DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Scanlon et al. (US 2007/0207186 A1) does not disclose or suggest that reinforcement 68 is a single polymeric filament being wound about a longitudinal axis of an implant along a single and continuous helical path as recited in claim 1. Applicant states that in the embodiment described in paragraph [0100], Scanlon does not describe that the reinforcement 68 as a whole includes a single filament, rather, the “one or more” member segments 67 are with reference to the configuration of open cells 75. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0100] recites, “As schematically illustrated in a tubular embodiment in FIGS. 33-34, the reinforcement 68 optionally includes a plurality of member segments 67. The member segments 67 are of uniform or varying thickness and can be of any cross sectional shape. The reinforcement 68 can optionally, for example, include one or more longitudinal member segments 70, radial member segments 72, angled member segments 74, helical member segments, curved member segments, angled member segments, or combinations thereof.” Thus, while Fig. 34 shows multiple crisscrossing helical member segments, the embodiment of Scanlon encompasses a reinforcement 68 with “one or more…helical member segments” i.e., one helical member segment and a single helical member segment does inherently follow a continuous helical path. In this particular embodiment, the open cells would be between adjacent wrappings of the single filament around its helical path.
While applicant notes that the open cells 75 of Figs. 48-51 are optionally interconnected with other open cells 75 with one or more member segments 67, it is noted that the open cells 75 formed by a mesh or lattice structure are “not necessary” ([0100]) and this particular embodiment is not being relied upon for the current rejection.
Accordingly, based on the recitation “The reinforcement 68 can optionally, for example, include one or more longitudinal member segments 70, radial member segments 72, angled member segments 74, helical member segments, curved member segments, angled member segments, or combinations thereof”, Scanlon does disclose that the reinforcement itself as a whole includes a single helical filament.
Applicant argues that Li in view of Scanlon also does not disclose or suggest that the polymeric filament has a winding density such that the implant has a compression resistance of 1 N to 10 N and a kink resistance angle of 40 degrees to 150 degrees because applicant’s own teachings cannot be properly used to apply routine optimization. However, it is noted that applicant’s teachings are not intended to apply routine optimization. Instead, applicant’s teachings are used as evidence as to why the product of the routine optimization would be equivalent to the resulting modification of Li in view of Scanlon.
For evidence that Scanlon recognizes pitch or winding density as a particular parameter that would have been optimized, Scanlon teaches shapes of the open cells i.e., between adjacent wrappings of the single helical filament of the embodiment relied upon, may be may be modified by the user in order “to customize the flexibility, manage the longitudinal shrinkage or expansion upon changing size and shape, minimize drag within a passageway or combinations thereof” ([0100]). Therefore, the pitch/winding density of the filaments is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the pitch/winding density of the filaments affects the flexibility, changing in size and shape, and drag of the implant.
Applicant argues the Office did not identify a recognized result achieved by either pitch or winding density to support any reliance on routine optimization. The examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize changing the pitch/winding density of the filaments affects the flexibility as a looser wound filament would result in a more flexible implant than a tighter wound filament, which is understood by Scanlon’s teachings of customizing flexibility. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range.
Applicant argues that routine optimization applies to a claimed invention that falls within a prior art range and a variable disclosed in a range in the prior art and the Office has not shown any specific numerical range of pitch or winding density. However, routine optimization may be used when prior art differs from the claimed invention only over the claimed range but does not disclose an overlapping or close range. In the instant case a prima facie case of obviousness may be established even though a prior art reference does not disclose any particular range, but teaches that the claimed parameters are known to affect results or properties, as discussed above with respect to customizing flexibility. Further, it would have been obvious to try the pitch/winding density in the claimed range as there is a finite number of winding pitches around a tubular implant. Thus, predictable solutions to increasing and decreasing the flexibility of the implant based on the pitch/winding density. Accordingly, routine optimization is applied properly over Li in view of Scanlon to teach that the polymeric filament has a winding density such that the implant has a compression resistance of 1 N to 10 N and a kink resistance angle of 40 degrees to 150 degrees.
For at least the foregoing reasons, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive, and the applied combination of references is maintained.
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.
Claims 13-16 are 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.
Claim 13 recites “the polymeric filament” in line 1. It is unclear if this refers back to the previously claimed “plurality of polymeric filaments” or the “single polymeric filament” of claim 12.
Claim 14 recites “the polymeric filament” in line 7. It is unclear as to which or all of the previously claimed “plurality of polymeric filaments” the limitation is referring back to.
Claim 16 recites “the polymeric filament” in line 1. It is unclear as to which or all of the previously claimed “plurality of polymeric filaments” the limitation is referring back to.
Claim 15 is rejected for its dependency on rejected claim 14.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-16 and 21-23 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 6,716,225 B2) in view of Scanlon et al. (US 2007/0207186 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7 and 21-23, Li discloses a compression and kink resistant implant (implant device 10) for nerve repair (column 2, lines 7-9), the implant (10) comprising a tubular biopolymeric membrane (tubular matrix 12 made of a biopolymeric material; column 1, lines 65-67) defining a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1), the tubular biopolymeric membrane has an outer surface (Fig. 1) and is biocompatible, resorbable, and semipermeable (column 4, lines 17-21), wherein the implant (10) has a kink resistance angle of 40 degrees to 150 degrees and/or of 40 degrees to 90 degrees (up to 140 degrees; column 10, lines 17-22). Li discloses the tubular biopolymeric membrane includes various types of collagen (column 4, lines 36-37). Li discloses the implant has an internal diameter of 1.5 mm (the implant has an internal diameter of 1.0 to 10 mm; column 2, lines 25-26).
Li fails to disclose a single polymeric filament being a synthetic polymer, wherein the single polymeric filament is helical and wound about the longitudinal axis along a single and continuous helical path and located on the outer surface of the tubular biopolymeric membrane, wherein the implant has a compression resistance of 1 N to 10 N at 100% compression, and wherein the synthetic polymeric filament has a helical pitch/winding density of 1 mm such that the implant has a compression resistance of 4 N.
However, Scanlon teaches an implant for nerve repair ([0161]; page 19, column 2, line 43) wherein the implant may be made of collagen ([0195]; page 25, column 2, line 31; wherein the expanded material of the implant may be made of collagen) and may include a single polymeric filament (reinforcement 68 can including one or more helical member segments; [0100]) that is helical and wound about the longitudinal axis along a single and continuous helical path (a single helical member segment does inherently follow a continuous helical path; [0100]) and located on the outer surface ([0082]) of the tubular member of the nerve repair implant (Fig. 34; [0126]). The filament may be made from polycaprolactone, a biodegradable synthetic polymer ([0271]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the tubular biopolymeric membrane of Li to include the polycaprolactone single helical reinforcement filament of the nerve repair implant of Scanlon on the outer surface of the tubular biopolymeric membrane of Li for the purpose of increasing the strength of the implant as well as enabling the implant to have shape or size memory ([0248] of Scanlon).
Although the addition of the synthetic polymer filament of Scanlon to the implant of Li would increase the implant’s compression resistance, modified Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the implant has a compression resistance of 1 N to 10 N, and wherein the synthetic polymeric filament has a helical pitch/winding density of 1 mm such that the implant has a compression resistance of 4 N.
It is noted that the property of compression resistance is imparted by the polymeric filament that is wound around the outside of the tubular biopolymeric matrix in a helical path. The extent of compression resistance is a function of the pitch of the filament winding. For example, an implant having a polymeric filament wound with a small pitch, i.e., a tight winding, has a higher compression resistance as comparted to a similar implant having a winding with a larger pitch. For example, an implant having an inside diameter of 1.5 mm that is reinforced with a polymeric fiber wound with a 1 mm pitch has a compression resistance of 4 N. A similar implant in which the polymeric fiber is wound with a 2 mm pitch has a compression resistance of 2.5 N. The compression resistance imparted by a crisscross polymeric fiber is greater than that of a helical fiber given the same winding pitch ([0021] of applicant’s specification).
Li discloses the implant has an internal diameter of 1.5 mm (the implant has an internal diameter of 1.0 to 10 mm; column 2, lines 25-26). Scanlon teaches the helical filament may be wrapped around the central tube at various angles that may be optimized “to customize the flexibility, manage the longitudinal shrinkage or expansion upon changing size and shape, minimize drag within a passageway or combinations thereof” ([0100]). Therefore, the pitch of the filaments is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the pitch of the filaments affects the flexibility, changing in size and shape, and drag of the implant. For example, a smaller pitch would increase winding density and reduce flexibility while a larger pitch would decrease winding density and increase flexibility. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the implant of Li to have a single helical filament with a pitch/winding density within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting a variable angle and there are a finite number of angles to adjust; therefore, it would have been obvious to try a winding density with a 1 mm pitch because a person has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the helical pitch/winding density of the filaments of modified Li to be 1 mm for the purpose of customizing the flexibility, managing the longitudinal shrinkage or expansion upon changing size and shape, minimizing drag within a passageway or combinations thereof, as taught by Scanlon. 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. When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Modifying the 1.5 mm implant of Li to include the synthetic polymeric filament of Scanlon having a helical pitch of 1 mm as discussed above, would then inherently disclose a compression resistance of 4 N at 100% as disclosed by applicant’s specification. Similarly, the winding density/pitch of modified Li would result in a kink resistance of 40 degrees to 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 4, Li modified discloses the invention as claimed, and Li further discloses wherein the implant has an internal diameter of 1.0 mm to 10 mm (column 2, lines 25-26).
Regarding claim 5, Li modified discloses the invention as claimed, and Li further discloses wherein the implant has a length of 0.5 cm to 15 cm (column 2, lines 27-28).
Regarding claim 6, Li modified discloses the invention as claimed, and Li further discloses wherein the implant has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 1 mm (column 2, lines 27-28).
Regarding claims 9-10, Li modified discloses the invention as claimed, and Li further discloses wherein the tubular biopolymeric membrane is permeable to molecules having a molecular weight less than or equal to 500,000 daltons, wherein the molecular weight is less than or equal to 100,000 daltons (column 5, lines 20-30).
Regarding claims 11-13, Li discloses a shaped compression resistant implant (implant device 10) which is capable of being used for ridge augmentation in dental surgery (due to the sizes of the implant; column 2, lines 24-34), the implant comprising an arcuate biopolymeric membrane (curved tubular matrix 12; column 1, lines 65-67; Fig. 1) defining a longitudinal axis, wherein the arcuate biopolymeric membrane (12) has an outer surface (Fig. 1) and is biocompatible, resorbable, and semipermeable (column 4, lines 17-21). Li discloses the arcuate biopolymeric membrane includes various types of collagen (column 4, lines 36-37).
Li fails to disclose a plurality of polymeric filaments being a synthetic polymer, wherein the plurality of polymeric filaments is located on the outer surface of the arcuate biopolymeric membrane and extends along a plurality of helical path portions, the plurality of helical path portions together defining a single and continuous helical path wound about the longitudinal axis and the plurality of polymeric filaments together defining a single polymeric filament when the arcuate biopolymeric membrane is rolled into a tube about the longitudinal axis, and wherein the plurality of polymeric filaments has a winding density such that the implant has a compression resistance of 1 N to 10 N.
However, Scanlon teaches an implant for nerve repair ([0161]; page 19, column 2, line 43) similar to that of Li, and/or for dental surgery ([0161]; page 19, column 1, lines 14-15), wherein the implant may be made of collagen ([0195]; page 25, column 2, line 31; wherein the expanded material of the implant may be made of collagen) and may include a single polymeric filament (reinforcement 68 can including one or more helical member segments; [0100]) that is helical and wound about the longitudinal axis along a single and continuous helical path (a single helical member segment does inherently follow a continuous helical path; [0100]) and located on the outer surface ([0082]) of the tubular member of the nerve repair implant (Fig. 34; [0126]). The filament may be made from polycaprolactone, a biodegradable synthetic polymer ([0271]). The single and continuous helical path may be made of a single filament comprising a plurality of filaments (i.e., a single strand/path may be made of woven or twisted filaments; [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the tubular biopolymeric membrane of Li to include the polycaprolactone woven or twisted single helical reinforcement filament of the nerve repair implant of Scanlon on the outer surface of the tubular biopolymeric membrane of Li for the purpose of increasing the strength of the implant as well as enabling the implant to have shape or size memory ([0248] of Scanlon).
Although the addition of the synthetic polymer filament of Scanlon to the implant of Li would increase the implant’s compression resistance, modified Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the implant has a compression resistance of 1 N to 10 N, and wherein the synthetic polymeric filament has a helical pitch/winding density of 1 mm such that the implant has a compression resistance of 4 N.
It is noted that the property of compression resistance is imparted by the polymeric filament that is wound around the outside of the tubular biopolymeric matrix in a helical path. The extent of compression resistance is a function of the pitch of the filament winding. For example, an implant having a polymeric filament wound with a small pitch, i.e., a tight winding, has a higher compression resistance as comparted to a similar implant having a winding with a larger pitch. For example, an implant having an inside diameter of 1.5 mm that is reinforced with a polymeric fiber wound with a 1 mm pitch has a compression resistance of 4 N. A similar implant in which the polymeric fiber is wound with a 2 mm pitch has a compression resistance of 2.5 N. The compression resistance imparted by a crisscross polymeric fiber is greater than that of a helical fiber given the same winding pitch ([0021] of applicant’s specification).
Li discloses the implant has an internal diameter of 1.5 mm (the implant has an internal diameter of 1.0 to 10 mm; column 2, lines 25-26). Scanlon teaches the helical filament may be wrapped around the central tube at various angles that may be optimized “to customize the flexibility, manage the longitudinal shrinkage or expansion upon changing size and shape, minimize drag within a passageway or combinations thereof” ([0100]). Therefore, the pitch of the filaments is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the pitch of the filaments affects the flexibility, changing in size and shape, and drag of the implant. For example, a smaller pitch would increase winding density and reduce flexibility while a larger pitch would decrease winding density and increase flexibility. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the implant of Li to have a single helical filament with a pitch/winding density within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting a variable angle and there are a finite number of angles to adjust; therefore, it would have been obvious to try a winding density with a 1 mm pitch because a person has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the helical pitch/winding density of the filaments of modified Li to be 1 mm for the purpose of customizing the flexibility, managing the longitudinal shrinkage or expansion upon changing size and shape, minimizing drag within a passageway or combinations thereof, as taught by Scanlon. 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. When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Modifying the 1.5 mm implant of Li to include the synthetic polymeric filament of Scanlon having a helical pitch of 1 mm as discussed above, would then inherently disclose a compression resistance of 4 N at 100% as disclosed by applicant’s specification.
Regarding claims 14-16, Li discloses a shaped compression resistant implant (implant device 10) which is capable of being used for ridge augmentation in dental surgery (due to the sizes of the implant; column 2, lines 24-34), the implant comprising an arcuate biopolymeric membrane (curved tubular matrix 12; column 1, lines 65-67; Fig. 1) defining a longitudinal axis (Fig. 2), the arcuate biopolymeric membrane (12) having an outer surface (Fig. 1) and being biocompatible, resorbable, and semipermeable (column 4, lines 17-21). Li discloses the arcuate biopolymeric membrane includes various types of collagen (column 4, lines 36-37).
Li fails to disclose a plurality of polymeric filaments being a synthetic polymer, the arcuate biopolymeric membrane having two layers, and wherein the polymeric filament is incorporated between the two layers of the arcuate biopolymeric membrane and extends along a plurality of helical path portions, the plurality of helical path portions together defining a single and continuous helical path wound about the longitudinal axis and the plurality of polymeric filaments together defining a single polymeric filament when the arcuate biopolymeric membrane is rolled into a tube about the longitudinal axis, wherein the plurality of polymeric filaments has a winding density such that the implant has a compression resistance of 1 N to 10 N.
However, Scanlon teaches an implant for nerve repair ([0161]; page 19, column 2, line 43) similar to that of Li, and/or for dental surgery ([0161]; page 19, column 1, lines 14-15), wherein the implant may be made of collagen ([0195]; page 25, column 2, line 31; wherein the expanded material of the implant may be made of collagen) and may include a single polymeric filament (reinforcement 68 can including one or more helical member segments; [0100]) that is helical and wound about the longitudinal axis along a single and continuous helical path (a single helical member segment does inherently follow a continuous helical path; [0100]) and incorporated between two layers of membrane of the implant ([0082]; Fig. 34; [0126]). Scanlon teaches the polymeric filament (68) may be positioned on the outside, inside, between two wall thicknesses, or between wall thicknesses comprised of two or more layers of the implant ([0082]). The filament may be made from polycaprolactone, a biodegradable synthetic polymer ([0271]). The single and continuous helical path may be made of a single filament comprising a plurality of filaments (i.e., a single strand/path may be made of woven or twisted filaments; [0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the arcuate biopolymeric membrane of Li to include two layers such that the single woven or twisted polycaprolactone reinforcement filament of the implant of Scanlon is incorporated between two layers of the arcuate biopolymeric membrane of Li for the purpose of increasing the strength of the implant as well as enabling the implant to have shape or size memory ([0248] of Scanlon). Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements by known methods (i.e. modifying the implant of modified Li from a single layer to being formed from two layers), and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of an implant with increased strength due to a polymeric filament.
Although the addition of the synthetic polymer filament of Scanlon to the implant of Li would increase the implant’s compression resistance, modified Li fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of polymeric filaments has a winding density such that the implant has a compression resistance of 1 N to 10 N.
It is noted that the property of compression resistance is imparted by the polymeric filament that is wound around the outside of the tubular biopolymeric matrix in a helical path. The extent of compression resistance is a function of the pitch of the filament winding. For example, an implant having a polymeric filament wound with a small pitch, i.e., a tight winding, has a higher compression resistance as comparted to a similar implant having a winding with a larger pitch. For example, an implant having an inside diameter of 1.5 mm that is reinforced with a polymeric fiber wound with a 1 mm pitch has a compression resistance of 4 N. A similar implant in which the polymeric fiber is wound with a 2 mm pitch has a compression resistance of 2.5 N. The compression resistance imparted by a crisscross polymeric fiber is greater than that of a helical fiber given the same winding pitch ([0021] of applicant’s specification).
Li discloses the implant has an internal diameter of 1.5 mm (the implant has an internal diameter of 1.0 to 10 mm; column 2, lines 25-26). Scanlon teaches the helical filament may be wrapped around the central tube at various angles that may be optimized “to customize the flexibility, manage the longitudinal shrinkage or expansion upon changing size and shape, minimize drag within a passageway or combinations thereof” ([0100]). Therefore, the pitch of the filaments is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the pitch of the filaments affects the flexibility, changing in size and shape, and drag of the implant. For example, a smaller pitch would increase winding density and reduce flexibility while a larger pitch would decrease winding density and increase flexibility. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the implant of Li to have a single helical filament with a pitch/winding density within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting a variable angle and there are a finite number of angles to adjust; therefore, it would have been obvious to try a winding density with a 1 mm pitch because a person has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the helical pitch/winding density of the filaments of modified Li to be 1 mm for the purpose of customizing the flexibility, managing the longitudinal shrinkage or expansion upon changing size and shape, minimizing drag within a passageway or combinations thereof, as taught by Scanlon. 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. When the structure recited in the references is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Modifying the 1.5 mm implant of Li to include the synthetic polymeric filament of Scanlon having a helical pitch of 1 mm as discussed above, would then inherently disclose a compression resistance of 4 N at 100% as disclosed by applicant’s specification.
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 SARAH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Elizabeth Houston can be reached at (571)272-7134. 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.
/SARAH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights