DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed April 30, 2026, are acknowledged. Claims 13-14, 16-17 and 21-22 are amended and Claims 18-19 are cancelled.
Claims 13-17 and 20-24 are currently pending and considered in this office action.
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.
Claim 13, and dependent Claims 14-24, are 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.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites “a constant total thickness of the superimposed layers is maintained with spacers between sintered superimposed layers during sintering”. There is a lack of clarity because the thickness is maintained with spacers between ‘sintered’ superimposed layers “during sintering’. It is unclear how many sintering steps there are to meet the claims, and if spacers are applied after a first sintering step in order to maintain spacing between ‘sintered superimposed layers’, and if these sintered layers are then further sintered ‘during’ another sintering step, or not. It is unclear if ‘during sintering’ refers to the previously recited ‘sintering in a heating device’.
Additionally, it is unclear where the spacers are in the component to be sintered. The claim recites wherein spacers are between the superimposed layers, however it is unclear if spacers are between each of the nonwovens which are superimposed, and if these spacers are therefore also present during needling of the superimposed nonwovens or not, or if there are multiple groups of superimposed layers and the spacers are between the multiple groups of superimposed layers. Examiner interprets the claim to mean spacers “arranged between the sintered substrates”, wherein “sintering substrates” are “sufficiently strong and temperature-stable cover layers and pads” (instant specification, Pg. 6, lines 9-16).
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites the limitation "the fibers in each layer" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear if ‘the fibers in each layer’ refers to all the fibers (fibers…in multiple layers), as previously recited, or specifically to fibers of a single layer. It is therefore unclear if ‘the fibers in each layer are arranged in a mutually preferred axial direction’ requires that all fibers (in each layer) are arranged in a (i.e., the same) mutually preferred axial direction, or only fibers within a single layer are required to be arranged in a mutually preferred axial direction.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites the limitation "the respective layer" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites the limitation "the other fibers" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “the preferred axial directions of the superimposed layers” and “the respective fibers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “differ from one another”. It is unclear what ‘one another’ refers to, and if this is in reference to individual fibers, individual nonwovens, or groupings of superimposed layers, etc..
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites “prior to separation”. However, a separation step (see also Claim 13 from which Claim 21 depends) has not positively been recited, and it is unclear if a separation process is actually required by the claims or if the limitations are directed to steps only in the event that separation occurs. It is unclear if Claim 21 was intended to be a dependent claim from Claim 20, rather than Claim 13, or not.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites “the semi-finished product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the infiltrate” for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ducheyne (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 4693721 A) in view of Sakashita (JP 2651408 B2, English Machine Translation provided), with evidence by Hamlyn (previously cited, US 20200189207 A1), and Tanida (previously cited, JP 2004137590 A, English Machine Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 13, Ducheyne discloses a method for producing open-porous bone implants, with freely accessible guide structures made from fibers, which are formed from a biocompatible metal or metal alloy (Abstract; Col. 10, lines 10-14; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a fiber mesh which guides the growth of bone to be a freely accessible guide structure),
wherein fibers with a length up to 50mm, which reads on the claimed minimum length of 20mm, are arranged in multiple layers, each layer obtained from a non-woven, wherein the fibers in each layer are arranged in a mutually preferred axial direction, wherein the multiple layers are superimposed (Col. 9, 31-36; Col. 8, lines 17-24; Col. 7, lines 65-Col. 8, line 3, wherein linear configuration (axial alignment) is maintained), and
wherein superimposed layers are materially fitted to one another point by point via sintering bridges on fibers by sintering in a heating device (Col. 8, lines 25-31).
Ducheyne fails to disclose wherein needling is carried out in at least one of the layers, by means of which individual fibers of the respective layer are aligned in an axial direction which differs by at least 60 degrees from the preferred axial direction in which the other fibers of the layer are aligned.
Sakashita discloses a method of forming fabric from metallic fiber nonwovens, wherein fibers are first aligned unidirectionally and needled to form a nonwoven, and wherein nonwovens comprising different fiber directions from one another and superimposed and further finally needled together (para. [0011]-[0012]; para. [0019]-[0021]; Fig. 1-2). Sakashita teaches the needling and the layering of the nonwovens in different directions improves entanglement, strength flexibility, and also enables strength in different directions, respectively (para. [0012]; para. [0027]).
Further, Sakashita specifically teaches applicability to titanium alloy nonwoven fabric (para. [0017]), which is disclosed and desired by Ducheyne (Abstract), and also discloses alternating layering directions such as transversely and longitudinally (90 degrees rotational difference from one nonwoven to another) (para. [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have needled each of the nonwovens comprising unidirectionally aligned fibers, and further to have needled together superimposed nonwovens, wherein the nonwovens each comprise different unidirectionally aligned fiber directions from one another, differing by up to 90 degrees, as taught by Sakashita, for the invention disclosed by Ducheyne. One would be motivated to do this in order to improve nonwoven and fiber entanglement, strength and flexibility, and also in order to enable strength in different directions (see teaching above).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the needle punching direction is perpendicular to the fiber length (axis direction), and therefore needling orients fibers at 90 degrees to that of the preferred fiber alignment direction, unless otherwise noted, which reads on the claimed range of at least 60 degrees (see also para. [0012]; see also evidence by Hamlyn, Fig. 4 and Fig. 7, depicting the needle punching operation; see Abstract and Claim 1, filaments are driven by the needles and thereby arranged in a direction substantially perpendicular to continuous fiber direction (i.e., longitudinal (unidirectional) fiber direction).
Ducheyne further discloses obtaining a specific thickness after sintering and sintering between two weighted plates (Abstract; Col. 6, lines 14 and 56-64; Col. 8, lines 25-30).
However, Ducheyne fails to disclose maintaining a constant total thickness of the superimposed layers during sintering using spacers between sintered superimposed layers during sintering.
Tanida teaches a similar invention, wherein sintering a mat of metallic fibers occurs between two pressing plates and further wherein a spacer is used between the two plates, in order to maintain a constant predetermined thickness during sintering (Abstract; para. [0035]-[0038]; Fig. 8, spacer 75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have (Claim 18) maintained a constant total thickness of the superimposed layers during sintering, and to have (Claim 19) used spacers to maintain a constant total thickness, as taught by Tanida, for the invention disclosed by Andersen and Ducheyne, in order to achieve the desired dimensions thicknesses of the sintered fibers and in order to maintain the desired and predetermined thickness during sintering/processing (see teachings above).
Regarding Claim 14, Sakashita discloses wherein the preferred axial directions of the superimposed layers, in which the respective fibers are aligned, differ from one another by at least 45 degrees (para. [0021], transverse and longitudinal directions differ by 90 degrees).
Regarding Claim 15, Sakashita discloses wherein fibers of different layers, which are directly superimposed, are needled together (para. [0012]; para. [0021]).
Regarding Claim 16, Ducheyne discloses wherein the porosity or volumetric density may vary slight from region to region of the porous metal fiber mesh, which reads on the claimed graded structure with different densities and/or thickness and/or different porosities prior to sintering (Col. 7, lines 10-12; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that these density differences would exist prior to sintering in order to be present in the final product).
Regarding Claim 17, Ducheyne discloses compacting the fibers to form the nonwoven (sheet) layers of predetermined thickness, and also placing the superimposed nonwovens between two alumina plates which are each 300g, and then sintering in a vacuum furnace, which reads on the claimed limitation wherein before and during sintering, the superimposed layers are subjected to compressive force by two opposite surfaces which are aligned perpendicular to the preferred axial directions in which the fibers of the superimposed layers are aligned (Col. 8, lines 6-31; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the weight of the alumina plates would exert compressive and reaction compressive forces on the metal fiber sheets).
Regarding Claim 20, Ducheyne discloses forming a bulk amount of porous fiber implant material (semi-finished product), and dispensing the bulk material in suitable lengths, such as by cutting, and then shaping to form a bone implant (Col. 9, lines 35-46), which reads on the claimed production of a semi-finished product form the sintered superimposed layers, and forming a bone implant by separating, using a separation process, from the semi-finished product, and bringing into shape.
Claim 16 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ducheyne (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 4693721 A) in view of Sakashita (JP 2651408 B2, English Machine Translation provided), with evidence by Hamlyn (previously cited, US 20200189207 A1), and Tanida (previously cited, JP 2004137590 A, English Machine Translation provided), as applied to Claim 13 above, in further view of Karadoga (previously cited, US 20200246155 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Ducheyne discloses wherein the porosity or volumetric density may vary slight from region to region of the porous metal fiber mesh, which reads on the claimed graded structure with different densities and/or thickness and/or different porosities prior to sintering (Col. 7, lines 10-12). While Ducheyne does not expressly disclose this variance prior to sintering, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that these density differences would exist prior to sintering in order to be present in the final product.
Further, Karadoga teaches a intervertebral disc implant which comprises multiple layers of biocompatible fibers, wherein the fibers are rotationally oriented adjacently to one another (para. [0049]; para. [0026]; para. [0031]; para. [0020]).
Karadoga teaches wherein the thickness, material type, and/or number of fibers, and therefore density, of a layer of fibers varies, wherein a layer may have a different thickness or properties than an adjacent one, thereby varying the stiffness based on location of the layer in the implant (para. [0034]-[0035]; para. [0047]). Karadoga discloses the fiber structure improves biomechanical response (para. [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included superimposed layers comprising different thicknesses and/or densities, such as by varying the layer’s thickness, the fiber size or number of fibers in each layer, or by varying the material composition, and therefore prior to sintering, as taught by Karadoga, for the invention disclosed by Ducheyne, in order to vary the stiffness at different locations within the implant, and to improve biomechanical response (see teachings above).
While Karadoga does not expressly disclose wherein the porosity of a layer differs, Karadoga teaches wherein the number of, or size of fibers, may differ from one layer to another, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the number or size of fibers in a layer would vary the porosity. For example, Ducheyne teaches wherein the amount of fibers is used based on a desired thickness and porosity, an therefore density of the amount of fibers (Col. 7, lines 42-46). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the teachings of Karadoga result in layers comprising different porosities as claimed, per the variations in fiber size or fiber number (density) from one layer to another.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ducheyne (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 4693721 A) in view of Sakashita (JP 2651408 B2, English Machine Translation provided), with evidence by Hamlyn (previously cited, US 20200189207 A1), and Tanida (previously cited, JP 2004137590 A, English Machine Translation provided), as applied to Claim 13 above, in further view of Oya (previously cited, JP 3698172 B2, English Machine Translation provided).
Regarding Claim 21 and Claim 22, Ducheyne discloses forming a semi-finished product, wherein an implant is separated from the semi-finished product, for instance, by cutting (Col. 9, lines 31-39).
However, Ducheyne fails to disclose (Claim 21) wherein prior to a separation process, an interior of the semi-finished product is filled with an infiltrate and hardened, and further removed after the separation process, and fails to disclose (Claim 22) using a non-crosslinking polymer, which is removed with a solvent, as an infiltrate.
Oya teaches wherein a sintered porous body is manufactured from a bulk portion in order to reduce variation, and the sintered porous body is therefore first impregnated with an infiltrate such as a wax, an addition-polymerizable resin monomer or a thermosetting resin, then cut to size, and further the infiltrate is completely removed after cutting by extraction, decomposition and/or thermal treatment, such as removal through solubilization and extraction using a solvent and heating, and/or by heating to a maximum temperature in air of 800C or less, in order to prevent abrasive or cutting medium from entering the pores and deteriorating, and to improve the ease of chipping (para. [0017]-[0021]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that to impregnate with a wax, addition-polymerizable resin monomer, or a thermosetting resin, that the wax, monomer or resin would be hardened prior to cutting in order to properly impregnate and seal the pores as desired and taught by Oya (see Claim 21, hardening of infiltrate). One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that addition-polymerizable resin monomers include polymers which harden without crosslinking, such as styrene, and therefore reads on a polymer which is non-crosslinking and which may be removed using a solvent (see Claim 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have infiltrated the sintered filaments, such as with a hardened wax, addition-polymerizable resin monomer or thermosetting resin, prior to separation (cutting), and further removed the infiltrate after cutting by means of extraction, decomposition and/or thermal treatment, such as removal through solubilization and extraction using a solvent and heating, and/or by heating to a maximum temperature in air of 800C or less, as taught by Oya, for the invention disclosed by Ducheyne. One would be motivated to do this in order to manufacture from a bulk portion, thereby reducing variation, while preventing abrasive or cutting medium from entering the pores and deteriorating, and while improving the ease of chipping during the separation (cutting) process (see teaching by Oya above).
Infiltrating with a hardenable wax, addition-polymerizable resin monomer or thermosetting resin, and cutting and then removing of the infiltrate reads on the claim limitations of Claim 21, and using an infiltrate such as an addition-polymerizable resin monomer, for example styrene, and further removing the infiltrate by using a solvent, reads on the claim limitations of Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 23, Oya discloses using waxes as the infiltrate, which reads on the claimed hard wax, which is removed by thermal decomposition and heating, which reads on thermally liquified again and removed, as claimed (para. [0020]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the wax would liquify with removal by thermal decomposition and further at the heating temperatures disclosed by Oya.
Regarding Claim 24, Oya discloses removing residual infiltrate by vaporization at a temperature of up to 550C at a reduced pressure and/or thermal decomposition (evacuation) by heating in air to a maximum temperature of 800C or less, which reads on the claimed range of a maximum temperature of 390C or less (para. [0020]-[0021]; see also extraction by heating to 300-400C). Thermal evacuation is interpreted as thermal decomposition. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that vaporization at reduced pressure is conducted in air unless vacuum is specified.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 30, 2026, with respect to Claim 13, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Andersen in view of Ducheyne and Hamlyn, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims further limiting the fiber length and clarifying the fiber/nonwoven structure. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ducheyne in view of Sakashita, with evidence by Hamlyn, and Tanida, as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding Tanida:
Applicant argues that Tanida is from a different technical field from open-porous bone implants, and is directed to metal fiber sintered body for a friction member.
Applicant argues that the spacer of Tanida not a spacer between layers and is an external press-gap spacer.
Applicant argues that Tanida does not disclose spacers within the stack during sintering, and are not ‘interlayer spacers’.
These arguments are respectfully not found persuasive.
Tanida and Ducheyne are both directed to sintering metal fiber mats (nonwovens), and therefore Tanida is pertinent to the process of Ducheyne. Regarding the placement of the spacer, it is not clear from the claims what the structure and therefore placement of the spacers is. The claims do not currently recite the language ‘within the stack’ or ‘interlayer spacer’. While the claims recite ‘between sintered superimposed layers’, it is unclear if the spacers are located specifically between each layer (nonwoven), if there are multiple groupings of ‘superimposed layers’ with spacers located therebetween, or if there are two sintering steps where spacers are placed after a first sintering step (see 112b rejections above).
Additionally, it is unclear how and/or when the spacers are placed between layers because the claims recite that the layers are needled together. Further, the structure of the spacer is unclear and further not recited, and therefore the spacer of Tanida reads on the broadest most reasonable interpretation of the claimed spacer and Tanida teaches wherein the spacer maintains thickness.
Moreover, the instant specification regards the spacers as “arranged between the sintered substrates”, wherein the sintered substrates refers to “sintering substrates” which are “sufficiently strong and temperature-stable cover layers and pads” (instant specification, Pg. 6, lines 9-16). Therefore, Tanida and spacers which are placed between the sintering substrates reads on the instant invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DeRovere (US 20200002861 A1): teaches a nonwoven web of filaments wherein a mat of filaments are impregnated with a binder and then needle punched in order to improve tensile strength and handling of the nonwoven mat (para. [0112]-[0114]; needle punching reads on needling; para. [0030], wherein nonwoven article comprises metal fibers). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that in order to infiltrate the mat of filaments with a binder, the binder would be in liquid form and then solidified by cooling, curing or cross-linking, which reads on the claimed hardening of the infiltrate. De Rovere further discloses wherein the organics, and therefore the binder, is removed during a pre-fire burnout segment of the sintering process, enabling microstructurally uniform fiber mats which are easily handled without breakage or dusting (para. [0161]).
Ohya (US 5686172 A): teaches wherein waxes for impregnation include paraffin wax, bees wax and haze wax, and wherein addition-polymerizable resin monomers include styrene, acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, epoxy,
Tacktill (US 20150335364 A): teaches wherein alternate layers of unidirectional fibers can be positioned with different orientation to allow for added strength (para. [0035]). While Tacktill is directed to carbon fiber-metal alloy wire sandwich structures, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the orientation teaching extends to other material systems and those comprising fiber structures.
Kurz (US 20040247927 A): teaches a laminate comprising multiple layers of metal fiber web, where multiple layers may be laid in different angular orientations and bonded together and compressed to a desired permeability or pore size (para. [0003]).
Dendooven (US 4779322 A): teaches wherein metal fiber nonwoven web can be manufactured by rolling or pressing a bundle of fibers and then densified by needling prior to a sintering operation (Col. 3, line 66-Col. 4, line 16).
Johns (US 20080128054 A1): teaches sintering metal fiber layers wherein a support mesh or scrim is applied in order to produce a structure which may be used or filtration or other applications (para. [0034]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that such a support mesh or scrim reads on a spacer, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the support mesh or scrim would maintain a thickness throughout sintering in order to enable the filtration, i.e., porosity. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore appreciate adding a support mesh or scrim (spacer) in order to maintain a desired porosity in the metal fiber mesh layer during sintering.
Andersen (previously cited and cited by Applicant in IDS filed October 5, 2023, US 20140324188 A1): teaches an open-porous bone implant formed from a biocompatible magnesium metal or metal alloy (Abstract; para. [0027]), wherein fibers are superimposed in layers and materially fitted to one another point by point via sinter bridges on fibers by sintering in a heating device (para. [0011]; para. [0019]; para. [0021]; para. [0034], wherein fibers are arranged layer-by-layer, which reads on superimposed layers).
Andersen discloses up to 15mm long fibers, but fails to disclose fibers which are at least 20mm in length, as claimed.
Hamlyn (previously cited, US 20200189207 A1): teaches forming layers (plies) of continuous unidirectional fibers oriented at along at least one fiber orientation, applying a nonwoven on the surface of the aligned plies, and needling the plies of filaments and nonwoven together, wherein filaments within the nonwoven (top) layer become arranged in a direction substantially perpendicular (90 degrees) to the continuous fibers preferred direction within the layer/plie, thereby increasing cohesion of the fibers and avoiding unwanted displacement of fibers during subsequent steps (para. [0009]-[0012], Fig. 4; Fig. 7; Abstract and Claim 1, filaments are driven the needles and arranged in a direction substantially perpendicular to continuous fiber direction (i.e., longitudinal (unidirectional) fiber direction; para. [0010]-[0013]; para. [0069]-[0070]; para. [0059], metallic fibers; para. [0060], superimposed piles of fiber placement; para. [0098], unidirectional fibers; para. [0078], nonwoven comprising preferential orientation).
Hamlyn further teaches wherein superimposed plie layers formed of unidirectionally aligned fibers comprise axial fiber directions which differ from one ply to another by at least 45 degrees, and wherein the plies are needled together (para. [0026]-[0030]; para. [0105]; Fig. 7, needling occurs through all plies (layers) of superimposed fibers).
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 CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at (571)-272-3458. 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 P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights