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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102023110194.3, filed on 04/21/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection was maintained.
The arguments state that the claimed dimensional limitations including “the access opening delimited laterally by two arms running parallel to one another along a parallel segment and then transitioning into a V-shape towards each other along a V-shape segment, the distance (A) measured from mesial to distal between the mesial arm and the distal arm along the parallel segment being at least as large as the arm width (B1; B2) of each of the two arms, and the sum of the two arm cross-sectional areas at any one point of the clamp bend along the parallel segment and the V-shape segment not deviating more than 10% less than from the minimum cross-sectional area “are critical to achieving substantially uniform spring characteristics along the clamp bend as if no access opening were present. The specification at paragraph [0010] lines 7-8 states that the given dimension specifications and dimension ratios refer to the respective nominal dimensions which can vary within the scope of usual manufacturing tolerances. Further, specification paragraphs [0012] (The invention may have (but which are not necessary) significant advantages), [0018] (the invention can ensure that – apart from manufacturing tolerances – the sum of the arm sections...), and [0022] (two arms can be in the range of 40° to 75°, particularly in the range of 45° to 70°…can run at an angle to the longitudinal direction of the clamp in the range of 20° to 45°, particularly in the range of 23° to 33°). These indicate that the claimed tolerances represent nominal/target values allowing for manufacturing variation. No objective evidence, such as comparative test data or a declaration has been provided demonstrating unexpected results relative to the prior art or that the specific claimed tolerances produce a difference in kind rather than merely in degree.Even considering the arguments presented, the cross-sectional area and geometry in the area of the clamp bend, including the parallel-to-V-shape arm configuration and resulting uniformity, is a result-effective variable that directly affects the spring characteristics and bending stiffness of the resilient clamp, as acknowledged in the specification at paragraph [0011]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the arm geometry and cross-sectional areas through routine experimentation to achieve the desired uniform spring performance while maintaining tool accessibility, as taught by Sommer in view of Falcone. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommer et al (US 10,111,731 B2) in the view of Falcone et al (US 10555793B2)
Regarding claim 1, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket for orthodontics, comprising: a base (59) (figure 3);
an occlusal wall (19) extending from the base (Figure 3);
a gingival wall (18) extending from the base (Figure 3);
a groove (20) separating the occlusal wall (19) and the gingival wall (18) and extending continuously in a direction from mesial to distal (Figure 3);
a fastening side (bottom of 12) facing away from the groove for adhesively bonding the bracket to a lingual or vestibular surface of a tooth (Figure 4);
a slit extending in a direction from gingival to occlusal (see annotated Figure 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
440
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a resilient clamp (22), which comprises a first clamp leg and a second clamp leg (the bended portions of 36 which is around the area 22 on either sides), which are connected to each other by an occlusally or gingivally arranged clamp bend (44), wherein the first clamp leg is inserted in the slit and can be moved therein in gingival-occlusal direction between a closed position and an open position of the clamp (Figure 1);
wherein the clamp has an access opening (40) in the area of the clamp bend configured for engagement of a bracket opener;
wherein the access opening (40), in a view along the longitudinal direction of the first clamp leg or in a top view of the clamp unwound into a plane, is delimited laterally by two arms (the lateral arms as marked in figure 2 below) running parallel to one another and then transitioning into a V-shape towards each other along a V-shape segment (area around 42), (Figure 1 and Figure 2 below shows two lateral arms which are parallel before forming V-shaped arms); the two arms being a mesial arm and a distal arm (two lateral arms , one is mesial other is distal based on the bracket arrangement, col.5 lines 1-10 “The transition portion 42 widens in the mesial - distal direction to the lateral arms.. the mesial side of a mesial lateral arm is coextensive with the mesial side of the bracket body 14 and the mesial end of the arch wire slot 20. Similarly, the distal side of a distal lateral arm...”).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the cross-section of the clamp in the area of the clamp bend outside the access opening has a minimum which is referred to as the minimum cross-sectional area (annotated figure 8 shows the cross section of element 22);
wherein each of the arms has an arm cross-sectional area in the area of the access opening (annotated figure 8 shows the cross section of the element 36);
While Sommer discloses a similar bracket, the access opening dimensions relative to the mesial and distal arm width is not clearly disclosed. Falcone shows a similar bracket with a larger access opening relative to the thickness of the arms (Fig 17L, in between arms 696a), where the distance measured from mesial to distal between the mesial arm and the distal arm is at least as large as the arm width of each of the two arms measured from mesial to distal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access opening (40) of Sommer to have a larger opening where ‘the distance measured from mesial to distal between the mesial arm and the distal arm is at least as large as the arm width of each of the two arms measured from mesial to distal’ as taught by Falcone. (Sommer teaches the parallel arms that then forming a V-shaped arms, and an access opening, while Falcone teaches larger access opening as above. Therefore, including larger access opening to the device of Sommer is obvious and can be experimented by a person of ordinary skill in the art as stated above. The modified Sommer thereby teaches a bracket with larger access opening.)
However, while Sommer appears to show the two-arm cross-sectional area being the same, the reference does not explicitly disclose the cross-sectional area of either arm and therefore does not explicitly disclose the claims range of " wherein the sum of the two arm cross-sectional areas at anyone point of the clamp bend along the parallel segment (the two parallel parts of the arms /lateral arms as in Figure 2 above) and the V-shape segment is not more than deviate more than 10% from the minimum cross sectional area". It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sommer to have the arm cross-sectional diameters as claimed since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" see MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, modifying the device of Sommer to have the claimed cross-sectional areas would not adversely affect the function of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Sommer appears to show the two arms are half as width of the clamp bend. The reference does not explicitly disclose the “two arms is half as wide as a smallest width of the clamp bend”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sommer to have the two arms is half as wide as the smallest width of the clamp bend where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" see MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, modifying the device of Sommer to have the claimed diameters would not adversely affect the function of the device.
Regarding claim 3, Sommer appears to show the two-arm cross-sectional area being the same diameter (figures 8, 15), the reference does not explicitly disclose the cross-sectional area of either arm and therefore does not explicitly disclose the claims range of "not more than 20% larger than the minimum cross-sectional area"
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sommer to have the arm cross-sectional areas as claimed since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" see MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, modifying the device of Sommer to have the claimed cross sectional areas would not adversely affect the function of the device.
Regarding claim 4, Sommer appears to show the two-arm cross-sectional area being the same diameter, the reference does not explicitly disclose the cross-sectional area of either arm and therefore does not explicitly disclose the claims range of "more than 10% larger than the minimum cross-sectional area extend over maximally 20% of total bending angle."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sommer to have the arm cross-sectional areas as claimed since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" see MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, modifying the device of Sommer to have the claimed areas would not adversely affect the function of the device.
Regarding claim 5, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket with an access opening (40) delimited laterally by two arms running in a V-shape (42) towards each other, the arms bordering the access opening on opposite sides (Figure 1). Sommer further teaches that the distance between the two arms is at least as large as the arm width. However, Sommer does not explicitly disclose the distance between the two arms being at least 0.7mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a distance between the arms of at least 0.7mm, 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 range (see pp. [0010] indicating the value might be vary).
Regarding claim 6, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket with an access opening (40) delimited laterally by two arms running in a V-shape (42) towards each other, the arms bordering the access opening on opposite sides forming an angle. However, Sommer does not explicitly disclose the angle between two arms are in range 40° to 75°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide an angle between two arms in range 40° to 75°, 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 range (see pp. [0022] indicating the angles might vary).
Regarding claim 7, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket with an access opening delimited laterally by two arms running in a V-shape towards each other, the arms bordering the access opening on opposite sides. However, Sommer does not explicitly disclose the angle between two arms are in range 45° to 70°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide an angle between two arms in range 45° to 70°, 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 range (see pp. [0022] indicating the angles might vary).
Regarding claim 8, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket with a clamp (22), However does not explicitly disclose wherein one of the two arms in a top view of the clamp unwound into a plane, extends at angle when unwound into a plane is in range 20° to 45°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide an angle when unwound into a plane be in range 20° to 45°, 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 range (see pp. [0022] indicating the angles might vary).
Regarding claim 9, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket with a clamp (22), However does not explicitly disclose wherein one of the two arms in a top view of the clamp unwound into a plane, extends at an angle when unwound into a plane is in range 23° to 33°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide an angle when unwound into a plane be in range 23° to 33°, 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 range (see pp. [0023] indicating the angles might vary).
Regarding claims 10, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket with an access opening which is oblong in shape (40, Figure 11), However does not explicitly disclose that this access opening which is oblong extends over at least 50% of the total clamp bend. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide an access opening that extends over at least 50% of the total clamp bend, 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 range (see pp. [0022] indicating the angles might vary).
Regarding claims 11, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket with an access opening which is oblong in shape (40), However does not explicitly disclose that the access opening extends over at least 55% of the total clamp bend. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide an access opening that extends over at least 55% of the total clamp bend, 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 range (see pp. [0023] indicating the angles might vary).
Regarding claim 12, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket with an access opening which is oblong in shape (40), and a clamp (22) which bends at an angle. However, does not explicitly disclose that the clamp bend has an angle of at least 100°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a clamp bend has an angle of at least 100°, 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 range (see pp. [0023] indicating the angles might vary).
Regarding claim 13, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket with an access opening which is oblong in shape (40), and a clamp (22) which bends at an angle. However, does not explicitly disclose that the clamp bend has an angle of at least 120°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a clamp bend has an angle of at least 120°, 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 range (see pp. [0023] indicating the angles might vary).
Regarding claim 14, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket wherein the parallel segment (the two parallel arms) of the clamp bend (22) in which the two arms run parallel to each other adjoins the V-shaped (joins the V-shaped segment/arms) segment of the clamp bend in which the two arms run in the V-shape towards each other (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
412
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Sommer shows a clamp bend as in claim 1, wherein the clamp bend (44), as viewed in a longitudinal section through the first clamp leg (the bending parts of 36, which is around 22), has a center which lies at a first height above the first clamp leg, wherein the end of the access opening (40) facing the first clamp leg lies at a second height above the first clamp leg, the reference does not explicitly disclose the relative heights of each section of the bend and therefore does not explicitly disclose the claims range of "first height (0.8 * H1) reduced by 20% and the first height (1.2 * H1) increased by 20%"
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sommer to have the clamp bend height ratio as disclosed "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" see MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, modifying the device of Sommer to have the claimed heights would not adversely affect the function of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket with an access opening (40). However, does not explicitly disclose that the clamp bend has an angle of at least 120°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide a clamp bend has an angle of at least 120°, 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 range (see pp. [0023] indicating the angles might vary).
Regarding claim 17, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket wherein the occlusal wall or the gingival wall (walls 18 and 19) is assigned to the clamp bend (44) and wherein, as viewed along the longitudinal direction of the first clamp leg, comprises a recess (26) at its end facing away from the base of the groove (Figure 14).
Regarding claim 18, Sommer teaches a recess (26), the reference does not explicitly disclose “a depth of the recess is at least 80% of a thickness (D) of the clamp”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sommer to have the thickness of recess as claimed since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" see MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, modifying the device of Sommer to have the claimed thickness would not adversely affect the function of the device.
Regarding claim 19, Sommer teaches similar self-ligating bracket. However, while Sommer appears to show the two arm cross-sections being the same diameter, the reference does not explicitly disclose a cross-sectional area of either arm and therefore does not explicitly disclose the claims range of "not more than 10% less than a minimum cross-sectional area". It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sommer to have the arm cross-sectional diameters as claimed since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" see MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, modifying the device of Sommer to have the claimed diameters would not adversely affect the function of the device.
Regarding claim 20, Sommer teaches a self-ligating bracket for orthodontics, comprising: a base (59) (figure 3);
an occlusal wall (19) extending from the base (Figure 3);
a gingival wall (18) extending from the base (Figure 3);
a groove (20) separating the occlusal wall (19) and the gingival wall (18) and extending continuously in a direction from mesial to distal (Figure 3);
a fastening side (bottom of 12) facing away from the groove for adhesively bonding the bracket to a lingual or vestibular surface of a tooth (Figure 4);
a slit extending in a direction from gingival to occlusal (see annotated Figure 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
440
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a resilient clamp (22), which comprises a first clamp leg and a second clamp leg (the bended portions of 36 which is around the area 22 on either sides), which are connected to each other by an occlusally or gingivally arranged clamp bend (44), wherein the first clamp leg is inserted in the slit and can be moved therein in gingival-occlusal direction between a closed position and an open position of the clamp (Figure 1);
wherein the clamp bend (22) has a first portion (the portion closer to the V-shaped arms and top part of area 22) that includes an access opening (40) disposed therethrough and a second portion (the later portion which is the curved part of 22 without the access opening) that does not include the access opening,
PNG
media_image4.png
744
792
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the access opening (40), in a view along the longitudinal direction of the first clamp leg or in a top view of the clamp unwound into a plane, is delimited laterally by two arms (the lateral arms as marked in figure 2 below) running parallel to one another and then transitioning into a V-shape towards each other along a V-shape segment (area around 42), (Figure 1 and Figure 2 below shows two lateral arms which are parallel before forming V-shaped arms); the two arms being a mesial arm and a distal arm (two lateral arms , one is mesial other is distal based on the bracket arrangement, col.5 lines 1-10 “The transition portion 42 widens in the mesial - distal direction to the lateral arms.. the mesial side of a mesial lateral arm is coextensive with the mesial side of the bracket body 14 and the mesial end of the arch wire slot 20. Similarly, the distal side of a distal lateral arm...”).
PNG
media_image2.png
616
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the cross-section of the clamp in the area of the clamp bend outside the access opening has a minimum which is referred to as the minimum cross-sectional area (annotated figure 8 shows the cross section of element 22);
wherein each of the arms has an arm cross-sectional area in the area of the access opening (annotated figure 8 shows the cross section of the element 36);
While Sommer discloses a similar bracket, the access opening dimensions relative to the mesial and distal arm width is not clearly disclosed. Falcone shows a similar bracket with a larger access opening relative to the thickness of the arms (Fig 17L, in between arms 696a), where the distance measured from mesial to distal between the mesial arm and the distal arm is at least as large as the arm width of each of the two arms measured from mesial to distal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the access opening (40) of Sommer to have a larger opening where ‘the distance measured from mesial to distal between the mesial arm and the distal arm is at least as large as the arm width of each of the two arms measured from mesial to distal’ as taught by Falcone. (Sommer teaches the parallel arms that then forming a V-shaped arms, and an access opening, while Falcone teaches larger access opening as above. Therefore, including larger access opening to the device of Sommer is obvious and can be experimented by a person of ordinary skill in the art as stated above. The modified Sommer thereby teaches a bracket with larger access opening.)
However, while Sommer appears to show the two-arm cross-sectional area being the same, the reference does not explicitly disclose the cross-sectional area of either arm and therefore does not explicitly disclose the claims range of " wherein the sum of the two arm cross-sectional areas at anyone point of the clamp bend along the parallel segment (the two parallel parts of the arms /lateral arms as in Figure 2 above) and the V-shape segment is not more than deviate more than 14% from the minimum cross sectional area". It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sommer to have the arm cross-sectional diameters as claimed since it has been held that "where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device" see MPEP 2144.04 IV. In the instant case, modifying the device of Sommer to have the claimed cross-sectional areas would not adversely affect the function of the device.
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 SARA N. SAMARASEKARA whose telephone number is (571)272-9653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/SARA N SAMARASEKARA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights