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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 6/23/2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 17 has been withdrawn, and it is noted that objected claim 11 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 6/23/2023, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 15 to recite that the dried covering material is in the form of a sheet that covers the spaces/openings. Applicant argues that Mangiardi fails to disclose these new limitations and the examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mangiardi (WO 2017/204803 A1) in view of Schafer et al. (US Patent No. 8,663,308 B2).
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, “biodegradable an iron” is considered to be a typo. The examiner suggests amending this to be “biodegradable iron” and have been examined as such. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim 1, 3-6, 8-10, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangiardi (WO 2017/204803 A1) in view of Schafer et al. (US Patent No. 8,663,308 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Mangiardi discloses an implant (Fig. 1, scaffold 10), comprising: at least one biodegradable support structure (Paragraph [0060], Fig. 1 tubular body 12) and at least one dried covering material (Paragraphs [0021 and 0093], biodegradable polymer coating, wherein the coating may contain “lyophilized powder” Paragraph [0139]) at least partially covering the at least one biodegradable support structure (Paragraphs [0021 and 0093]), wherein the biodegradable support structure (12) comprises a plurality of interconnected struts (Fig. 1, struts 14) and spaces/openings between (see annotated Fig. 1 below) the plurality of interconnected struts (14) wherein the biodegradable support structure comprises or consists of magnesium, zinc or iron (Paragraph [0021]); or the biodegradable support structure comprises or consists of a biodegradable magnesium-based alloy, a biodegradable zinc-based alloy or a biodegradable an iron-based alloy (Paragraph [0021]), wherein: the dried covering material (Paragraphs [0021 and 0093], biodegradable polymer coating, wherein the coating may contain “lyophilized powder” Paragraph [0139]) comprises one of an autologous, xenogeneic or allogeneic biological tissue (Paragraphs [0131 and 0140], ECM material is xenogeneic), or the dried covering material comprises one of a cross-linked autologous, xenogeneic or allogeneic tissue (Paragraphs [0131, 0140, and 0141], ECM material is xenogeneic).
PNG
media_image1.png
211
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mangiardi fails to disclose wherein the dried covering material is in the form of a sheet that covers at least some of the and spaces/openings between the plurality of interconnected struts.
Schafer also discloses an implant (Fig. 1A, medical device 40), biodegradable support structure (Col. 6, lines 56-64, Fig. 1A, tubular support frame) with struts (Fig. 1A, connecting members 24, 26) and spaces/openings (see annotated Fig. 1A below), and a dried covering material (Fig. 1A, graft material 30). Schafer discloses wherein the dried covering material (30) is in the form of a sheet (Col. 29, lines 27-31) that covers at least some of the and spaces/openings (see annotated Fig. 1A below) between the plurality of interconnected struts (24,26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangiardi’s implant wherein the dried covering material is in the form of a sheet that covers at least some of the and spaces/openings between the plurality of interconnected struts, as taught by Schafer, in order for the dried covering material to be fitted to (Col. 11, lines 1-3) and wrapped (Col. 29, lines 27-31) around the support structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
221
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses wherein the magnesium-based alloy comprises a Mg content of at least 96 wt. % (Paragraph [0024]), which overlaps the claimed range of 85.0 wt. % to 99.9 wt. %. 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 have modified Mangiardi’s implant to have a Mg content of 85.0 wt. % to 99.9 wt. % as claimed, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranged, indicating the Mg content is “preferably” within the claimed range (Application [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses wherein the dried covering material comprises one of decellularized autologous, xenogeneic or allogeneic biological tissue (Paragraph [0139], ECM material is xenogeneic and includes decellularized animal tissues).
Regarding claim 5, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses wherein the at least one covering material is at least partially or fully in direct contact (Paragraph [0021]) with the at least one support structure (Fig. 1, struts 14).
Regarding claim 6, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses wherein the biodegradable magnesium-based alloy is selected from an Mg—Al alloy, an Mg—Ca—Zn alloy, an Mg—Al—Zn alloy; an Mg—Al—Mn alloy; an Mg—Al—Zn—Mn alloy; an Mg—Zn—Zr alloy, an Mg—Ca—Zn alloy; an Mg-RE (rare earth metal) alloy, or an Mg—Y-REM (rare earth metal) alloy (Paragraphs [0022-0024]).
Regarding claim 8, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses wherein the biodegradable zinc-based alloy (Paragraph [0021]) is selected from Zn-based alloys comprising Zn as main component (Paragraph [0043]) and at least one element selected from Al, Ag, Ca, Mg, Mn, Sr or Fe (Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 9, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses wherein the biodegradable iron-based alloy (Paragraph [0021]) is selected from Fe—P alloys, Fe—C alloys or Fe—P—C alloys; Fe—Mn alloys; Fe—Mn—C alloys; Fe—Mn—N alloys or Fe—Mn—N—C alloys (Paragraph [0043]).
Regarding claim 10, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses wherein the dried covering material comprises a dried pericardial tissue or dried cartilaginous tissue (Paragraph [0140]).
Regarding claim 12, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses the implant comprising a drug (Paragraph [0131]).
Regarding claim 13, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses wherein the support structure (Fig. 1, scaffold 10) comprises a nail, a screw, a plate, a wire or a plurality of interconnected struts (Fig. 1, struts 14).
Regarding claim 14, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses the implant is formed as one of an intraluminal endoprostheses, a stent, stent-graft, an occluder or a tissue patch (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 15, Mangiardi discloses a method (Paragraphs [0036 and 0144]) for preparing an implant comprising: providing at least one biodegradable support structure (Paragraphs [0021 and 0060], Fig. 1 tubular body 12) comprising or consisting of magnesium, zinc or iron (Paragraph [0021]); or comprising or consisting of a biodegradable magnesium-based alloy, a biodegradable zinc-based alloy or a biodegradable an iron-based alloy (Paragraph [0021]), wherein the biodegradable support structure (12) comprises a plurality of interconnected struts (Fig. 1, struts 14) and spaces/openings (see annotated Fig. 1 below) between the plurality of interconnected struts (14); and providing dried covering material (Paragraphs [0021 and 0093], biodegradable polymer coating, wherein the coating may contain “lyophilized powder” Paragraph [0139]) wherein the dried covering material comprises one of an autologous, xenogeneic or allogeneic biological tissue (Paragraphs [0131 and 0140], ECM material is xenogeneic), or the dried covering material comprises one of a cross-linked autologous, xenogeneic or allogeneic tissue (Paragraphs [0131, 0140, and 0141], ECM material is xenogeneic) at least partially covering (Paragraph [0021]) the at least one biodegradable support structure (Fig. 1, struts 14) prior to implantation with the dried covering material (Paragraph [0021]).
PNG
media_image1.png
211
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mangiardi fails to disclose providing a sheet of dried covering material including at least partially covering at least some of spaces/openings.
Schafer also discloses an implant (Fig. 1A, medical device 40), biodegradable support structure (Col. 6, lines 56-64, Fig. 1A, tubular support frame) with struts (Fig. 1A, connecting members 24, 26) and spaces/openings (see annotated Fig. 1A below), and a dried covering material (Fig. 1A, graft material 30). Schafer discloses a sheet (Col. 29, lines 27-31) of dried covering material (30) including at least partially covering at least some of spaces/openings (see annotated Fig. 1A below). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangiardi’s implant providing a sheet of dried covering material including at least partially covering at least some of spaces/openings, as taught by Schafer, in order for the dried covering material to be fitted to (Col. 11, lines 1-3) and wrapped (Col. 29, lines 27-31) around the support structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
221
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses the implant according to claim 6 comprising 0.2 wt. % to 10 wt. % (Paragraph [0045]) of Zr or other rare earth metals, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 wt. % to 1 wt. %. 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 have modified Mangiardi’s implant to have a Zr or other rare earth metals content of 0.1 wt. % to 1 wt. % as claimed, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranged, indicating the Zr, or other rare earth metals, content is “optionally” within the claimed range (Application [0065]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangiardi (WO 2017/204803 A1) in view of Schafer et al. (US Patent No. 8,663,308 B2) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al. (US PG Pub No. 2021/0353836 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses the biodegradable magnesium-based alloy (Paragraph [0021]), but fails to disclose wherein the biodegradable magnesium-based alloy comprises impurities in a total amount of no more than 0.02 wt. %. Yamashita also discloses an implant (Fig. 1) formed of biodegradable magnesium-based alloy (Fig. 1, magnesium alloy a). Yamashita teaches wherein the biodegradable magnesium-based alloy comprises impurities in a total amount of no more than 30 ppm (~0.003 wt. %) (Paragraph [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangiardi’s as modified by Schafer implant wherein the biodegradable magnesium-based alloy comprises impurities in a total amount of no more than 30 ppm, as taught by Yamashita, in order to ensure safety and mechanical properties of the alloy (Paragraph [0064]). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the total impurity amount of Mangiardi as modified by Schafer in view of Yamashita from no more than 30 ppm as taught by Yamashita to be no more than 0.02 wt. % as claimed, as it involves merely adjusting the impurity amount which is disclosed to be adjustable depending on the mechanical properties desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mangiardi in view of Yamashita by making the impurities in a total amount of no more than 0.02 wt. % as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangiardi (WO 2017/204803 A1) in view of Schafer et al. (US Patent No. 8,663,308 B2) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wagner et al. (US PG Pub No. 2021/0236688 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses the biodegradable magnesium-based alloy (Paragraph [0021]), but fails to disclose wherein the biodegradable magnesium-based alloy comprises Y content of 0.1 wt. % to 5.0 wt. %, a Nd content of 0.01 wt. % to 5 wt. %, a Gd content of 0.01 wt. % to 3.0 wt. %, a Dy content of 0.01 wt. % to 3.0 wt. %. Wagner also discloses an implant (Fig. 1A) and biodegradable magnesium-based alloy (Fig. 1A, Paragraphs [0096 and 0125]). Wagner teaches wherein the biodegradable magnesium-based alloy (Paragraph [0125], Mg alloy WE43) comprises Y content of 4 wt. % (which falls within the claimed range of 0.1 wt. % to 5.0 wt. %), a Nd content of 2.3 wt. % (which falls within the claimed range of 0.01 wt. % to 5 wt. %), other rare earth element 1 wt. % (which falls within the claimed range of 0.01 wt. % to 3.0 wt. %) (Paragraph [0125], Mg alloy WE43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangiardi’s as modified by Schafer implant wherein the biodegradable magnesium-based alloy comprises Y content of 0.1 wt. % to 5.0 wt. %, a Nd content of 0.01 wt. % to 5 wt. %, a Gd content of 0.01 wt. % to 3.0 wt. %, a Dy content of 0.01 wt. % to 3.0 wt. %, as taught by Wagner, in order for the alloy composition to remain biodegradable (Paragraph [0125]).
Regarding claim 20, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses a Mg—Ca—Zn alloy (Paragraphs [0021 and 0022]). Mangiardi fails to disclose wherein the Mg—Ca—Zn alloy has a Zn content of 0.5 wt. % to 9.0 and Ca content of 0.001 wt. % to 1.0 wt. %. Wagner also discloses an implant (Fig. 1A) and biodegradable magnesium-based alloy (Fig. 1A, Paragraphs [0096 and 0125]). Wagner teaches wherein the Mg—Ca—Zn alloy (Paragraph [0128]) has a Zn content of 1.0 wt. % to 6.0 (Paragraph [0128]) and Ca content of greater than 0 to 1.0 wt. % (Paragraph [0128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangiardi’s as modified by Schafer implant wherein the Mg—Ca—Zn alloy (Paragraph [0128]) has a Zn content of 1.0 wt. % to 6.0 and Ca content of greater than 0 to 1.0 wt. %, as taught by Wagner, in order to maintain impurities (Paragraph [0128]). Further, 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 have modified the Zn and Ca content of Mangiardi as modified by Schafer in view of Wagner of 1.0 wt. % to 6.0 and greater than 0 to 1.0 wt. %, respectively, as taught by Wagner to 0.5 wt. % to 9.0 and 0.001 wt. % to 1.0 wt. %, respectively, as claimed, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranged, indicating the Mg, Zn, and Ca content is “preferably” within the claimed range (Application Paragraph [0069]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mangiardi (WO 2017/204803 A1) in view of Schafer et al. (US Patent No. 8,663,308 B2) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Mueller et al. (US PG Pub No. 2015/0080998 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses a Mg—Al alloy (Paragraph [0022]). Mangiardi fails to disclose wherein the Mg—Al alloy comprises an Al content of 0.5 wt. % to 10.0 wt. %, and wherein other impurities in a total have an amount of no more than 0.01 wt. %. Mueller also discloses an implant (Paragraph [0029]) and biodegradable magnesium-based alloy (Paragraphs [0029 and 0030]). Mueller teaches wherein the Mg—Al alloy comprises an Al content of 2.0 wt. % to 10.0 wt. % (Paragraph [0030]), and wherein other impurities in a total have an amount of no more than 0.0063 wt. % (Paragraph [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangiardi’s as modified by Schafer implant wherein the Mg—Al alloy comprises an Al content of 2.0 wt. % to 10.0 wt. %, and wherein other impurities in a total have an amount of no more than 0.0063 wt. %, as taught by Mueller, in order to minimize the promotion of electrochemical differences that speed up corrosion by limiting the wt. % of impurities (Paragraph [0030]). Further, 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 have modified the Al of Mangiardi as modified by Schafer in view of Mueller of 2.0 wt. % to 10.0 wt. %, as taught by Mueller to 0.5 wt. % to 10.0 wt. %, as claimed, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranged, indicating Al content is “preferably” within the claimed range (Application Paragraph [0067]).
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the total impurity amount of Mangiardi as modified by Schafer in view of Mueller from no more than 0.0063 wt. % as taught by Mueller to be no more than 0.01 wt. % as claimed, as it involves merely adjusting the impurity amount which is disclosed to be adjustable depending on the mechanical properties desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mangiardi as modified by Schafer in view of Mueller by making the impurities in a total amount of no more than 0.01 wt. % as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Mangiardi as modified by Schafer discloses a Mg—Al—Zn alloy (Paragraph [0022]). Mangiardi fails to disclose wherein the Mg—Al—Zn alloy comprises a Zn content of 0.1 wt. % to 9.0 wt. %, and an Al content of 0.5 wt. % to 10.0 wt. %, wherein the total content of Zn and Al is not more than 9.5 wt. %, and the content of Al in wt. % is greater than or equal to the content of Zn in wt. %, and wherein other impurities in a total have an amount of no more than 0.01 wt. %. Mueller also discloses an implant (Paragraph [0029]) and biodegradable magnesium-based alloy (Paragraphs [0029 and 0030]). Mueller teaches wherein the Mg—Al—Zn alloy comprises a Zn content less or equal to 4.0 wt. % (Paragraph [0030]), and an Al content of 2.0 wt. % to 10.0 wt. % (Paragraph [0030]), wherein the total content of Zn and Al is not more than 2.0 wt. % to 14.0 wt. % (Paragraph [0030], range of the total content of Zn and Al is from the range of their individual wt. % together), and the content of Al in wt. % is greater than or equal to the content of Zn in wt. % (Paragraph [0030]), and wherein other impurities in a total have an amount of no more than 0.0063 wt. % (Paragraph [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangiardi as modified by Schafer implant wherein the Mg—Al—Zn alloy comprises a Zn content less or equal to 4.0 wt. %, and an Al content of 2.0 wt. % to 10.0 wt. %, wherein the total content of Zn and Al is not more than 2.0 wt. % to 14.0 wt. %, and the content of Al in wt. % is greater than or equal to the content of Zn in wt. %, and wherein other impurities in a total have an amount of no more than 0.0063 wt. %, as taught by Mueller, in order to minimize the promotion of electrochemical differences that speed up corrosion by limiting the wt. % of impurities (Paragraph [0030]). Further, 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 have modified Mangiardi as modified by Schafer implant wherein the Mg—Al—Zn alloy comprises a Zn content less or equal to 4.0 wt. %, and an Al content of 2.0 wt. % to 10.0 wt. %, and wherein the total content of Zn and Al is not more than 2.0 wt. % to 14.0 wt. %, , as taught by Mueller wherein the Mg—Al—Zn alloy comprises a Zn content of 0.1 wt. % to 9.0 wt. %, and an Al content of 0.5 wt. % to 10.0 wt. %, wherein the total content of Zn and Al is not more than 9.5 wt. %, and the content of Al in wt. % is greater than or equal to the content of Zn in wt. %, as claimed, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranged, indicating Mg, Zn, and Al content is “preferably” within the claimed range (Application Paragraph [0068]).
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the total impurity amount of Mangiardi as modified by Schafer in view of Mueller from no more than 0.0063 wt. % as taught by Mueller to be no more than 0.01 wt. % as claimed, as it involves merely adjusting the impurity amount which is disclosed to be adjustable depending on the mechanical properties desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mangiardi in view of Mueller by making the impurities in a total amount of no more than 0.01 wt. % as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 KARI L COCHRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 5712729062. 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.
/K.L.C./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/MELANIE R TYSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
Prosecution Insights