32 and 35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
For claims 23-25, see Final Rejection dated 10/12/2025, pages 23-25 for reasons for allowance.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art either alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest a heel offloading device configured to be secured to the calf of a patient's lower leg, the heel offloading device comprising: an inner layer made of a first material having a first indentation force deflection (IFD) rating; an outer layer made of a second material having a second IFD rating, wherein the first material and the second material are independently selected from a foam, wherein the second IFD rating is greater than the first IFD rating, wherein the inner and outer layers define a U-shaped cavity configured to receive the patient's calf therethrough, the U-shaped cavity having opposite side portions extending upwardly from a central portion, and an interior width between the side portions equal to a width of the patient's calf; a first intermediate layer between the inner layer and the outer layer comprising a third material selected from a foam with a third IFD rating, and a cover disposed within the U-shaped cavity, in contact with an upper surface of the inner layer, and defining a lower leg contact surface configured to underlie the patient's calf received in the U-shaped cavity.
Claims 5-8, 17, 22, and 27-29 are allowed for depending from claim 4.
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art is Marcus (US 2022/0160568). Marcus discloses a heel pressure offloading device (10) ([0067], reducing weight off heel; [0046]; [0047]; Fig. 2, Fig. 3) configured to be secured to the calf of a patient's lower leg (Fig. 8A, Fig. 8B, [0044]), the heel offloading device comprising: an inner layer (40) made of a first material having a first indentation force deflection (IFD) rating ([0058], firmness of foam); an outer layer (20) made of a second material having a second IFD rating ([0058]), wherein the second IFD rating is greater than the first IFD rating ([0058], the first component can be made of a material that has an increased firmness compared to the material of the second component), wherein the inner and outer layers define a U-shaped cavity (Fig. 8A) configured to receive the patient's calf therethrough ([0094]; Fig. 8A; see in Applicant’s specification [0068], which recites where a U-shape is sometimes referred to as a C-shape and in Fig. 3A-3D the U- shape curves inwardly as it does in Marcus as seen in Fig. 2 thus the cavity shape in Marcus [See for example Fig. 7 the cavity in each of the layers 20 and 40] is considered a U-shape as the cavities have sides and a central portion as in a U and the sides curve as in Figs. 3A-3D of the Applicant’s specification), the U-shaped cavity having opposite side portions extending upwardly from a central portion and an interior width between the side portions equal to the width of the patient's calf (Fig. 8A, [0084]; NOTE: user’s calf width varies so depending on the calf width the interior width may be equal to the user’s calf width).
However, Marcus does not disclose a first intermediate layer between the inner layer and the outer layer comprising a third material selected from a foam with a third IFD rating; and a cover disposed within the U-shaped cavity, and defining a lower leg contact surface configured to underlie the patient's calf received in the U-shaped cavity.
Boone (US 4150442) teaches pad means (12, 13, 20, 21) (col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 8; Fig. 5) having an analogous inner layer 21 (bottom panel 21, col. 3, lines 38-51) and an analogous upper surface of the inner layer (inherent that panel has an upper surface) and an analogous U-shaped cavity (Fig. 5; col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 8; Fig. 5) and a cover 23 (textile fabric 23, col. 3, lines 25-37) disposed within the U-shaped cavity (Fig. 5), in contact with an upper surface of the inner layer (Fig. 5, col. 3, lines 25-37), and defining an analogous appendage (foot/lower leg) contact surface (col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 8; NOTE: patient’s heel is received and thus a lower leg contact surface is defined) configured to underlie the patient’s analogous appendage received in the U-shaped cavity (col. 3, lines 25-37).
However, Boone does not teach a first intermediate layer between the inner layer and the outer layer comprising a third material selected from a foam with a third IFD rating.
Claims 5-8, 17, 22, and 27-29 are allowed as they depend from claim 4 and therefore contain the same allowable limitations.
Regarding independent claim 11, the prior art either alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest a heel offloading device configured to be secured to the calf of a patient's lower leg, the heel offloading device comprising: an inner layer made of a first material having a first indentation force deflection (IFD) rating; an outer layer made of a second material having a second IFD rating, wherein the second IFD rating is greater than the first IFD rating, wherein the inner and outer layers define a U-shaped cavity configured to receive the patient's calf therethrough, the U-shaped cavity having opposite side portions extending upwardly from a central portion, and an interior width between the side portions equal to a width of the patient's calf.
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art is Marcus (US 2022/0160568). Marcus discloses a heel offloading device (10) ([0067], reducing weight off heel; [0046]; [0047]; Fig. 2, Fig. 3) configured to be secured to the calf of a patient's lower leg (Fig. 8A, Fig. 8B, [0044]), the heel offloading device comprising: an inner layer (40) made of a first material having a first indentation force deflection (IFD) rating ([0058], firmness of foam); an outer layer (20) made of a second material having a second IFD rating ([0058]), wherein the second IFD rating is greater than the first IFD rating ([0058], the first component can be made of a material that has an increased firmness compared to the material of the second component), wherein the second IFD rating is greater than the first IFD rating ([0058], the first component can be made of a material that has an increased firmness compared to the material of the second component), wherein the inner and outer layers define a U-shaped cavity (Fig. 8A) configured to receive the patient's calf therethrough [0094]; Fig. 8A; see in Applicant’s specification [0068], which recites where a U-shape is sometimes referred to as a C-shape and in Fig. 3A-3D the U- shape curves inwardly as it does in Marcus as seen in Fig. 2 thus the cavity shape in Marcus [See for example Fig. 7 the cavity in each of the layers 20 and 40] is considered a U-shape as the cavities have sides and a central portion as in a U and the sides curve as in Figs. 3A-3D of the Applicant’s specification), the U-shaped cavity having opposite side portions extending upwardly from a central portion, and an interior width between the side portions equal to a width of the patient's calf Fig. 8A, [0084]; NOTE: user’s calf width varies so depending on the calf width the interior width may be equal to the user’s calf width); a first intermediate layer between the inner layer and the outer layer; and a cover disposed within the U-shaped cavity, in contact with an upper surface of the inner layer, and defining a lower leg contact surface configured to underlie the patient's calf received in the U-shaped cavity, wherein the inner layer includes a wing portion, wherein an end of the first intermediate layer is affixed directly to the wing portion.
Marcus does not disclose a first intermediate layer between the inner layer and the outer layer; and a cover disposed within the U-shaped cavity, in contact with an upper surface of the inner layer, and defining a lower leg contact surface configured to underlie the patient's calf received in the U-shaped cavity, wherein the inner layer includes a wing portion, wherein an end of the first intermediate layer is affixed directly to the wing portion.
Boone (US 4150442) teaches pad means (12, 13, 20, 21) (col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 8; Fig. 5) having an analogous inner layer 21 (bottom panel 21, col. 3, lines 38-51) and an analogous upper surface of the inner layer (inherent that panel has an upper surface) and an analogous U-shaped cavity (Fig. 5; col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 8; Fig. 5) and a cover 23 (textile fabric 23, col. 3, lines 25-37) disposed within the U-shaped cavity (Fig. 5), in contact with an upper surface of the inner layer (Fig. 5, col. 3, lines 25-37), and defining an analogous appendage (foot/lower leg) contact surface (col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 8; NOTE: patient’s heel is received and thus a lower leg contact surface is defined) configured to underlie the patient’s analogous appendage received in the U-shaped cavity (col. 3, lines 25-37).
However Boone does not teach a first intermediate layer between the inner layer and the outer layer; wherein the inner layer includes a wing portion, wherein an end of the first intermediate layer is affixed directly to the wing portion.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GINA MCCARTHY whose telephone number is (408)918-7594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:30 PT.
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, Alireza Nia can be reached at 571-270-3076. 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.
/G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/OPHELIA A HAWTHORNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
