DETAILED ACTION
NOTICE OF PRE-AIA OR AIA STATUS
1. 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
2. Applicant’s Amendment filed July 28, 2026 (“07/28/26 Amendment") has been entered, and fully considered.
3. In the 07/28/26 Amendment:
claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14, 15, & 18 were amended;
claims 3 & 13 were cancelled; &
claim 21 was newly added.
4. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-12, & 14-21 are now pending in the application.
5. The 07/28/26 Amendment has overcome the claim objections, as well as the rejections under §§ 112(b), 102, & 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/28/26 (“01/28/26 Action”).
6. As a result of the 07/28/26 Amendment:
new grounds of rejection under §§ 112(b), 102, & 103 are set forth herein, necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment;
dependent claim 6 (and its dependent claims 7 & 8) would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to overcome the rejection of the base claim (independent claim 1) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action; and
dependent claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to overcome the rejection of the base claim (independent claim 11) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112(b)
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, 4-12, & 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
9. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second material comprising a flexible material that can be compressed” in lines 9-10. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
10. Claims 2, 4-10, & 21 are rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 1) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
11. Claim 11 recites the limitation “the second material comprising a flexible material that can be compressed” in line 11. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
12. Claims 12, & 14-17 are rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 11) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
13. Claim 18 recites the limitation “the second material comprising a flexible material that can be compressed” in lines 10-11. The recitation of “can be” renders the claim indefinite, because it is susceptible to more than one plausible construction. It is unclear, for example, whether the limitation refers to a capability that is required to be present in the claimed device, or whether it refers to a device capability that is a mere possibility that is not required. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Clarification is required.
14. Claims 19 & 20 are rejected as ultimately depending from a claim (claim 18) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
15. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
16. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2020/0170662 to Vardi et al. (“Vardi”).
17. Regarding claim 1, and with reference to annotated FIG. 17b of Vardi (provided below), Vardi discloses an end effector comprising:
a crown [tip (470) - ¶[0133]; see “crown” in annotated in FIG. 17b below] comprising at least one crown spine portion [broadly, a strut (455) portion that is coupled to tip (470) and that extends proximally therefrom – see “crown spine portion” in annotated in FIG. 17b below];
at least one spine [broadly, a strut (455) portion that is coupled to shaft (457) and that extends distally therefrom – see “spine” in annotated in FIG. 17b below] extending along a longitudinal axis [along the longitudinal axis of shaft (457)], comprising a spine distal end [the distal end of the strut (455) portion that is coupled to shaft (457) and that extends distally therefrom – see “spine distal end” in annotated in FIG. 17b below], a deployed position [expanded position - ¶[0133]; FIG. 17b], and delivery position [see ¶[0132] (“In one embodiment, during delivery into the body, capture mechanism 450 lies flat on its shaft 457, as shown in FIG. 17a”); FIG. 17a] relative to the longitudinal axis [relative to the longitudinal axis of shaft (457)], and comprising a first material [the material of the strut (455) portion that is coupled to shaft (457) and that extends distally therefrom], the at least one crown spine portion and the spine distal end being separated by a hinge gap [as broadly as currently claimed, and with reference to annotated FIG. 17b below, the annotated “spline distal end” and the proximal-most end of the “crown spine portion” are separated by a gap or space that is bridged by bend (456), or “hinge,” addressed below]; and
at least one hinge [bend (456) - ¶[0132] - see “hinge” in annotated in FIG. 17b below] covering the hinge gap and coupling the at least one spine to the crown [the bend (456) or “hinge” extends from the “spline distal end” to the proximal-most end of the “crown spine portion,” and therefore couples the spine to the crown via its coupling to the “crown spine portion”], the at least one hinge [(456)] comprising a second material different from the first material [see ¶[0133] (“Bend 456 may be a thinner portion of strut 455, may be formed of different material, or may be otherwise biased outward”)], the second material [the material of bend (456)] comprising a flexible material [bend (456) clearly comprises a “flexible” material in that it allows for the transition of capture mechanism (450) between the delivery configuration (FIG. 17a) an the expanded configuration (FIG. 17b)] that can be compressed to allow the crown [(470)] and the spine distal end of the at least one spine to move towards one another [see ¶[0133] (“The capture mechanism 450 may have a shaft in its middle that pulls tip 470 toward shaft 457, forcing or reinforcing the expansion of the struts 455”)].
PNG
media_image1.png
574
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 17b of Vardi
18. Regarding claim 2, Vardi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Vardi further discloses the at least one spine being expandable from the delivery position [FIG. 17a], where the at least one spine is approximately parallel to the longitudinal axis [the longitudinal axis of shaft (457)] [¶[0132]; FIG. 17a], to the deployed position [FIG. 17b], where the at least one spine bows outwardly from the longitudinal axis [¶[0133]; FIG. 17b], the at least one hinge [(456)] flexing in response to expansion between the delivery and the deployed positions of the at least one spine [¶’s [0132]-[0133]; FIG. 17b].
19. Regarding claim 4, Vardi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Vardi further discloses the crown [(470)] comprising a central hub [broadly, the crown or tip (470) comprises a “central hub” in that several crown spine portions (455) extend proximally therefrom – see annotated FIG. 17b above (in the rejection of claim 1)], and the at least one crown spine portion defining at least one projection protruding away from the central hub [as clearly shown in annotated FIG. 17b, the crown spine portion is a strut (455) portion comprising a projection that protrudes away (in the proximal direction) from tip (470)], the at least one projection comprising a width at a proximal end of the at least one projection which is approximately equal to a width of the spine distal end [the annotated “spline distal end” and the proximal-most end of the “crown spine portion” are approximately the same width – as best seen when viewing the center/middle spine/strut (455) in FIG. 17b (see also FIG. 17a)].
20. Regarding claim 5, Vardi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Vardi further discloses the crown [(470)] comprising a central hub [broadly, the crown or tip (470) comprises a “central hub” in that several crown spine portions (455) extend proximally therefrom – see annotated FIG. 17b above (in the rejection of claim 1)], and the at least one crown spine portion defining at least one projection protruding away from the central hub [as clearly shown in annotated FIG. 17b, the crown spine portion is a strut (455) portion comprising a projection that protrudes away (in the proximal direction) from tip (470)], the at least one projection being approximately coplanar with the central hub [e.g., in a longitudinal direction at the point where the crown spine portion extends proximally from tip (470)].
21. Regarding claim 9, Vardi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Vardi further discloses the first material and/or the crown comprising nitinol [Vardi discloses that the components of the capture mechanism, including the struts, may be fabricated from nitinol – e.g., ¶’s [0068], [0100], [0101], [0106], [0113], [0120], [0124], [0127]].
22. Regarding claim 11, and with reference to annotated FIG. 17b of Vardi (provided below), Vardi discloses a medical probe comprising:
a tubular shaft [tubular shaft (457) - ¶[0132]; FIGS. 17a, 17b] defining a longitudinal axis [longitudinal axis of tubular shaft (457)] and having a tubular shaft end [distal end of tubular shaft (457) – FIGS. 17a, 17b]; and
an end effector coupled to the tubular shaft end [capture mechanism (450) - ¶’s [0132]-[0133]; FIGS. 17a, 17b], the end effector [(450)] comprising:
a crown [tip (470) - ¶[0133]; see “crown” in annotated in FIG. 17b below] comprising at least one crown spine portion [broadly, a strut (455) portion that is coupled to tip (470) and that extends proximally therefrom – see “crown spine portion” in annotated in FIG. 17b below];
at least one spine [broadly, a strut (455) portion that is coupled to shaft (457) and that extends distally therefrom – see “spine” in annotated in FIG. 17b below] extending along the longitudinal axis [along the longitudinal axis of shaft (457)], comprising a spine distal end [the distal end of the strut (455) portion that is coupled to shaft (457) and that extends distally therefrom – see “spine distal end” in annotated in FIG. 17b below], a deployed position [expanded position - ¶[0133]; FIG. 17b], and delivery position [see ¶[0132] (“In one embodiment, during delivery into the body, capture mechanism 450 lies flat on its shaft 457, as shown in FIG. 17a”); FIG. 17a] relative to the longitudinal axis [relative to the longitudinal axis of shaft (457)], and comprising a first material [the material of the strut (455) portion that is coupled to shaft (457) and that extends distally therefrom], the at least one crown spine portion and the spine distal end being separated by a hinge gap [as broadly as currently claimed, and with reference to annotated FIG. 17b below, the annotated “spline distal end” and the proximal-most end of the “crown spine portion” are separated by a gap or space that is bridged by bend (456), or “hinge,” addressed below]; and
at least one hinge [bend (456) - ¶[0132] - see “hinge” in annotated in FIG. 17b below] covering the hinge gap and coupling the at least one spine to the crown [the bend (456) or “hinge” extends from the “spline distal end” to the proximal-most end of the “crown spine portion,” and therefore couples the spine to the crown via its coupling to the “crown spine portion”], the at least one hinge [(456)] comprising a second material different from the first material [see ¶[0133] (“Bend 456 may be a thinner portion of strut 455, may be formed of different material, or may be otherwise biased outward”)], the second material [the material of bend (456)] comprising a flexible material [bend (456) clearly comprises a “flexible” material in that it allows for the transition of capture mechanism (450) between the delivery configuration (FIG. 17a) an the expanded configuration (FIG. 17b)] that can be compressed to allow the crown [(470)] and the spine distal end of the at least one spine to move towards one another [see ¶[0133] (“The capture mechanism 450 may have a shaft in its middle that pulls tip 470 toward shaft 457, forcing or reinforcing the expansion of the struts 455”)].
PNG
media_image1.png
574
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated FIG. 17b of Vardi
23. Regarding claim 12, Vardi discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Vardi further discloses the at least one spine being expandable from the delivery position [FIG. 17a], where the at least one spine is approximately parallel to the longitudinal axis [the longitudinal axis of shaft (457)] [¶[0132]; FIG. 17a], to the deployed position [FIG. 17b], where the at least one spine bows outwardly from the longitudinal axis [¶[0133]; FIG. 17b], the at least one hinge [(456)] flexing in response to expansion between the delivery and the deployed positions of the at least one spine [¶’s [0132]-[0133]; FIG. 17b].
24. Regarding claim 14, Vardi discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Vardi further discloses the crown [(470)] comprising a central hub [broadly, the crown or tip (470) comprises a “central hub” in that several crown spine portions (455) extend proximally therefrom – see annotated FIG. 17b above (in the rejection of claim 11)], and the at least one crown spine portion defining at least one projection protruding away from the central hub [as clearly shown in annotated FIG. 17b, the crown spine portion is a strut (455) portion comprising a projection that protrudes away (in the proximal direction) from tip (470)], the at least one projection being approximately coplanar with the central hub [e.g., in a longitudinal direction at the point where the crown spine portion extends proximally from tip (470)].
25. Regarding claim 17, Vardi discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Vardi further discloses a central plug disposed proximal the at least one spine [as broadly as currently claimed, a central “plug” is formed when element (445) is moved proximally such that portion (440) is pulled into an abutting relationship with element (416) – see FIG. 17b].
26. Regarding claim 18, and with reference to the second annotated FIG. 17b of Vardi (provided below), Vardi discloses a medical probe comprising:
a tubular shaft [tubular shaft (457) - ¶[0132]; FIGS. 17a, 17b] defining a longitudinal axis [longitudinal axis of tubular shaft (457)] and having a tubular shaft end [distal end of tubular shaft (457) – see “tubular shaft end” in second annotated in FIG. 17b below]; and
an end effector [capture mechanism (450) - ¶’s [0132]-[0133]; FIGS. 17a, 17b] comprising:
at least one spine [broadly, a strut (455) – see “spine” in second annotated in FIG. 17b below] extending along the longitudinal axis [along the longitudinal axis of shaft (457)], comprising a spine proximal end [see “spine proximal end” in second annotated in FIG. 17b below], a deployed position [expanded position - ¶[0133]; FIG. 17b], and delivery position [see ¶[0132] (“In one embodiment, during delivery into the body, capture mechanism 450 lies flat on its shaft 457, as shown in FIG. 17a”); FIG. 17a] relative to the longitudinal axis [relative to the longitudinal axis of shaft (457)], and comprising a first material [the material of the strut (455)], the tubular shaft end and the spine proximal end being separated by a hinge gap [as broadly as currently claimed, and with reference to second annotated FIG. 17b below, the annotated “spline proximal end” and the tubular shaft end are separated by a gap or space that is bridged by bend (456), or “hinge,” addressed below]; and
at least one hinge [bend (456) - ¶[0132] - see “hinge” in second annotated in FIG. 17b below] covering the hinge gap and coupling the at least one spine to the tubular shaft end [the bend (456) or “hinge” extends from the “tubular shaft end” to the “spine proximal end,” and therefore couples the spine to the tubular shaft end], the at least one hinge comprising a second material different from the first material [see ¶[0133] (“Bend 456 may be a thinner portion of strut 455, may be formed of different material, or may be otherwise biased outward”)], the second material [the material of bend (456)] comprising a flexible material that can be compressed to allow the tubular shaft end and the spine proximal end of the at least one spine to move towards one another [see ¶[0133] (“The capture mechanism 450 may have a shaft in its middle that pulls tip 470 toward shaft 457, forcing or reinforcing the expansion of the struts 455”)].
PNG
media_image2.png
574
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second Annotated FIG. 17b of Vardi
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
27. 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.
28. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
29. Claims 10, 16, 19, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vardi.
30. Regarding claims 10, 16, & 19, Vardi discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 11, & 18, respectively, for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
The relied-upon embodiment of Vardi does not disclose:
[claims 10 & 16] the at least one spine having at least one electrode coupled thereto such that the at least one electrode is configured to electrophysiologically map a tissue, ablate the tissue, or both map and ablate the tissue;
[claim 19] the at least one spine having at least one electrode coupled thereto.
However, in a different embodiment, Vardi teaches placing ablation electrodes (248) [see FIG. 6] on the proximal and distal capture mechanisms at or near the circumference of the most outer capture perimeter (in a bipolar or uni-polar configuration) to deliver a high voltage charge to the captured tissue in order to vaporize and or desiccate the tissue to both cut it free from surrounding tissue and to reduce its cross-sectional area [see ¶’s [0149]-[0152]; FIG. 6].
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 relied-upon embodiment of Vardi [FIGS. 17a, 17b] to include at least one electrode on one or more of spines (455) defining the outer perimeter of the capture mechanism (450) so as to provide an additional method of reducing tissue cross-sectional area by debulking (via desiccation) prior to extraction, as taught by Vardi [¶[0149]].
NOTE: though not relied-upon in the instant rejection, it is worth noting that Vardi also teaches the use of electrodes in an electro-anatomical mapping system [e.g., ¶’s [0162]-[0163]].
31. Regarding claim 21, Vardi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Vardi does not teach:
wherein the hinge gap is approximately 1 millimeter to 5 millimeters.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Vardi such that the length of the hinge gap [which similarly equates to the length of the hinge (or bend) (456) covering the gap] have whatever size was desired or deemed appropriate including, e.g., approximately 1 millimeter to 5 millimeters, since such a modification amounts merely to a change in size/proportion, which is an example directed to a common practice which the court has held normally requires only ordinary skill in the art, and is hence considered a routine expedient. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), wherein the Federal Circuit 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.
32. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vardi in view of U.S. 2017/0354364 to Bar-Tal et al. ("Bar-Tal").
33. Regarding claim 20, Vardi discloses all of the limitations of claim 18 for the reasons set forth in detail (above) in the Office Action.
Vardi does not, however, disclose:
wiring extending through the at least one hinge.
In a different embodiment, Vardi teaches placing ablation electrodes (248) [see FIG. 6] on the proximal and distal capture mechanisms at or near the circumference of the most outer capture perimeter (in a bipolar or uni-polar configuration) to deliver a high voltage charge to the captured tissue in order to vaporize and or desiccate the tissue to both cut it free from surrounding tissue and to reduce its cross-sectional area [see ¶’s [0149]-[0152]; FIG. 6].
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 relied-upon embodiment of Vardi [FIGS. 17a, 17b] to include at least one electrode on one or more of spines (455) defining the outer perimeter of the capture mechanism (450) so as to provide an additional method of reducing tissue cross-sectional area by debulking (via desiccation) prior to extraction, as taught by Vardi [¶[0149]].
Bar-Tal, in a similar field of endeavor, relates to catheters comprising conducting elements that perform, e.g., simultaneously, a plurality of functions, including functioning as electromagnetic sensors (used to ascertain the location and/or orientation of the catheter), as electrodes for acquiring ECG signals from tissue, or passing ablating signals into tissue, and for measuring impedance, temperature, strain, and/or other relevant parameters [e.g., ¶[0035]].
More particularly, Bar-Tal teaches a basket catheter (22) comprising a basket (20) of splines (28) that is connected to a console (36) [¶[0041]; FIG. 1].
Bar-Tal further teaches that it was known to connect the conducting elements (24) disposed on the surface of each of the splines to the console (36) via a wire (42) which passes through the interior of the spline [¶[0043]].
As modified above to include at least one electrode on one or more of spines (455) defining the outer perimeter of the capture mechanism (450), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Vardi to route wires connecting to the electrodes through the spines (and the at least one hinge coupled thereto), since such a particular known, wire routing technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, as clearly demonstrated by Bar-Tal, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to the known device of Vardi, and the results (routing a wire from a component disposed on a spline to a proximal location (e.g., to a console)) would have been entirely predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
34. Dependent claim 6 (and its dependent claims 7 & 8) would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to overcome the rejection of the base claim (independent claim 1) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
35. In addition to the limitations of the base claim (independent claim 1), dependent claim 6 further requires the limitations:
at least one coupling member extending at least partially through the at least one hinge, the crown comprising at least one opening at a proximal end of the at least one crown spine portion, the at least one coupling member extending through the at least one opening to couple the at least one coupling member to the crown, and the at least one spine comprising at least one anchor point at the spine distal end to which an end of the at least one coupling member is coupled.
Neither Vardi, nor the other references of record, either alone or in combination, fairly teach or suggest the foregoing limitations in combination with the limitations of the base claim (independent claim 1). As such, dependent claim 6 would be allowable over the references of record.
36. Dependent claims 7 & 8 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence from dependent claim 6.
37. Dependent claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to overcome the rejection of the base claim (independent claim 11) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claim 15 includes similar limitations to those addressed above in the discussion of dependent claim 6, and would there be allowable for the same reasons.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
38. As noted above, the 07/28/26 Amendment has overcome the claim objections, as well as the rejections under §§ 112(b), 102, & 103 previously set forth in the 01/28/26 Action.
39. New grounds of rejection under §§ 112(b), 102, & 103 are set forth herein, necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment.
40. For the reasons set forth above, dependent claims 6 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (independent claims 1 & 11, respectively) and any intervening claims, and to overcome the rejections of the base claims (independent claims 1 & 11) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
CONCLUSION
41. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
42. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Bradford C. Blaise whose telephone number is (571) 272-5617. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM MST.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Joanne M. Rodden, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4276. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADFORD C. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights