DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s after-final response received on February 2nd, 2026.
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/710,373, filed March 31st, 2022, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. Claims 61-69, 71, and 72 include limitations not supported by the prior filed application and will have a priority date of July 15th, 2024 for examination purposes.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not provide antecedent basis for the limitations regarding the device further comprising a countersink drill comprising at least one flute blade (claims 61-69, 71, and 72). These limitations appear to be new matter added to the disclosure in the preliminary amendment filed on November 12th, 2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the device including a countersink drill with at least one flute blade and the other structural limitations of the countersink drill (claims 61-69,71, and 72) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 91 be found allowable, claim 92 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
Claims 41-46, 55-57, 59, and 89-92 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by a first interpretation of Hollander (U.S. Patent 6,106,292).
Regarding claims 41-46 and 89:
Hollander discloses a device (for example see Figures 7-9; the embodiment of the figures is disclosed as being similar to those shown in Figures 1-5 except for the outer shape of the bit and the length of two of the blades (column 3 lines 55-62)) comprising:
(claim 41) a cutting head including
(claim 41) a proximal end
(claim 41) a distal end
(claim 41) a longitudinal axis running from the proximal end to the distal end
(claim 41) a first flute blade positioned along the longitudinal axis (a first element 24; for example see Figure 5; for example see column 3 lines 8-17)
(claim 41) a second flute blade positioned along the longitudinal axis (a second element 24)
(claim 44) wherein the first and second flute blades are positioned in a helical arrangement along the longitudinal axis (for example see Figure 5; column 3 lines 14-17 discloses asymmetric cutting flutes, i.e. helically arranged cutting flutes)
(claim 41) an extrapolated outer profile established by rotation of the first and second flute blasé about the longitudinal axis thereof (the outline of the device in cross-section as best shown in Figure 9 helps visualize this)
(claim 41) the extrapolated outer profile includes a first surface having tangents more perpendicular than parallel to the longitudinal axis, i.e. are at an angle more than parallel to the longitudinal axis
(claim 45) wherein the first surface forms a cone
(claim 41) the extrapolated outer profile includes a second surface having tangents more parallel than perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, i.e. are more parallel than at an angle to the longitudinal axis
(claim 42) wherein the first surface and the second surface are contiguous with one another and smoothly blend into one another (for example see Figure 9)
(claim 45) wherein the second surface forms a truncated cone
(claim 46) wherein the first surface and the second surface from a compound cone
(claim 41) a relief portion positioned between the cutting head and a stop surface
(claim 41) wherein a cutting edge of the first and second flute blade extend smoothly from the distal end of the cutting head into the relief portion (for example see Figure 8)
(claim 51) wherein the stop surface extends outward on a plane relative to the longitudinal axis
(claim 43) a sharp distal tip
(claim 54) wherein the device is capable of drilling a hole with a substantially cylindrical shape adjacent to the surface of the mastoid bone (the linear parallel portions of the second surface are capable of performing this function)
(claim 89) wherein the device is fully capable of being used as a mastoid start drill bit
PNG
media_image1.png
541
245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 55-57, 59, and 90-92:
Hollander discloses a device (for example see Figures 7-9; the embodiment of the figures is disclosed as being similar to those shown in Figures 1-5 except for the outer shape of the bit and the length of two of the blades (column 3 lines 55-62)) comprising:
(claim 55) a cutting head including
(claim 55) a proximal end
(claim 55) a distal end
(claim 55) a longitudinal axis running from the proximal end to the distal end
(claim 55) at least one substantially straight flute blade (24) positioned along the longitudinal axis
(claim 56) further including a second, third, and fourth substantially straight flute blade positioned along the longitudinal axis (for example see Figure 5, Figure 7, and Figure 8)
(claim 56) wherein each of the flute blades are arranged about the longitudinal axis at substantially equidistant locations (for example see Figure 5)
(claim 57) wherein the first and second flute blades extend further in the distal direction than the third and fourth flute blades (for example see Figure7 and Figure 8)
(claim 55) an extrapolated outer profile established by rotation of the at least one flute blade about the longitudinal axis including
(claim 55) a first surface having tangents more perpendicular than parallel to the longitudinal axis
(claim 56) the first surface having a spherical shape at the distal end of the cutting head
(claim 55) a second surface having tangents more parallel than perpendicular to the longitudinal axis
(claim 55) the second surface having a substantially linear tangential shape that is positioned proximally with respect to the first surface
(claim 55) a relief portion positioned between the cutting head and a stop surface
(claim 55) wherein a cutting edge of the at least one flute blade extends smoothly from the distal end of the cutting head into the relief portion (for example see Figure 8)
(claim 59) a first outer cross-section in form of an offset cruciform
(claim 59) wherein the outer cross-section is in a first plane normal to a longitudinal axis of the drill bit (for example see Figure 5) and extending through the flute blades
(claim 90) wherein the device is fully capable of being used as a mastoid bone start drill
(claims 91 and 92) wherein the extrapolated outer profile is such that it is either extending further away from the longitudinal axis or parallel with the longitudinal axis along a length of the longitudinal axis from the most distal portion to a beginning of the relief portion (the outer profile with either extending further away, i.e. the first surface extends away from, i.e. has a partially spherical and tapered conical shape, and the second portion extends parallel with the longitudinal axis)
PNG
media_image2.png
561
267
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 41-43, 47-50, 54, and 89 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by a second interpretation of Hollander (U.S. Patent 6,106,292) (this interpretation is similar to the first interpretation except for adding the third surface).
Hollander discloses a device (for example see Figures 7-9; the embodiment of the figures is disclosed as being similar to those shown in Figures 1-5 except for the outer shape of the bit and the length of two of the blades (column 3 lines 55-62)) comprising:
(claim 41) a cutting head including
(claim 41) a proximal end
(claim 41) a distal end
(claim 41) a longitudinal axis running from the proximal end to the distal end
(claim 41) a first flute blade positioned along the longitudinal axis (a first element 24; for example see Figure 5; for example see column 3 lines 8-17)
(claim 41) a second flute blade positioned along the longitudinal axis (a second element 24)
(claim 44) wherein the first and second flute blades are positioned in a helical arrangement along the longitudinal axis
(claim 41) an extrapolated outer profile established by rotation of the first and second flute blades about the longitudinal axis thereof (the outline of the device in cross-section as best shown in Figure 9 helps visualize this)
(claim 41) the extrapolated outer profile includes a first surface having tangents more perpendicular than parallel to the longitudinal axis, i.e. are at an angle more than parallel to the longitudinal axis
(claim 41) the extrapolated outer profile includes a second surface having tangents more parallel than perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, i.e. are more parallel than at an angle to the longitudinal axis
(claim 42) wherein the first and second surfaces are contiguous with one another and smoothly blend into one another
(claim 47) wherein the extrapolated outer profile includes a third surface proximal to the second surface having tangents parallel to the longitudinal axis and different than those of the second surface
(claim 48) wherein the second and third surfaces are contiguous with one another and smoothly blend into one another
(claim 49) wherein the first, second, and third surfaces form a compound cone
(claim 41) a relief portion positioned between the cutting head and a stop surface
(claim 41) wherein a cutting edge of the first and second flute blade extend smoothly from the distal end of the cutting head into the relief portion (for example see Figure 8)
(claim 43) a sharp distal tip
(claim 54) wherein the device is configured to drill a hole substantially cylindrical in shape adjacent to the surface of a mastoid bone (the third surface is capable of performing this function)
(claim 89) wherein the device is fully capable of being used as a mastoid bone start drill
PNG
media_image3.png
557
271
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 73-75, 78-80, and 83-89 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by a third interpretation of Hollander (U.S. Patent 6,106,292) (this interpretation is similar to the second interpretation except for the first surface including only the partially spherical end of the device, the second surface extending directly from the first surface, and the third surface including only the parallel portions of the surface to the relief portion).
Hollander discloses a device (for example see Figures 7-9; the embodiment of the figures is disclosed as being similar to those shown in Figures 1-5 except for the outer shape of the bit and the length of two of the blades (column 3 lines 55-62)) comprising:
(claim 41) a cutting head including
(claim 41) a proximal end
(claim 41) a distal end
(claim 41) a longitudinal axis running from the proximal end to the distal end
(claim 41) a first flute blade positioned along the longitudinal axis (a first element 24; for example see Figure 5; for example see column 3 lines 8-17)
(claim 41) a second flute blade positioned along the longitudinal axis (a second element 24)
(claim 44) wherein the first and second flute blades are positioned in a helical arrangement along the longitudinal axis
(claim 41) an extrapolated outer profile established by rotation of the first and second flute blades about the longitudinal axis thereof (the outline of the device in cross-section as best shown in Figure 9 helps visualize this)
(claim 41) the extrapolated outer profile includes a first surface having tangents more perpendicular than parallel to the longitudinal axis, i.e. are at an angle more than parallel to the longitudinal axis
(claim 73) wherein the device includes an end face comprising the first surface and the second surface immediately extends from the end face and wherein the second surface is a side face of the drill bit
(claim 78) wherein the first surface is completely a truncated hemisphere (a truncated hemisphere would be a partial hemisphere which is shown in the reference)
(claim 79) wherein the first surface is completely defined by curved portions of the extrapolated outer profile
(claim 80) wherein the first surface is completely defined by portions of the extrapolated outer profile having a constantly changing tangent surface with respect to a location along the longitudinal axis, i.e. a curved surface
(claims 83, 87, and 88) wherein the first surface is entirely made up of portions that have tangents more perpendicular than parallel to the longitudinal axis, i.e. a curved surface
(claim 41) the extrapolated outer profile includes a second surface having tangents more parallel than perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, i.e. are more parallel than at an angle to the longitudinal axis
(claim 42) wherein the first and second surfaces are contiguous with one another and smoothly blend into one another
(claim 45) wherein the first surface forms a cone and the second surface forms a truncated cone (paragraph 42 of the application states that the portion of a sphere of the first surface forms a cone, therefore the truncated hemispherical surface of the first surface of the reference can be interpreted as a cone)
(claim 74) wherein the device includes an end face comprising the first surface and the second surface immediately extends from the end face and wherein the second surface is a side face of the drill bit
(claim 84) wherein the truncated cone has an outer profile that has tangents that are all the same along a length of the longitudinal axis, i.e. the surface of the truncated cone is linear and angled relative to the longitudinal axis
(claim 85) wherein the extrapolated outer profile includes a third surface immediately proximate the second surface that forms a cylinder
(claim 46) wherein the first and second surfaces form a compound curve
(claim 75) wherein the device includes an end face comprising the first surface and the second surface immediately extends from the end face and wherein the second surface is a side face of the drill bit
(claim 86) wherein the extrapolated outer profile includes a third surface immediately proximate the second surface that forms a cylinder
(claim 47) wherein the extrapolated outer profile includes a third surface proximal to the second surface having tangents parallel to the longitudinal axis and different than those of the second surface
(claim 48) wherein the second and third surfaces are contiguous with one another and smoothly blend into one another
(claim 49) wherein the first, second, and third surfaces form a compound cone
(claim 41) a relief portion positioned between the cutting head and a stop surface
(claim 41) wherein a cutting edge of the first and second flute blade extend smoothly from the distal end of the cutting head into the relief portion (for example see Figure 8)
(claim 43) a sharp distal tip
(claim 54) wherein the device is configured to drill a hole substantially cylindrical in shape adjacent to the surface of a mastoid bone (the third surface is capable of performing this function)
(claim 89) wherein the device is fully capable of being used as a mastoid bone start drill
PNG
media_image4.png
437
269
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 51 and 54 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by the first interpretation and/or the second interpretation and/or the third interpretation of Hollander (U.S. Patent 6,106,292) in view of Moon (U.S. Publication 2012/0323243).
Hollander discloses the invention as claimed (see above) except for the stop surface extending on a plane substantially normal to the longitudinal axis of the drill bit. Moon teaches a device comprising a drill bit including a cutting head (30), a relief portion (11), and a stop surface (lower surface of element 12), wherein the stop surface extends outwardly on a plane substantially normal to a longitudinal axis of the device (for example see Figure 1). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the device of Hollander wherein the stop surface extends outward on a plane substantially normal to the longitudinal axis in view of Moon, since applicant has not disclosed that such solve any stated problem or is anything more than one of numerous shapes or configurations a person ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing a stop surface on a drill bit. In re Dailey and Eilers, 149 USPQ 47 (1966).
Claim 52 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by the first interpretation and/or the second interpretation and/or the third interpretation of Hollander (U.S. Patent 6,106,292) in view of Moon (U.S. Publication 2012/0323243).
The device of Hollander as modified by Moon discloses the invention as claimed (see above) except for stop surface being about 4 mm to about 6 mm from the distal end of the device (as shown in Figures 7-9 of Hollander, the length of the entire drill bit is disclosed as about 20 mm to 25mm, but length from the stop surface to the distal tip is not provided). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was provide the device of Hollander as modified by Moon wherein the stop surface is about 4 mm to about 6 mm from the distal end, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 58 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by the first interpretation of Hollander (U.S. Patent 6,106,292).
The device of Hollander discloses the invention as claimed (see above) wherein the flute blades include a leading surface and at least one trailing surface extending from the leading surface at an angle (for example see Figure 5).It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the device of Hollander wherein the trailing surface extends from the leading surface at an angle of at least about 280 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image5.png
440
408
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 60-69, 71, and 71 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by the second interpretation of Hollander (U.S. Patent 6,106,292) in view of Kumar (U.S. Publication 2002/0028422).
Hollander discloses a device (for example see Figures 7-9; the embodiment of the figures is disclosed as being similar to those shown in Figures 1-5 except for the outer shape of the bit and the length of two of the blades (column 3 lines 55-62)) comprising:
(claim 60) a cutting head including
(claim 60) a proximal end
(claim 60) a distal end
(claim 60) a longitudinal axis running from the proximal end to the distal end
(claim 60) a first flute blade positioned along the longitudinal axis (a first element 24; for example see Figure 5; for example see column 3 lines 8-17)
(claim 60) a second flute blade positioned along the longitudinal axis (a second element 24)
(claim 60) an extrapolated outer profile established by rotation of the first and second flute blades about the longitudinal axis thereof (the outline of the device in cross-section as best shown in Figure 9 helps visualize this)
(claim 60) the extrapolated outer profile includes a first surface having tangents more perpendicular than parallel to the longitudinal axis, i.e. are at an angle more than parallel to the longitudinal axis
(claim 60) the extrapolated outer profile includes a second surface having a substantially linear tangential shape positioned proximal the first surface
(claim 60) wherein the extrapolated outer profile includes a third surface proximal to the second surface having a substantially linear tangential shape proximal the second surface
(claim 60) a relief portion positioned between the cutting head and a stop surface
(claim 60) wherein a cutting edge of the first and second flute blade extend smoothly from the distal end of the cutting head into the relief portion (for example see Figure 8)
Hollander fails to disclose the device further comprising a countersink drill bit. Kumar teaches a device comprising a starting drill bit (for example see Figure 3), wherein the device further comprises a countersink drill bit (see Figure 8) having an extrapolated surface substantially similar to the extrapolated surface of the start bit in order to counterbore a hole created by the starting drill bit (for example see paragraph 122). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the device of Hollander further comprising a countersink drill bit in view of Kumar in order to counterbore a hole created by the starting drill bit.
The device of Hollander as modified by Kumar discloses a device wherein the countersink drill bit includes (for example see Figure 8 of the Kumar reference):
(claim 72) a countersink cutting head (24’’) including
(claim 72) a proximal end
(claim 72) a distal end
(claim 72) a longitudinal axis running from the proximal end to the distal end
(claim 72) at least one flute blade (first element 34’’) positioned along the longitudinal axis
(claim 61) a second flute blade (second element 34’’) positioned along the longitudinal axis
(claim 65) wherein the first and second flute blades are positioned helically along the longitudinal axis (see Figure 8; the flute blades are positioned off center, i.e. helically arranged)
(claim 72) an extrapolated outer profile established by rotation of the flute blade about the longitudinal axis thereof
(claim 72) wherein the extrapolated outer profile of the countersink includes a cylindrical countersink surface that is substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis with a surface substantially similar to the surface of the start drill bit (the device would include a countersink drill bit that matches the extrapolated profile of the drill bit in Hollander since the Hollander reference is being modified to include a countersink bit with a surface that substantially matches the surface of the drill bit in order to counterbore a bore created by the drill bit as taught by Kumar)
(claim 62) the extrapolated outer profile including a first counter sink surface having tangents more perpendicular than parallel to the longitudinal axis (the device would include a countersink drill bit that matches the extrapolated profile of the drill bit in Hollander since the Hollander reference is being modified to include a countersink bit with a surface that substantially matches the surface of the drill bit in order to counterbore a bore created by the drill bit as taught by Kumar)
(claim 63) wherein the first countersink surface and the cylindrical counter sink surface are contiguous with one another and smoothly blend into one another
(claim 66) wherein the first counter sink surface forms a cone and the cylindrical countersink surface forms a cylinder
(claim 71) wherein the extrapolated outer profile of the countersink drill includes a first countersink surface having a substantially conical shape with a tangent more perpendicular than parallel to the longitudinal axis (the device would include a countersink drill bit that matches the extrapolated profile of the drill bit in Hollander since the Hollander reference is being modified to include a countersink bit with a surface that substantially matches the surface of the drill bit in order to counterbore a bore created by the drill bit as taught by Kumar)
(claim 62) a relief portion positioned between the countersink cutting head and a countersink stop surface (the area including elements 44’’)
(claim 62) wherein a cutting edge of the flute blades extend smoothly from the distal end into the relief portion (see Figure 8)
(claim 68) wherein the stop surface extends outward on a plane substantially normal to the longitudinal axis of the countersink bit (see Figure 8)
(claim 64) a sharp distal tip
(claim 67) wherein the starting drill bit is capable of drilling a hole with a substantially cylindrical shape adjacent to the surface of the mastoid bone
(claim 67) wherein the countersink drill bit is configured for drilling a countersink in the hole wherein the substantially cylindrical shape left by the drill bit is capable of guiding the countersink bit
Regarding claim 69:
The device of Hollander as modified by Kumar discloses the invention as claimed except for the stop surface being about 4 mm to about 6 mm from the distal end of the countersink. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was provide the device of Hollander as modified by Moon wherein the stop surface is about 4 mm to about 6 mm from the distal end, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 76, 77, 81 and 82 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over by the first interpretation and/or the second interpretation and/or the third interpretation of Hollander (U.S. Patent 6,106,292).
The device of Hollander discloses the invention as claimed (see above) except for stop surface being less than or equal to 6 mm from the distal end of the device and except for the stop surface being less than or equal to 4.1 mm (as shown in Figures 7-9 of Hollander, the length of the entire drill bit is disclosed as about 20 mm to 25mm, but length from the stop surface to the distal tip is not provided). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was provide the device of Hollander wherein the stop surface is less than or equal to 6 mm from the distal end and wherein the stop surface is less than or equal to 4.1 mm from the distal end, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 93 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered. The applicant’s argument regarding were discussed in the office action mailed on December 2nd, 2025. The applicant’s argument regarding the specification were discussed in the office action mailed on December 2nd, 2025. The applicant’s arguments regarding the drawings were discussed in the office action mailed on December 2nd, 2025. The applicant’s argument regarding the claims objections is not an argument and is moot. The applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are directed to the new grounds of rejection that were found persuasive in the petition review. The applicant’s arguments that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 do not meet the Graham v. Deere factors is not persuasive. The rejection provide under 35 U.S.C. 103 satisfies all the requirements of Graham v. Deere per the MPEP making the rejections complete.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Woodall whose telephone number is (571) 272-5204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong, at (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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/NICHOLAS W WOODALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775