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
The amendments made to claims 1, 9, 10, and 18 in the response filed on 11/10/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are still pending in the application and are examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see page 5, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the objection of claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see page 5, filed 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, and 8-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new ground of rejection was made in view of Levin (US 6384294 B1) in view of Karim et al. (US 20160166422 A1) and in further view of Pope (US 3425412 A) to meet the newly added limitations of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed on 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 10-11 and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection was made in view of Gildersleeve (US 9717290 B2) in view of Naik (US 20100063434 A1) to meet the newly added limitations of claim 10.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed on 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 10, 12-13, and 17 under 35 U.S.C 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection was made in view of Gildersleeve (US 9717290 B2, different interpretation of the fastener) in view of Naik (US 20100063434 A1) to meet the newly added limitations of claim 10.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed on 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed on 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed on 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered. See new rejection regarding claims 1 and 5 below in the office action.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed on 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed on 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered. See new rejection regarding claims 1 and 7 below in the office action.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed on 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered. See new rejection regarding claims 10 and 16 below in the office action.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed on 11/10/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection was made in view of Chen (CN 205964258 U) in view of Gildersleeve (US 9717290 B2) and in further view of Naik (US 20100063434 A1) to meet the newly added limitations of claim 18.
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 padding covers an entirety of the top surface” from claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 19 objected to because of the following informalities: “top surfaced” should be “top surface” in line 1. 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.
Claim 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, the amended limitation “a foam padding” is unclear in terms of whether it is an additional foam padding to claim 1 or, the padding from claim 1 is comprised of a foam padding. This claim was examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin (US 6384294 B1) in view of Karim et al. (US 20160166422 A1) and in further view of Pope (US 3425412 A), with extrinsic evidence provided by “Unigloves” for the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 1, Levin discloses an infant hernia bandage device (10 – see annotated figure 1, a protective bandage [see examiner further notes below]: column 6, lines 13-40) comprising: a body (12 – see annotated figure 1, an anchoring strip: column 4, lines 40-64) comprised of a top surface (A – see annotated figure 1, top surface of the body) and a bottom surface (B – see annotated figure 1, bottom surface of the body); an adhesive positioned on the bottom surface (B) (see annotated figure 1, the body [12] has an adhesive on its lower surface: column 3, lines 12-19/column 4, lines 40-59); and a padding (18 – see annotated figure 1, a lower compressive cushioning member: column 4, lines 59-64) positioned on the top surface (A) (see annotated figure 1, the padding [18] is positioned on the top surface of the body (A)).
PNG
media_image1.png
398
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 1: bandage of Levin
Examiner further notes: A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
However, Levin fails to disclose a peelable release film positional over the adhesive; wherein the body is a transparent latex body.
Karim et al. teaches a peelable release film positional over an analogous adhesive (136 – an adhesive: paragraph 0025/0029) (there can be a release liner that can be included to cover all or a portion of the adhesives: paragraph 0049).
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 provided the adhesive of Levin with a peelable release film positional over the adhesive as taught by Karim in order to provide an improved infant hernia bandage device that prevents the contamination of the adhesive before use (Karim et al., paragraph 0049).
Levin in view of Karim et al. fails to disclose wherein the body is a transparent latex body.
Pope teaches wherein an analogous body (12 – figure 1/figure 2, a strip of non-opaque material: column 2, lines 54-67) is a transparent latex body (the body [12] can be transparent and can be made from rubber latex: column 2, lines 54-68).
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 body of Levin in view of Karim et al. to be a transparent latex body as taught by Pope in order to provide an infant hernia bandage device that has an improved body to allow users to inspect the area adjacent to the wound and assist in placement of the bandage onto the wound site (column 1, lines 56-61column 3, lines 66/column 4, lines 1-4, Pope).
Regarding claim 5, Levin in view of Karim et al. and in further view of Pope discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Pope further teaches wherein the analogous body (12) is comprised of a waterproof material (the body [12] is made of rubber latex; rubber latex is known to be waterproof [as evidenced in “Unigloves”]).
Regarding claim 7, Levin in view of Karim et al. and in further view of Pope discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Karim et al. further teaches wherein the analogous adhesive (136) is comprised of an acrylate adhesive (the adhesive [136] can comprise of acrylate copolymers: paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 9, Levin in view of Karim et al. and in further view of Pope discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1. Levin further discloses wherein a foam padding (18) covers an entirety of the top surface (A) (see annotated figure 1, the vertical lines in annotated figure 1 defines the portion of where the body [12] is interpreted and its top surface [A]; beyond the vertical lines is the flange portion of the body [12]. Based on this interpretation, the padding [18] covers the entirety of the top surface of the body [A]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levin (US 6384294 B1) in view of Karim et al. (US 20160166422 A1) in view of Pope (US 3425412 A) and in further view of Macedo (US 20110077608 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Levin in view of Karim et al. and in further view of Pope discloses the invention as discussed in claim 1.
However, Levin in view of Karim et al. and in further view of Pope fails to disclose wherein the padding is comprised of a foam padding.
Macedo teaches wherein an analogous padding (50 – figure 2, a cushion pad: paragraph 0020) is comprised of a foam padding (the padding [50] can be a in a form of a foam: paragraph 0042).
The device of Levin and Macedo are in the same general field of endeavor and are therefore, considered analogous art; both would be considered bandages that protects the wound against external forces.
Therefore, at the time the invention was made, it would have been well within the skill of an ordinary artisan to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Substituting the gel-type material cushioning member (18) of Levin with a foam padding (50) of Macedo would have achieved the predictable result of protecting against external forces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the gel-type material cushioning member of Levin with a foam padding of Macedo in order to have provided an improved infant hernia bandage device to help protect a wound or blister under external forces and provide additional comfort for the user (paragraph 0042, Macedo).
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Claims 10-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gildersleeve (US 9717290 B2) in view of Naik (US 20100063434 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Gildersleeve discloses an infant hernia bandage device (100 – figure 1, a padded tape [see examiner further notes below]: column 6, lines 34-58) comprising: a body (102 – figure 1, a biocompatible first layer made of urethane, polyurethane, or hydrogel to conform to the surface of the skin: column 2, lines 15-20/column 6, lines 57-62) comprised of a top surface (106 – figure 1, top surface of the body) and a bottom surface (104 – figure 1, bottom surface of the body); an adhesive positioned on the bottom surface (104) (figure 1, the bottom surface [104] can have an adhesive applied to it for adhering to the user’s skin: column 2, lines 15-20); a peelable release film positional over the adhesive (the adhesive can be optionally covered with a releasable, protective paper liner prior to use: column 2, lines 12-29); a padding (108 – figure 1, a second layer with a pattern of shaped pieces of foam [110 – figure 1]: column 8, lines 29-39) positioned on the top surface (106) (figure 1, the padding [108] is disposed on the top surface of the body [106]: column 8, lines 29-39); and a fastener (figure 1, there can be an adhesive layer on the top surface of the padding [108]: column 8, lines 55-61).
Examiner further notes: A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
However, Gildersleeve fails to disclose wherein the padding comprises at least one weighted element.
Naik teaches wherein an analogous padding (16 – figure 4, a foam that can be made from polyurethane, a mixture of polyurethane, polyester, polyether and other appropriate materials: paragraph 0016) comprises at least one weighted element (the padding [16] comprises antimicrobial materials such as copper: paragraph 0016).
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 provided the padding of Gildersleeve with at least one weighted element as taught by Naik in order to provide an infant hernia bandage device that has an improved padding containing antimicrobial properties (paragraph 0002/0005, Naik).
Regarding claim 11, Gildersleeve in view of Naik discloses the invention as discussed in claim 10. Gildersleeve further discloses wherein the padding (108) is comprised of a foam padding (the padding [108] is made of foam: column 8, lines 29-39).
Regarding claim 14, Gildersleeve in view of Naik discloses the invention as discussed in claim 10. Gildersleeve further discloses wherein the fastener is positioned on a top surface of the padding (figure 1, there can be a fastener [adhesive layer] on the top surface of the padding [108]: column 8, lines 55-61).
Regarding claim 15, Gildersleeve in view of Naik discloses the invention as discussed in claim 14. Gildersleeve further discloses wherein the fastener is comprised of an adhesive (figure 1, there can be a fastener [adhesive layer] on the top surface of the padding [108]: column 8, lines 55-61).
Claims 10, 12-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gildersleeve (US 9717290 B2, with a different interpretation of the fastener) in view of Naik (US 20100063434 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Gildersleeve discloses an infant hernia bandage device (100 – figure 1, a padded tape [see examiner further notes below]: column 6, lines 34-58) comprising: a body (102 – figure 1, a biocompatible first layer made of urethane, polyurethane, or hydrogel to conform to the surface of the skin: column 2, lines 15-20/column 6, lines 57-62) comprised of a top surface (106 – figure 1, top surface of the body) and a bottom surface (104 – figure 1, bottom surface of the body); an adhesive positioned on the bottom surface (104) (figure 1, the bottom surface [104] can have an adhesive applied to it for adhering to the user’s skin: column 2, lines 15-20); a peelable release film positional over the adhesive (the adhesive can be optionally covered with a releasable, protective paper liner prior to use: column 2, lines 12-29); a padding (108 – figure 1, a second layer with a pattern of shaped pieces of foam [110 – figure 1]: column 8, lines 29-39) positioned on the top surface (106) (figure 1, the padding [108] is disposed on the top surface of the body [106]: column 8, lines 29-39); and a fastener (figure 1, there can be an adhesive layer on the top surface of the padding [108]: column 8, lines 55-61).
Examiner further notes: A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
However, Gildersleeve fails to disclose wherein the padding comprises at least one weighted element.
Naik teaches wherein an analogous padding (16 – figure 4, a foam that can be made from polyurethane, a mixture of polyurethane, polyester, polyether and other appropriate materials: paragraph 0016) comprises at least one weighted element (the padding [16] comprises antimicrobial materials such as copper: paragraph 0016).
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 provided the padding of Gildersleeve with at least one weighted element as taught by Naik in order to provide an infant hernia bandage device that has an improved padding containing antimicrobial properties (paragraph 0002/0005, Naik).
Regarding claim 12, Gildersleeve in view of Naik discloses the invention as discussed in claim 10. Gildersleeve further discloses wherein the fastener is positioned on the top surface (there is a pressure-sensitive adhesive between the top surface of the body [106] and the padding [108]: column 8, lines 29-39).
Regarding claim 13, Gildersleeve in view of Naik discloses the invention as discussed in claim 12. Gildersleeve further discloses wherein the fastener is comprised of an adhesive (the fastener is a pressure-sensitive adhesive: column 8, lines 29-39).
Regarding claim 17, Gildersleeve in view of Naik discloses the invention as discussed in claim 13. Gildersleeve further discloses wherein the adhesive is comprised of a skin-safe adhesive (the adhesive is a pressure-sensitive adhesive that is compatible to the skin, poses robust skin adhesion qualities, breathable to air/moisture, and allow for removal without skin trauma: column 7, lines 8-13/column 8, lines 29-39).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gildersleeve (US 9717290 B2) in view of Naik (US 20100063434 A1) and in further view of Gaylord (US 3670725 A).
Regarding claim 16, Gildersleeve in view of Naik discloses the invention as discussed in claim 10.
However, Gildersleeve in view of Naik fails to disclose wherein the padding is comprised of a convex top surface.
Gaylord teaches wherein an analogous padding (10’ – figure 3, a convexo-concave member made of reticulated polyurethane foam: column 2, lines 25-45) is comprised of a convex top surface (figure 3, the top surface of the padding [10’] is convex).
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 top surface of the padding of Gildersleeve in view of Naik to have a convex top surface as taught by Gaylord in order to provide an infant hernia bandage device that has an improved padding to provide additional protection against pressure on the user’s body (Gaylord, column 1, lines 35-49). Further, applicant places no criticality on the “convex top surface” claimed, indicating simply that the top surface “may” be flat or convex (specification paragraph: 0033).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 205964258 U) in view of Gildersleeve (US 9717290 B2) and in further view of Naik (US 20100063434 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses a method of using an infant hernia bandage device (6 - figure 1, a hernia treatment belt with oval-shaped pressure pads: detailed description), the method comprising the following steps: providing an infant hernia bandage device comprised of a body (6 – figure 1, an oval-shaped pressure pad with different arcs that treats the hernia: detailed description); placing a diaper (10/1 – figure 1, a double camel-shaped abdominal wall pad [10] and net pocket [1]: detailed description) over the infant’s lower body such that the diaper covers the infant hernia bandage device (6) (figure 1/figure 2, the diaper [10/1] covers the infant hernia bandage device [6]); and positioning a strap of the diaper (5-3 – figure 2, a long band aligned with hump [4]: detailed description) over an area of the diaper the device (6) is positioned under to further compress the hernia area (the strap of the diaper [5-3] is poisoned over the infant hernia bandage device [6]; it is implied that there is additional pressure on to the hernia area because the strap helps fit the user [due to adjustability of the strap] into the apparatus and it is over the infant hernia bandage device [6]: detailed description).
However, Chen fails to disclose a body with a bottom surface comprised of an adhesive and a top surface comprised of a foam padding; peeling a release film off of the body to expose the adhesive; adhering the bottom surface to a hernia area on an infant’s body; wherein the foam padding comprises a 2.5 gram copper weighted element.
Gildersleeve teaches an analogous body (102 – figure 1, a biocompatible first layer made of urethane, polyurethane, or hydrogel to conform to the surface of the skin: column 2, lines 15-20/column 6, lines 57-62) with a bottom surface (104 – figure 1, bottom surface of the body) comprised of an adhesive (figure 1, the bottom surface [104] can have an adhesive applied to it for adhering to the user’s skin: column 2, lines 15-20) and a top surface (106 – figure 1, top surface of the body) comprised of a foam padding (108 – figure 1, a second layer with a pattern of shaped pieces of foam [110 – figure 1]: column 8, lines 29-39) (figure 1, the padding [108] is disposed on the top surface of the body [106]: column 8, lines 29-39); peeling a release film off of the body to expose the adhesive (the adhesive can be optionally covered with a releasable, protective paper liner prior to use: column 2, lines 27-29).
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 provided the body of Chen with an adhesive covered by a release film and padding as taught by Gildersleeve in order to provide an infant hernia bandage device that has an improved body to protect the adhesive and allow the body to safely adhere to a body surface, allow for removal without skin trauma, and absorb impact force to improve protection of the user’s skin (column 2, lines 27-29/column 7, lines 8-13/column 1, lines 45-50, Gildersleeve).
Chen in view of Gildersleeve discloses adhering the bottom surface to a hernia area on an infant’s body (in combination, Gildersleeve provides a pressure-sensitive adhesive on the bottom surface of Chen that is safe to apply onto a hernia area; the body of Chen is placed into a net pocket, therefore, the adhesive of Gildersleeve is able to adhere to the user: detailed description).
However, Chen in view of Gildersleeve fails to explicitly disclose wherein the foam padding comprises a 2.5 gram copper weighted element.
Naik teaches wherein an analogous foam padding (16 – figure 4, a foam that can be made from polyurethane, a mixture of polyurethane, polyester, polyether and other appropriate materials: paragraph 0016) copper weighted element (the padding [16] comprises antimicrobial materials such as copper: paragraph 0016).
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 optimized the copper weighted element to be 2.5 grams to ensure that the foam padding presents antimicrobial properties (paragraph 0002/0005, Naik), 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. Further, applicant places no criticality on the weight, indicating simply that the weight of the copper element is approximately (but not limited to 2.50 grams) (written specification: paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Gildersleeve and in further view of Naik discloses the method as discussed in claim 18. Gildersleeve further teaches wherein an analogous top surfaced (106) is comprised of a fastener (figure 1, there can be a fastener [an adhesive layer] on the top surface of the padding [108]; the top surface comprises a foam padding [108] and a fastener: column 8, lines 55-61).
Regarding claim 20, Chen in view of Gildersleeve and in further view of Naik discloses the method as discussed in claim 19. Chen in view of Gildersleeve further discloses further a step of securing the fastener to the diaper (the adhesive of Gildersleeve can be used to adhere the bottom surface of the body of Chen to the user while the fastener of Gildersleeve can be used to adhere to the diaper of Chen).
Examiner further notes: With respect to Claims 18-20, regarding the method step claimed, to the extent that the prior art apparatus meets the structural limitations of the apparatus as claimed, it will inherently perform the method steps as claimed. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation has been established. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); (under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device) see MPEP 2112.01(1).
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 ANDREW JUN-WAI MOK whose telephone number is (703)756-4605. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4pm.
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.
/ANDREW JUN-WAI MOK/Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/ALIREZA NIA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786