DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities. On page 1, para [0001], the status of copending applications that have since matured as patents, must be updated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 35-38, 41 and 43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 11, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10426533 in view of Bagga et al. (US 8608802).
The patented claims disclose all elements of the claimed invention except for: (1) a plurality of apexes joining the plurality of faces wherein the plurality of apexes are chamfered at distal end regions; and (2) the fenestrations have a circular shape.
Bagga et al. disclose an implant for bone fixation including: an elongate body 16 having a longitudinal axis, a first face, a second face, and a third face, each extending longitudinally along the elongate body wherein each of the first face, second face, and third face form an apex with an adjacent face, wherein the second face extends between an apex with the first face and an apex with the third face, wherein a distal portion of the elongate body that is configured to be implanted in a sacrum includes a plurality of fenestrations on each face, and a proximal portion (56, Fig. 2A) of the elongate body that is proximal relative to the distal portion of the elongate body and that is configured to be implanted in an ilium is free from fenestrations (Figs. 1A-B, 2A-2C, col. 8, lines 52-67, cols. 9-12 and col. 13, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 41, the plurality of fenestrations have circular shapes (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 43, the distal end of the implant defines a fourth face that extends between an apex with the first face and an apex with the third face.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the implant of the patented claims with a plurality of faces terminating in apexes that are chamfered, as taught by Bagga et al., for the predictable result of increased engagement of the implant of the patented claims with bone.
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the fenestrations with a circular shape, as taught by Bagga et al., to control the flow of treatment material to surrounding bone.
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 11, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10426533 in view of Bagga et al. (US 8608802) and May (US 7300439).
The combination of the patented claims and Bagga et al. disclose all the elements of the claimed invention except for the fenestrations to have an oval shape.
It is well known to provide openings in an implant with a variety of cross sectional shapes including circular, oval, etc., as evidenced by May (col. 4, lines 9-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the fenestrations in implant of the combination of the patented claims and Bagga et al. with a circular or oval shape, as taught by May, because this amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified shapes of apertures or openings in an implant with a reasonable expectation of success in providing pathways for injection of a treatment material (antibiotics, growth factors etc.) through the implant to surrounding bone.
Claims 35-38 and 40-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 13, 16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11291485 in view of Bagga et al. (US 8608802).
The patented claims disclose all elements of the claimed invention except for: (1) a plurality of apexes joining the plurality of faces wherein each of the plurality of apexes are chamfered at a distal end region; and (2) the fenestrations or apertures have a circular shape.
Bagga et al. disclose an implant for bone fixation including: an elongate body 16 having a longitudinal axis, a first face, a second face, and a third face, each extending longitudinally along the elongate body wherein each of the first face, second face, and third face form an apex with an adjacent face, wherein the second face extends between an apex with the first face and an apex with the third face, wherein a distal portion of the elongate body that is configured to be implanted in a sacrum includes a plurality of fenestrations on each face, and a proximal portion (56, Fig. 2A) of the elongate body that is proximal relative to the distal portion of the elongate body and that is configured to be implanted in an ilium is free from fenestrations (Figs. 1A-B, 2A-2C, col. 8, lines 52-67, cols. 9-12 and col. 13, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 41, the plurality of fenestrations have circular shapes (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 43, the distal end of the implant defines a fourth face that extends between an apex with the first face and an apex with the third face.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the implant of the patented claims with a plurality of faces terminating in apexes that are chamfered, as taught by Bagga et al., for the predictable result of increased engagement of the implant of the patented claims with bone.
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the fenestrations with a circular shape, as taught by Bagga et al., to control the flow of treatment material to surrounding bone.
Claims 35-37, 39-40, 42 and 43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11446069 in view of Bagga et al. (US 8608802)
The patented claims disclose all elements of the claimed invention except for: (1) a plurality of apexes joining the plurality of faces wherein each of the plurality of apexes is chamfered at a distal end region; and (2) a fourth face extending between an apex with the first face and an apex with the third face.
Bagga et al. disclose an implant for bone fixation including: an elongate body 16 having a longitudinal axis, a first face, a second face, and a third face, each extending longitudinally along the elongate body wherein each of the first face, second face, and third face form an apex with an adjacent face, wherein the second face extends between an apex with the first face and an apex with the third face, wherein a distal portion of the elongate body that is configured to be implanted in a sacrum includes a plurality of fenestrations on each face, and a proximal portion (56, Fig. 2A) of the elongate body that is proximal relative to the distal portion of the elongate body and that is configured to be implanted in an ilium is free from fenestrations (Figs. 1A-B, 2A-2C, col. 8, lines 52-67, cols. 9-12 and col. 13, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 41, the plurality of fenestrations have circular shapes (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 43, the distal end of the implant defines a fourth face that extends between an apex with the first face and an apex with the third face.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the implant of the patented claims with a plurality of faces terminating in apexes that are chamfered, as taught by Bagga et al., for the predictable result of increased engagement of the implant of the patented claims with bone.
Claim 41 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11446069 and Bagga et al. (US 8608802) in view of May (US 7300439).
The combination of the patented claims and Bagga et al. discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the fenestrations to have a circular shape.
It is well known to provide openings in an implant with a variety of cross sectional shapes including circular, oval, etc., as evidenced by May (col. 4, lines 9-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the fenestrations in implant of the combination of the patented claims and Bagga et al. with a circular shape because this amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified shapes of apertures or openings in an implant with a reasonable expectation of success in providing pathways for injection of a treatment material (antibiotics, growth factors etc.) through the implant to surrounding bone.
Claims 35-40 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 11, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10426533 in view of Donner (US 20110264229).
The patented claims disclose all elements of the claimed invention except for: (1) a plurality of apexes joining the plurality of faces wherein the plurality of apexes are chamfered at distal end regions; (2) the elongate body has a triangular cross section transverse to the longitudinal axis of the elongate body; and (3) the fenestrations or apertures have an oval shape.
Donner discloses providing radial members on a sacro-iliac implant wherein the radial members define faces terminating in apexes, the apexes being chamfered to enable cutting into bone for increased engagement of the implant with the bone of the sacrum or the ilium (paras [0061]-[0067]).
Donner also discloses providing the elongate body of the implant with a cross section transverse to its longitudinal axis, the cross section being triangular (para [0059]).
Donner further discloses the apertures or fenestrations in the implant to have an oval shape (para [0070]).
Therefore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the implant of the patented claims with a cross sectional shape that is triangular since this amounts to choosing one of the different shapes suggested in Donner for the predictable result of a configuration or shape that avoids deformation under normal forces of surgical fixation of the ilium in relation to the sacrum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the implant of the patented claims with a plurality of faces terminating in apexes that are chamfered, as taught by Donner, for the predictable result of increased engagement of the implant of the patented claims with bone.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided fenestrations in the implant of the patented claims with a cross sectional shape that is oval since this amounts to choosing a shape that provides a pathway for treatment materials into the sacrum or ilium.
Claim 41 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 11, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 10426533 in view of Donner (US 20110264229) and May (US 7300439).
The combination of the patented claims and Donner discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the fenestrations to have a circular shape.
It is well known to provide openings in an implant with a variety of cross sectional shapes including circular, oval, etc., as evidenced by May (col. 4, lines 9-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the fenestrations in implant of the combination of Donner and the patented claims with a circular shape because this amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified shapes of apertures or openings in an implant with a reasonable expectation of success in providing pathways for injection of a treatment material (antibiotics, growth factors etc.) through the implant to surrounding bone.
Claims 35-40 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 13, 16 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11291485 in view of Donner (US 20110264229).
The patented claims disclose all elements of the claimed invention except for: (1) a plurality of apexes joining the plurality of faces wherein the plurality of apexes are chamfered at distal end regions; (2) the elongate body has a triangular cross section transverse to the longitudinal axis of the elongate body; and (3) the fenestrations or apertures have an oval shape.
Donner discloses providing radial members on a sacro-iliac implant wherein the radial members define faces terminating in apexes, the apexes being chamfered to enable cutting into bone for increased engagement of the implant with the bone of the sacrum or the ilium (paras [0061]-[0067]).
Donner also discloses providing the elongate body of the implant with a cross section transverse to its longitudinal axis, the cross section being triangular (para [0059]).
Donner further discloses the apertures or fenestrations in the implant to have an oval shape (para [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the implant of the patented claims with a plurality of faces terminating in apexes that are chamfered, as taught by Donner, for the predictable result of increased engagement of the implant of the patented claims with bone.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the implant of the patented claims with a cross sectional shape that is triangular since this amounts to choosing one of the different shapes suggested in Donner for the predictable result of a configuration or shape that avoids deformation under normal forces of surgical fixation of the ilium in relation to the sacrum.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided fenestrations in the implant of the patented claims with a cross sectional shape that is oval since this amounts to choosing a shape that provides a pathway for treatment materials into the sacrum or ilium.
Claim 41 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 13 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11291485 in view of Donner (US 20110264229) and May (US 7300439).
The combination of the patented claims and Donner discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the fenestrations to have a circular shape.
It is well known to provide openings in an implant with a variety of cross sectional shapes including circular, oval, etc., as evidenced by May (col. 4, lines 9-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the fenestrations in implant of the combination of Donner and the patented claims with a circular shape because this amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified shapes of apertures or openings in an implant with a reasonable expectation of success in providing pathways for injection of a treatment material (antibiotics, growth factors etc.) through the implant to surrounding bone.
Claims 35-40 and 42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11446069 in view of Donner (US 20110264229).
The patented claims disclose all elements of the claimed invention except for: (1) a plurality of apexes joining the plurality of faces wherein the plurality of apexes are chamfered at distal end regions; and (2) the elongate body has a triangular cross section transverse to the longitudinal axis of the elongate body.
Donner discloses providing radial members on a sacro-iliac implant wherein the radial members define faces terminating in apexes, the apexes being chamfered to enable cutting into bone for increased engagement of the implant with the bone of the sacrum or the ilium (paras [0061]-[0067]).
Donner also discloses providing the elongate body of the implant with a cross section transverse to its longitudinal axis, the cross section being triangular (para [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the implant of the patented claims with a plurality of faces terminating in apexes that are chamfered, as taught by Donner, for the predictable result of increased engagement of the implant of the patented claims with bone.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the implant of the patented claims with a cross sectional shape that is triangular since this amounts to choosing one of the different shapes suggested in Donner for the predictable result of a configuration or shape that avoids deformation under normal forces of surgical fixation of the ilium in relation to the sacrum.
Claim 41 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11446069 in view of Donner (US 20110264229) and May (US 7300439).
The combination of the patented claims and Donner discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for the fenestrations to have a circular shape.
It is well known to provide openings in an implant with a variety of cross sectional shapes including circular, oval, etc., as evidenced by May (col. 4, lines 9-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the fenestrations in implant of the combination of Donner and the patented claims with a circular shape because this amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified shapes of apertures or openings in an implant with a reasonable expectation of success in providing pathways for injection of a treatment material (antibiotics, growth factors etc.) through the implant to surrounding bone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 36, the recitation “each apex is chamfered at distal end regions to provide three sloping shoulders” renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether “distal end regions” refers to each apex or to different apices. For purposes of examination, each apex is assumed to be chamfered at its distal end.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 35-36, 40-41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bagga et al. (US 8608802).
Regarding claim 35, Bagga et al. disclose an implant for bone fixation including: an elongate body 16 having a longitudinal axis, a first face, a second face, and a third face, each extending longitudinally along the elongate body wherein each of the first face, second face, and third face form an apex with an adjacent face, wherein the second face extends between an apex with the first face and an apex with the third face, wherein a distal portion of the elongate body that is configured to be implanted in a sacrum includes a plurality of fenestrations on each face, and a proximal portion (56, Fig. 2A) of the elongate body that is proximal relative to the distal portion of the elongate body and that is configured to be implanted in an ilium is free from fenestrations. Regarding the recitation “rectilinear cross section transverse to the longitudinal axis,” Bagga et al. disclose body 16 to have a square shape, rectangular shape etc. (Figs. 1A-B, 2A-2C, col. 8, lines 52-67, cols. 9-12 and col. 13, lines 1-16. Also, see marked up Fig 2C below).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, each apex is chamfered at a distal end region to provide three sloping shoulders (Fig. 2C).
Regarding claim 41, the plurality of fenestrations have circular shapes (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 43, Bagga et al. disclose a fourth face extending between an apex with the first face and an apex with the third face (see marked up Fig. 2C above).
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 of this title, 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 38 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bagga (US 8608802) in view of May (US 7300439).
Bagga discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for placement of the apertures or fenestrations in a staggered pattern.
It is well known to adjust the placement of openings in an implant to control the distribution of treatment material (cement, growth factors, cement etc.), as evidenced by May (col. 2, lines 65-67, col. 3, lines 1-5, col. 7, lines 64-67 and col. 8, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 38, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have placed the fenestrations in the Bagga implant in a staggered manner, as taught by May, to control the distribution of treatment material such as growth factors.
It is also well known to provide openings in an implant with a variety of cross sectional shapes including circular, oval, etc., as evidenced by May (col. 4, lines 9-23).
Regarding claim 42, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the fenestrations of the Bagga implant oval, as taught by May to control the pathways for injection of treatment material such as growth factors.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bagga et al. (US 8608802) in view of Donner (US 20110264229).
Bagga et al. disclose all elements of the claimed invention except for a triangular cross section.
It is well known to provide varied cross sectional shapes (transverse to the longitudinal axis) such as oval, triangular, rectangular, square, diamond or the like for an implant as evidenced by Donner [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected a triangular shape since amounts to selection of a well-known cross sectional shape for an implant from a finite number of well-known shapes for a bone implant.
Claims 35-36, 38-40, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Donner (US 20110264229) in view of Moore (US 6053916).
Regarding claim 35, Donner discloses an implant for bone fixation, including: an elongate body having a longitudinal axis and a rectilinear cross section transverse to the longitudinal axis, a plurality of faces, a plurality of apexes (Fig. 2) joining the plurality of faces, wherein the elongate body is configured to be implanted in a sacrum includes a plurality of fenestrations on the plurality of faces (Figs. 2-6 and paras [0059]-[0072]).
Regarding claims 35 and 40, Donner discloses the elongate body has a triangular cross section transverse to the longitudinal axis (para [0059]). The limitations of claim 35 are met by an implant having a triangular cross section with three apices and a flat distal end.
Regarding claim 36, Donner discloses the plurality of apexes are chamfered at distal end regions to provide three sloping distal shoulders (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 42, Donner discloses the plurality of fenestrations to have oval shapes (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 43, Donner discloses the portion 24 (interpreted to define a fourth face), the fourth face extending between an apex with the first face and an apex with the third face for the embodiment wherein the implant has a triangular configuration (paras [0059] and [0064])
Donner discloses all elements of the claimed invention except for: the distal portion of the elongate body configured to implanted in a sacrum to have fenestrations or openings and a proximal portion of the elongate body that is proximal to the distal portion to be free from openings or fenestrations.
Moore discloses providing openings only on either the proximal or distal sections to allow bony ingrowth (col. 4, lines 7-37).
Regarding claims 38 and 39, Moore discloses providing openings in a staggered fashion (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the fenestrations in the Donner implant only on the distal portion, as suggested by Moore, because this amounts to choosing from a finite number of locations in an implant for providing openings or fenestrations with a reasonable expectation of success in providing pathways for facilitating bone growth.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Donner (US 20110264229) in view of Moore (US 6053916), further in view of May (US 7300439).
The combination of Donner and Moore discloses all elements of the claimed invention except explicitly stating fenestrations 18 to have a circular shape.
Regarding claim 41, it is well known to provide openings in an implant with a variety of cross sectional shapes including circular, oval, etc., as evidenced by May (col. 4, lines 9-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the fenestrations in the implant of the combination of Donner and Moore with a shape such as circular because this amounts to choosing from a finite number of identified shapes of apertures or openings in an implant with a reasonable expectation of success in providing pathways for injection of a treatment material (antibiotics etc.) or for facilitating bone growth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered by the Examiner.
The double-patenting rejections have not been overcome because a Terminal Disclaimer has not been filed.
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejections under 35 USC 103 (a) over Donner in view of Moore. Regarding the recitation of claim 35 “an elongate body having a longitudinal axis and a rectilinear cross section transverse to the longitudinal axis, a first face, a second face, and a third face, each extending longitudinally along the elongate body, wherein each of the first face, second face, and third face form an apex with an adjacent face, wherein the second face extends between an apex with the first face and an apex with the third face” is met with an implant having a triangular cross-section as disclosed by Donner. Regarding the recitation of claim 43, “a fourth face extending between an apex with the first face and an apex with the third face,” this limitation is met by the bottom portion of the implant of the combination of Donner and Moore, wherein the implant has a triangular cross section transverse to a longitudinal axis of the implant.
New grounds of rejection have been made by the Examiner.
Non application of prior art to claim 37 indicates allowable subject matter provided the double-patenting rejections made in this office action are overcome.
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 Anu Ramana whose telephone number is (571)272-4718. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am-5:00 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, Kevin Truong can be reached on (571)272-4705. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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.
October 12, 2025
/Anu Ramana/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775