DETAILED ACTION
In Applicant’s Response filed 7/22/26, Applicant has amended claims 1 and 16; and added new claim 25. Claims 8-9, 18-19 and 21 have been cancelled. Currently, claims 1-7, 10-17, 20 and 22-25 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-17, 20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkholz (US 2018/0161543) in view of Yamazaki et al (US 7344512).
With respect to claim 1, Burkholz discloses a dressing cover (catheter securement dressing 1; see i.e. fig 10) comprising: a base layer (first dressing layer 10; para [0022]) comprising an adhesive configured to adhere to skin of a patient (adhesive layer 16; para [0022]), the base layer (10) defining a cutout configured to provide access to a cannula insertion site of the skin (access window 14 configured to permit access to a catheter insertion site – para [0022; 0024]); and a top layer (second dressing layer 20) comprising an adhesive removably adhered to the base layer (selectively coupled to layer 10 via means such as adhesive 28 – para [0022; 0023]), the top layer (20) configured to cover the insertion site (as shown in fig 10; see para [0036]) and comprising a window formed of an at least partially transparent material and overlaying the cutout of the base layer, the window configured to allow observation of the insertion site (at least a portion of second dressing layer 20 can be transparent so a clinician can inspect the catheter insertion site without folding back layer 20 – para [0036]).
Burkholz does not, however, disclose the top layer comprising: an exterior portion defining a top layer cutout, the exterior portion comprising an adhesive applied to a bottom surface thereof that is removably adhered to the base layer; wherein the window is positioned within the top layer cutout and the top layer comprises a tunnel configured to receive a treatment line therethrough, the tunnel extending in a lengthwise direction of the dressing cover, with a first portion of the tunnel formed on the exterior portion and a second portion of the tunnel formed on the window, the first portion aligned with the second portion, and wherein the second portion of the tunnel terminates at an intermediate portion of the window in the lengthwise direction.
Yamazaki teaches a protective device (400; fig 7-8) that comprises a base layer (420) and a top layer (460), the top layer comprising an exterior portion defining a top layer cutout (exterior/perimeter portion of 460 that surrounds opening 464 as shown in fig 8), the exterior portion comprising an adhesive applied to a bottom surface thereof that is removably adhered to the base layer (double sided tape 426 – col 13 lines 9-14); and a window positioned within the top layer cutout (cap 480 over opening 464 is interpreted as being a window), wherein the top layer comprises a tunnel configured to receive a treatment line therethrough (passage 462 through which tube 300 passes), the tunnel extending in a lengthwise direction of the dressing cover (as shown in fig 8, the passage 462 extends along the longest dimension of the layer 460 which is interpreted as being the lengthwise direction) with a first portion of the tunnel formed on the exterior portion (right end of passage 462 in fig 8) and a second portion of the tunnel formed on the window (left end of passage 462 which enters opening 464 in fig 8), the first portion aligned with the second portion (as shown in fig 8), and wherein the second portion of the tunnel terminates at an intermediate portion of the window (the left end of passage 462 intersects the opening 464 at a center/middle portion around the midline of the opening as shown in fig 8) in the lengthwise direction (as discussed above, as shown in fig 8, the passage 462, including the left end of the passage, extends along the longest dimension of the layer 460 which is interpreted as being the lengthwise direction). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the top layer of the device of Burkholz so that it comprises an exterior portion defining a top layer cutout, the exterior portion comprising an adhesive applied to a bottom surface thereof that is removably adhered to the base layer; wherein the window is positioned within the top layer cutout and the top layer comprises a tunnel configured to receive a treatment line therethrough, the tunnel extending in a lengthwise direction of the dressing cover with a first portion of the tunnel formed on the exterior portion and a second portion of the tunnel formed on the window, the first portion aligned with the second portion, and wherein the second portion of the tunnel terminates at an intermediate portion of the window in the lengthwise direction, like the top layer of the device of Yamazaki, in order to further assist in providing protection from infection (see Yamazaki col 11 lines 7-8).
With respect to claim 2, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Burkholz also discloses that the base layer (10) extends beyond a perimeter of the top layer (20) (as shown in fig 10).
With respect to claim 3, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Burkholz also discloses that the base layer (10) comprises an outwardly extending tab (overlap portion 12 is interpreted as being a tab that extends outwardly from the remaining portions of layer 10; see fig 3).
With respect to claim 4, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Burkholz also discloses that the top layer (20) comprises an outwardly extending tab (overlap portion 22 is interpreted as being a tab that extends outwardly from the remaining portions of layer 20; see fig 3).
With respect to claim 5, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 4) and Yamazaki further teaches that the top layer includes an outwardly extending tab (shown in figs 7-8) wherein the adhesive of the top layer is not present on the outwardly extending tab (Double-sided adhesive tape is stuck to the covering 460 in order to attach the cap 480 – col 14 lines 38-40; thus, the adhesive is on element 460, not the tab of element 480). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the top layer of the device of Burkholz in view of Yamazaki so that the adhesive of the top layer is not present on the outwardly extending tab, like in Yamazaki, in order to permit easier grasping by a user.
With respect to claim 7, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 4) and Burkholz also discloses that the base layer (10) comprises an outwardly extending tab (overlap portion 12 is interpreted as being a tab that extends outwardly from the remaining portions of layer 10; see fig 3), and wherein the outwardly extending tab of the top layer (overlap portion 22) overlaps the outwardly extending tab of the base layer (as best shown in fig 4, portion 12 is overlapped by portion 22).
With respect to claim 10, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Yamazaki further teaches that the adhesive of the top layer applied to the bottom surface of the exterior portion (double sided tape 426 – col 13 lines 9-14) is not present on the first portion of the tunnel (it is inherent that the tunnel is adhesive free in order to prevent attachment of the tube 300 to the tunnel). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the device of Burkholz in view of Yamazaki so that the adhesive of the top layer applied to the bottom surface of the exterior portion is not present on the first portion of the tunnel, like in Yamazaki, in order to permit passage of tubing therethrough.
With respect to claim 11, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Burkholz also discloses that the top layer comprises an outwardly extending tab (layer 20 can comprise a pull tab to aid the clinician in peeling back layer 20 and to aid in repositioning layer 20 after inspection of a catheter insertion site – para [0036]). Burkholz does not, however, explicitly disclose the tab extending from an opposite side of the top layer relative to the tunnel. It would have been obvious, however, to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have repositioned the tab on the device of Burkholz in view of Yamazaki so that it extends from an opposite side of the top layer relative to the tunnel since rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 12, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Burkholz also discloses that the base layer (10) comprises an adhesive pad configured to adhere to the treatment line (layer 10 can comprise a gauze dressing (interpreted as being a gauze pad) and includes adhesive 16 which inherently is adhered to the treatment line of the catheter during use as shown i.e. in fig 6; see para [0032]).
With respect to claim 13, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Burkholz also discloses that the adhesive of the top layer is a static adhesive (the adhesive layers “can comprise any type or form of adhesive” that is suitable for use with a securement dressing which is interpreted as including static adhesives – see para [0028]).
With respect to claim 14, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Burkholz also discloses that the adhesive of the top layer (28) is weaker than the adhesive of the base layer (16) (adhesive 16 is preferably a PSA configured for attachment to the skin whereas adhesive 28 can comprise a multiple use adhesive to permit removal, realignment or reapplication multiple times such as to permit removal and replacement of the top layer multiple times for inspection – see para [0028-0029] – thus, the adhesive on the top layer inherently must be weaker than the adhesive on the base layer to permit removal/reapplication of the top layer while the base layer remains adhered to the skin surface).
With respect to claim 15, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Burkholz also discloses that the adhesive of the top layer (28) is stronger than the adhesive of the base layer (16) (adhesive 16 is preferably a PSA configured for attachment to the skin whereas adhesive 28 can comprise a multiple use adhesive to permit removal, realignment or reapplication multiple times such as to permit removal and replacement of the top layer multiple times for inspection – see para [0028-0029] – thus, the adhesive on the base layer must be stronger than the adhesive on the top layer to permit removal/reapplication of the top layer while the base layer remains adhered to the skin surface).
With respect to claim 16, Burkholz discloses a treatment line and dressing cover assembly (catheter securement dressing 1; see i.e. fig 10; the dressing covers at least part of the treatment line as illustrated when comparing figs 5 to 6) comprising: a base layer (first dressing layer 10; para [0022]) comprising an adhesive configured to adhere to skin of a patient (adhesive layer 16; para [0022]), the base layer (10) defining a cutout configured to provide access to a cannula insertion site of the skin (access window 14 configured to permit access to a catheter insertion site – para [0022; 0024]); and a top layer (second dressing layer 20) comprising an adhesive removably adhered to the base layer (selectively coupled to layer 10 via means such as adhesive 28 – para [0022; 0023]), the top layer (20) configured to cover the insertion site (as shown in fig 10; see para [0036]) and comprising an at least partially transparent window overlaying the cutout of the base layer, the window configured to allow observation of the insertion site (at least a portion of second dressing layer 20 can be transparent so a clinician can inspect the catheter insertion site without folding back layer 20 – para [0036]) and a treatment line secured between the base layer and the top layer, the treatment line comprising a cannula configured for insertion in the insertion site (as shown in fig 12, layer 10 can be configured with a slotted opening 19 so that layer 10 can be positioned under catheter 2 and, thus, will be secured between layers 10 and 20).
Burkholz does not, however, disclose the top layer comprising: an exterior portion defining a top layer cutout, the exterior portion comprising an adhesive applied to a bottom surface thereof that is removably adhered to the base layer; wherein the window is positioned within the top layer cutout and the top layer comprises a tunnel configured to receive a treatment line therethrough, with a first portion of the tunnel formed on the exterior portion and a second portion of the tunnel formed on the window, the first portion aligned with the second portion, and wherein the second portion of the tunnel terminates at an intermediate portion of the window.
Yamazaki teaches a protective device (400; fig 7-8) that comprises a base layer (420) and a top layer (460), the top layer comprising an exterior portion defining a top layer cutout (exterior/perimeter portion of 460 that surrounds opening 464 as shown in fig 8), the exterior portion comprising an adhesive applied to a bottom surface thereof that is removably adhered to the base layer (double sided tape 426 – col 13 lines 9-14); and a window positioned within the top layer cutout (cap 480 over opening 464 is interpreted as being a window), wherein the top layer comprises a tunnel configured to receive a treatment line therethrough (passage 462 through which tube 300 passes), with a first portion of the tunnel formed on the exterior portion (right end of passage 462 in fig 8) and a second portion of the tunnel formed on the window (left end of passage 462 which enters opening 464 in fig 8), the first portion aligned with the second portion (as shown in fig 8), and wherein the second portion of the tunnel terminates at an intermediate portion of the window (the left end of passage 462 intersects the opening 464 at a center/middle portion around the midline of the opening as shown in fig 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the top layer of the device of Burkholz so that it comprises an exterior portion defining a top layer cutout, the exterior portion comprising an adhesive applied to a bottom surface thereof that is removably adhered to the base layer; wherein the window is positioned within the top layer cutout and the top layer comprises a tunnel configured to receive a treatment line therethrough, with a first portion of the tunnel formed on the exterior portion and a second portion of the tunnel formed on the window, the first portion aligned with the second portion, and wherein the second portion of the tunnel terminates at an intermediate portion of the window, like the top layer of the device of Yamazaki, in order to further assist in providing protection from infection (see Yamazaki col 11 lines 7-8).
Burkholz also does not disclose that with the second portion of the tunnel formed on the window and terminating at the intermediate portion of the window, at least a portion of the window has a raised or curved profile, as compared to a remainder of the window.
Yamazaki teaches that with a second portion of the tunnel formed on the window (left end of passage 462 which enters opening 464 in fig 8), and terminating at an intermediate portion of the window (the left end of passage 462 intersects the opening 464 at a center/middle portion around the midline of the opening as shown in fig 8), at least a portion of the window has a raised or curved profile as compared to a remainder of the window (as shown in figure 7, the window defined at the opening 464 has a raised and curved profile in the area extending between the lower portion that is adjacent to the upper surface of covering 460 and the uppermost portion that is adjacent to cap 480; see identification of raised/curved portion in annotated fig 7).
ANNOTATED Fig 7 of Yamazaki
PNG
media_image1.png
328
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have further modified the window of the device of Burkholz in view of Yamazaki so that at least a portion of the window has a raised or curved profile as compared to a remainder of the window, as taught by Yamazaki, in order to accommodate and provide protection around a tube entry/insertion site to thereby further assist in providing protection from infection (see Yamazaki col 11 lines 7-8).
With respect to claim 17, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 16) and Burkholz also discloses that the base layer (10) extends beyond a perimeter of the top layer (20) (as shown in fig 10).
With respect to claim 20, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 16) and Burkholz also discloses that the base layer (10) comprises an adhesive pad configured to adhere to the treatment line (layer 10 can comprise a gauze dressing (interpreted as being a gauze pad) and includes adhesive 16 which inherently is adhered to the treatment line of the catheter during use as shown i.e. in fig 6; see para [0032]).
With respect to claim 23, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Yamazaki teaches that with a second portion of the tunnel formed on the window (left end of passage 462 which enters opening 464 in fig 8), and terminating at an intermediate portion of the window (the left end of passage 462 intersects the opening 464 at a center/middle portion around the midline of the opening as shown in fig 8), at least a portion of the window has a raised or curved profile as compared to a remainder of the window (as shown in figure 7, the window defined at the opening 464 has a raised and curved profile in the area extending between the lower portion that is adjacent to the upper surface of covering 460 and the uppermost portion that is adjacent to cap 480; see identification of raised/curved portion in annotated fig 7).
ANNOTATED Fig 7 of Yamazaki
PNG
media_image1.png
328
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have further modified the window of the device of Burkholz in view of Yamazaki so that at least a portion of the window has a raised or curved profile as compared to a remainder of the window, as taught by Yamazaki, in order to accommodate and provide protection around a tube entry/insertion site to thereby further assist in providing protection from infection (see Yamazaki col 11 lines 7-8).
With respect to claims 22 and 24, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claims 1 and 16) and Yamazaki teaches that a size of the top layer cutout generally matches a size of the cutout in the base layer (as best illustrated in figures 13 and 14D-14F, the opening 422 in part 420 is approximately the same size as the opening 464). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the device of Burkholz in view of Yamazaki so that a size of the top layer cutout generally matches a size of the cutout in the base layer as taught by Yamazaki in order to provide sufficient space around a tube entry/insertion site located within the cutout regions. Furthermore, such a configuration would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 25, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 1) and Burkholz also discloses that the at least partially transparent material of the window is polyurethane (layer 20 can comprise transparent polyurethane – para [0032]) but Burkholz does not, however, disclose an exterior portion being formed from a material that is different from the at least partially transparent material.
Yamazaki, however, teaches that the exterior portion (exterior/perimeter portion of 460 that surrounds opening 464 as shown in fig 8) is formed from silicone rubber that provides rigidity to maintain the shape/form of the internal space (col 14 lines 30-38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the exterior portion of the device of Burkholz in view of Yamazaki from a silicone rubber material, as taught by Yamazaki, which differs from the transparent polyurethane material of the window, in order to provide added structural stability to assist in maintaining the shape/form of the exterior portion which defines the interiorly disposed window region.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkholz (US 2018/0161543) in view of Yamazaki et al (US 7344512) and further in view of Conte (5772623).
With respect to claim 6, Burkholz in view of Yamazaki discloses the invention substantially as claimed (see rejection of claim 4) but does not explicitly disclose that the adhesive of the top layer is weaker on the tab than on a remaining portion of the top layer.
Conte, however, teaches a bandage that includes a skin contacting surface that is coated with a pressure sensitive adhesive substance of a first adhesive strength (col 1 lines 55-57) and a tab portion fixedly attached to and extending from the corners or edges of the bandage (col 1 lines 64-65) wherein the tab includes a pressure sensitive adhesive that is weaker than the adhesive used to secure the bandage to the skin to make it easy for the person removing the bandage to manipulate the tab while still ensuring that the tab remains fixed to the upper surface until it is desired to remove the bandage (col 2 lines 9-14). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have formed the device of Burkholz using an adhesive that is weaker on the tab than the adhesive on a remaining portion of the top layer, as taught by Conte, in order to permit easy manipulation of the tab while still ensuring that the tab remains fixed to the upper surface until it is desired to remove the bandage.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 7/22/26 have been fully considered as follows:
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant’s arguments on page 6 of the Response have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments on pages 6-13 of the Response have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Office has noted Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-9 that the combination of Burkholz in view of Yamazaki fails to teach a tunnel as recited in amended claim 1 because Burkholz does not teach a top layer having a tunnel that terminates at an intermediate portion of the window in the lengthwise direction. The Office is not persuaded by these arguments, however, because these features are taught by Yamazaki and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Office has also noted Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10 that the combination of Burkholz in view of Yamazaki fails to teach a tunnel as recited in amended claim 1 because “there is no teaching in Yamazaki that a second portion of the passage 462 (i.e., a second portion of the "tunnel") is formed in cap 480 and/or window 464, with the second portion of the passage 462 terminating at an intermediate portion of the cap 480 and/or window 464”. Applicant further argued that “[w]hile the Examiner asserts that the passage 462 enters into the opening 464 at a location that is centrally disposed from the top-bottom sides, so as to be interpreted as terminating at "an intermediate portion of the window," amended claim 1 specifies that the second portion of the tunnel terminates at an intermediate portion of the window in the lengthwise direction, which Yamazaki does not teach” because, instead, “the passage 462….terminates at a forward-most side/surface of the domed portion of covering 460 and does not extend into an intermediate portion of the cap 480 or opening 464 in the lengthwise direction”. The Office is not persuaded by these arguments, however, because claim 1 defines a lengthwise direction of the dressing cover but does not include limitations directed to a lengthwise direction of the window. As outlined in the claim rejections above, Yamazaki teaches that the passage 462 enters into the opening 464 at a location that is centrally disposed from the top-bottom sides which the Office has interpreted as being an intermediate portion of the window. Additionally, as shown in fig 8 of Yamazaki, the passage 462 extends along the longest dimension of the layer 460 which is interpreted as being the lengthwise direction of the dressing cover. Thus, for at least these reasons, the Office maintains that the prior art of record reads on the claim because in Yamazaki the passage 462 extends in the lengthwise direction of the layer 460 and, also, enters into the opening 464 at a location that is centrally disposed from the top-bottom sides thereby positioning the end of the passage at an intermediate portion of the opening.
The Office has also noted Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-12 regarding claim 16 but is not persuaded by these arguments. Applicant has argued that the Examiner improperly equated a single element (covering 460 of Yamazaki) to two separate components of claim 1 (the exterior portion and window) and that “[t]he "curved and raised" portion of covering 460 (i.e., the dome-shaped configuration of covering 460) cannot both be an "exterior portion" of a top layer and a "window" of a top layer”. The Office is not persuaded by these arguments, however, because in the claim rejections provided above, the Office explains that the “exterior portion” has been interpreted as being the exterior/perimeter portion of 460 that surrounds opening 464 as shown in fig 8 whereas the “window” has been interpreted as being defined by the cap 480 over opening 464. Thus, two different parts/regions of layer 460, which have different structural configurations/features have been identified by the Office as being equivalent to the claimed exterior portion and window elements. Additionally, there are no limitations in the claims which require these elements to be separated from one another rather than being two parts that are integrally formed into a single, combined structure. Thus, for at least these reasons, the Office is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments and, therefore, maintains that the prior art of record reads on claim 16 substantially as recited in the present application.
Therefore, for at least the reasons outlined above, the Office maintains and reaffirms that the prior art of record reads on claims 1-7, 10-17, 20 and 22-24 of the present application.
The Office has also noted Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-13 regarding new claim 25 but is not persuaded by these arguments at least because the prior art of record reads on this claim as outlined in the claim rejections provided above.
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 CAITLIN CARREIRO whose telephone number is (571)270-7234. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at 571-270-5237. 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.
/CAITLIN A CARREIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights