DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner reinterpreted Jimenez based off applicant’s amendments and in view of the 112 rejections set forth below.
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 1-20 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.
The last clause in claim 1 (“wherein the flexures include both flexures..”) is confusing as it is not clear if applicant is claiming the flexures are both concave and convex in the compressed and expanded configuration. Or if applicant is referring to some of the flexures being concave and some being convex in the compressed and expanded configuration. Based off applicants remarks and what is stated in page 11 of the specification, the examiner is treating the last clause of claim 1 that there is a first group of flexures that are concave and a second group of flexures that are convex. It is recommended that applicant uses more definitive terminology or specific naming of the flexures to avoid confusion. Claim 14 last clause also has the same issues as Claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the flexures" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear which flexures applicant is referring in view of claim 1, as claim recites different flexures (those in a concave or convex configuration). The examiner will treat with art as best understood.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the flexures" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear which flexures applicant is referring in view of claim 1, as claim recites different flexures (those in a concave or convex configuration). The examiner will treat with art as best understood.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jimenez US 2020/0281739.
Regarding Claim 1, Jimenez discloses an expandable intervertebral body fusion device (as seen in Fig 1-2d), comprising:
a unitary monolithic body (#100) having a plurality of body segments (#106, see Fig below) connected to each other with flexures (circled in annotated Fig 1b below, paragraph 22) in both a compressed configuration (Fig 1a-1b) and an expanded configuration (Fig 2b), the body further including an interior space defined between the plurality of body segments (see Fig below), including:
PNG
media_image1.png
734
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an anterior body segment (#112, see Fig below);
a posterior body segment (#114, see Fig below);
one or more mediolateral body segments extending between the anterior body segment and the posterior body segment along each of a lateral side and a medial side of the anterior body segment (see Fig below, the body segments #106 define the mediolateral body segments, where there is a mediolateral body segment at the lateral and medial sides of the anterior body segment);
an opening (#124 and #126, best seen in Fig 2d) formed in each of the anterior body segment and the posterior body segment (see Fig 2d);
wherein the body is configured to be mediolaterally expanded from a compressed configuration (as seen in Fig 1a-1b) to an expanded configuration (Fig 2a-2b) by interaction of an expansion tool (#200 as seen in Fig 6a-6b) with at least one of the openings in the anterior body segment and posterior body segment causing the one or more mediolateral body segments on the lateral side and the one or more body segments on the medial side to generally more away from each other and expand the interior space between the plurality of body segments such that the body has greater mediolateral footprint in the expanded configuration than in the compressed configuration (as seen in Fig 6a-6b, paragraph 28)
wherein the flexures include both flexures configured in a concave configuration (see Fig below where the flexures adjacent the anterior and posterior body segments have a concave configuration in both the compressed and expanded configuration) and flexures configured in a convex configuration (see Fig below where the other remaining flexures, in the box below and in Fig 3b-3c, each include a hook that has convex configuration in both the compressed and expanded configuration, examiner notes that for expediency only one two are annotated, the other two have the same configuration) , and
wherein each of the flexures remain in the respective concave configuration or convex configuration in both the compressed configuration and the expanded configuration (as discussed above and figures below, Fig 1b, 2b, 3b, 3c).
PNG
media_image2.png
812
1088
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Jimenez discloses the opening formed in each of the anterior body segment and the posterior body segment is a threaded opening (as seen in Fig 2d, paragraph 25 where the openings #126, #124 are threaded).
Regarding Claim 7, Jimenez discloses the flexures (flexures with the hook #118, see 112 rejection above) have a height (coming out of the page as seen in Figs 1b, 2b, 3b, 3c), a thickness and a length, and wherein a ratio of the thickness to length is less than 0.2 (see fig where only one flexure is annotated but the other flexures have the same configuration, where the flexures each can define a thickness “t” less than the overall thickness and a length “l” less than or equal to the overall length such that a ratio of thickness t to the length l is less than 0.2)(examiner notes that applicant is not claiming where the length and thickness are taken from, but if applicant were to claim the “overall length” see the 103 rejection below).
PNG
media_image3.png
424
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Jimenez discloses the flexures connecting the anterior body segment and the posterior body segment to the one or more mediolateral body segments are configured in the concave configuration (see Fig below, Figs in claim 1 above), and wherein the flexures connecting each of the one or more mediolateral body segments to any other one of the one or more mediolateral body segments are configured in the convex configuration (see Fig below, see Figs in claim 1 above and discussed in claim 1 where the other flexures have a hook that has a convex configuration).
PNG
media_image4.png
725
978
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Jimenez discloses a distance from a central axis extending between the anterior body segment and the posterior body segment to a center of a flexure configured in a convex configuration is greater than the distance from the central axis to a center of a flexure configured in a concave configuration when the body is in the compressed configuration (see Fig 3c showing the compressed configuration, where there is a flexure in concave configuration and a flexure in a convex configuration, the concave configuration having a greater distance to the central axis)(it is noted that the flexure in the concave configuration also has a portion of it in the convex configuration) .
PNG
media_image5.png
778
969
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Jimenez discloses each of the one or more mediolateral of body segments (#106, Fig 2b below) form a tongue and groove structure (only one tongue and groove structure is identified in the Fig below but the other vertices have a tongue and groove structure, see Fig below, paragraph 24) with each adjacent one of the one or more mediolateral body segments at each of the vertices (circled in the figure below) of the body in the expanded configuration (see Fig below, the identified vertices form a polygon/rectangle).
PNG
media_image6.png
585
988
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jimenez US 2020/0281739.
Regarding Claim 14, Jimenez discloses an expandable intervertebral body fusion device (as seen in Fig 1-2d), comprising:
a unitary monolithic body (#100) having a plurality of body segments (#106)(it is noted that between anterior and posterior body segments #112, #114 there are body segments #106, see Fig below) coupled to each other with flexure (circled in annotated Fig 1b below, paragraph 22) in both a compressed configuration (Fig 1a-1b) and an expanded configuration (Fig 2b), the body further including an interior space defined between the plurality of body segments (see Fig below);
PNG
media_image1.png
734
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the body is configured to be mediolaterally expanded from the compressed configuration (as seen in Fig 1a-1b) to the expanded configuration (Fig 2a-2b) causing the plurality of body segments to generally move away from each other to expand the interior space between the plurality of body segments such that the body forms a greater mediolateral footprint in the expanded configuration than in the compressed configuration (as seen in Fig 1a-2b, paragraph 28);
wherein the flexures include both flexures configured in a concave configuration (see Fig below where the flexures adjacent the anterior and posterior body segments have a concave configuration in both the compressed and expanded configuration) and flexures configured in a convex configuration (see Fig below where the other remaining flexures, in the box below and in Fig 3b-3c, each include a hook that has convex configuration in both the compressed and expanded configuration, examiner notes that for expediency only one two are annotated, the other two have the same configuration) , and
wherein each of the flexures remain in the respective concave configuration or convex configuration in both the compressed configuration and the expanded configuration (as discussed above and figures below, Fig 1b, 2b, 3b, 3c).
PNG
media_image2.png
812
1088
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Jimenez discloses the flexures (flexures with the hook #118, see 112 rejection above) have a height (coming out of the page as seen in Figs 1b, 2b, 3b, 3c), a thickness and a length, and wherein a ratio of the thickness to length is less than 0.2 (see fig where only one flexure is annotated but the other flexures have the same configuration, where the flexures each can define a thickness “t” less than the overall thickness and a length “l” less than or equal to the overall length such that a ratio of thickness t to the length l is less than 0.2)(examiner notes that applicant is not claiming where the length and thickness are taken from, but if applicant were to claim the “overall length” see the 103 rejection below).
PNG
media_image3.png
424
510
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Jimenez discloses a distance from a central axis extending between an anterior body segment (#112) and an posterior body segment (#114) to a center of a flexure configured in a convex configuration is greater than the distance from the central axis to a center of a flexure configured in a concave configuration when the body is in the compressed configuration (see Fig 3c showing the compressed configuration, where there is a flexure in concave configuration and a flexure in a convex configuration, the concave configuration having a greater distance to the central axis)(it is noted that the flexure in the concave configuration also has a portion of it in the convex configuration) .
PNG
media_image5.png
778
969
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Jimenez discloses each of the plurality of body segments (#106, Fig 2b below) form a tongue and groove structure (only one tongue and groove structure is identified in the Fig below but the other vertices have a tongue and groove structure, see Fig below, paragraph 24) with each adjacent one of the plurality of body segments at each of the vertices (circled in the figure below) of the body in the expanded configuration (see Fig below, the identified vertices form a polygon/rectangle).
PNG
media_image6.png
585
988
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez US 2020/0281739 in view of Allibone GB 2436292.
Regarding Claim 3, Jimenez discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where the anterior and posterior body segments move towards each other to expand the device (Fig 1a-2b, paragraph 28) but does not disclose a core extending from one of the anterior body segment and the posterior body segment into the interior space in the body, wherein further expansion of the body is prevented by interaction of the core with the other of the anterior body segment and the posterior body segment.
Allibone discloses a similar expandable device (see Fig below) where the anterior and posterior body segments are brought closer together to go from a compressed configuration (Fig below, Fig 1a) to an expanded configuration (Fig 1b)(page 4 3rd and fourth paragraphs into page 5 first paragraph), a core extending from one of the anterior body segment and the posterior body segment into the interior space in the body (see Fig below where the anterior and posterior body segments each has a core), wherein further expansion of the body is prevented by interaction of the core with the other of the anterior body segment and the posterior body segment (see Fig below, page 4 3rd and fourth paragraphs into page 5 first paragraph, where the cores are brought closer together and abut to prevent further expansion).
PNG
media_image7.png
573
920
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anterior and posterior body segments of Jimenez to each include a core that extends into the interior space in view of Allibone because the cores define the maximum amount the anterior and posterior body segments can be moved towards each other and thus prevents and further expansion. Examiner notes that with the modification, the cores would help prevent over expansion and prevent potential failures of the flexures.
Regarding Claim 4, Jimenez as modified discloses wherein the core comprises a first core and a second core having different axial lengths (see annotated figure of Allibone above in claim 3 where there are two cores of different lengths), wherein each different axial length is configured to permit a predetermined amount of expansion of the body (see annotated Figure of Allibone above in claim 3 where the lengths of the cores determine the amount the anterior and proximally body segments are moved towards each other).
Regarding Claim 6, Jimenez as modified discloses a stabilizing screw (#218, Fig 7a in Jimenez, paragraph 33) inserted through the core along an axis extending from a proximal end of the core to a distal end of the core (paragraph 33, Fig 6b in Jimenez where the screw is inserted through the posterior distal segment to the anterior distal segment, where with the modification, the screw would be inserted through the core of the posterior distal segment along a longitudinal axis of the core extending from a proximal end and distal end of the core).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez US 2020/0281739 and Allibone GB 2436292, as applied to claim 3, and in further view of Jimenez US 2023/0104776 (hereinafter ‘776).
Jimenez as modified discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where the device is for fusion (abstract in Jimenez) but does not disclose the core includes one or more slots through which a bone graft material may be infused.
Jimenez ‘776 discloses a posterior body segment (#114) with a core the includes one or more slots (#158) through which a bone graft material may be infused (paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of the cores of Jimenez as modified, such as the one for the posterior body segment, to include one or more slots in view of Jimenez ‘776 above because this allows for the infusion of bone growth for bone growth through the device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jimenez US 2020/0281739.
Jimenez discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where the flexures (flexures with the hook #118, see 112 rejection above) have a height (height measured from coming out of the page as seen in Figs 1b, 2b, 3b, 3c), a thickness and a length (see fig where only one flexure is annotated but the other flexures have the same configuration, see Fig below where there is an length and thickness) and wherein the ratio of the thickness to length is less than 0.2 (see Fig below where the flexure thickness appears to be less than 20 percent of the length and thus the ration would be less than 0.2).
PNG
media_image8.png
422
724
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, Jimenez does not explicitly disclose the ratio of the thickness to length is less than 0.2.
However, as discussed above and see Fig above, the thickness is much smaller than the overall length. As such, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio of the thickness to length to be less than 0.2, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and is already inferred to by the drawings of Jimenez. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez US 2020/0281739 in view of Fraser US 6,432,106.
Jimenez discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but does not disclose the flexures connecting the anterior body segment to the one or more mediolateral body segments have a greater height than each of the other flexures.
Fraser discloses an implant (Fig 3) where the anterior end/body segment (#12, right end in Fig 3) is greater in height than the posterior end/body segment (#14, left end in Fig 3) to provide the implant has a wedge profile with a taper from the anterior end/body segment towards the posterior end/body segment (Fig 3, 7), where the anterior end (#14) provides the maximum height of the implant (Fig 3, Col 3 lines 30-35) to accommodate the natural inclination of the disc space (Fig 7, Col 3 lines 30-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jimenez to have the device be tapered such that the implant has a wedge profile with a taper from the anterior body segment towards the posterior body segment in view of Fraser above to accommodate the natural inclination of the disc space. The examiner notes that with the modification, the flexures connecting the anterior body segment to the one or more mediolateral body segments would have a greater height than each of the other flexures due to the taper/wedge profile for the device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez US 2020/0281739 in view of Fraser US 6,432,106.
Jimenez discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where the anterior body segment is inserted first in the disc space and is a leading end of the device where the posterior body segment is the trailing end the device (Fig 6a-6b in Jimenez where insertion instrument #200 is coupled through the posterior body segment) where various approaches can be taken such as anteriorly (paragraph 5 in Jimenez) but does not disclose the flexures connecting the posterior body segment to the one or more mediolateral body segments have a greater height than each of the other flexures.
Fraser discloses an implant (Fig 3) that is inserted via an anterior approach (Col 1 lines 35-40) where the trailing end (#12, right end in Fig 3) is greater in height than the leading end (#14, left end in Fig 3) to provide the implant has a wedge profile with a taper from the trailing end to the leading end (Fig 3, 7, Col 3 lines 30-35) to accommodate the natural inclination of the disc space (Fig 7, Col 3 lines 30-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jimenez to have the device be tapered such that the implant has a wedge profile with a taper from the posterior body segment (trailing end of the device) towards the anterior body segment (leading end of the device) in view of Fraser above to accommodate the natural inclination of the disc space. The examiner notes that with the modification, the flexures connecting the posterior body segment to the one or more mediolateral body segments would have a greater height than each of the other flexures due to the taper/wedge profile for the device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez US 2020/0281739 in view of Pimenta US 2019/0021874.
Jimenez discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where the anterior body segment is inserted first in the disc space and is a leading end of the device where the posterior body segment is the trailing end the device (Fig 6a-6b in Jimenez where insertion instrument #200 is coupled through the posterior body segment) where various approaches can be taken such a lateral approach (paragraph 5 in Jimenez) but does not disclose the flexures connecting each of the one or more mediolateral body segments to any other of the one or more mediolateral body segments on either the lateral side or the medial side of the anterior body segment have a greater height than each of the other flexures.
Pimenta discloses an implant (#200, Fig 24-26) that is implanted in a lateral approach (as seen in Fig 3, paragraph 99) with a leading end or anterior segment (#210), a trailing end or posterior segment (#212, Fig 24), lateral sides of the implant between the anterior and posterior segments define mediolateral segments (#206 and #208, Fig 24-26), where one of the mediolateral segments (#206) is greater in height than the other mediolateral segment (#208, Fig 26) such that the implant tapers from one mediolateral segment (#206) to the other mediolateral segment (#208) in order to restore the natural lordosis/curvature of the spine (paragraph 99, 104, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jimenez to have one of the mediolateral body segments at the lateral or medial side to be greater in height than the mediolateral body segments at the medial or lateral side such that the implant tapers from the lateral/medial side to the medial/lateral side in view of Pimenta above to help restore the natural lordosis/curvature of the spine. The examiner notes that with the modification, the flexures connecting each of the one or more mediolateral body segments to any other of the one or more mediolateral body segments on either the lateral side or the medial side of the anterior body segment have a greater height than each of the other flexures due to the implant tapering from the lateral/medial side to the medial/lateral side.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez US 2020/0281739 in view of Allibone GB 2436292.
Regarding Claim 15, Jimenez discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where there are anterior and posterior body segments that move towards each other to expand the device (see annotated Fig above in claim 14 above, Fig 1a-2b, paragraph 28) but does not disclose a core extending from one of the plurality of body segments into an interior space in the body, wherein further expansion of the body is prevented by interaction of the core with the other of the anterior body segment and the posterior body segment.
Allibone discloses a similar expandable device (see Fig below) where the anterior and posterior body segments are brought closer together to go from a compressed configuration (Fig below, Fig 1a) to an expanded configuration (Fig 1b)(page 4 3rd and fourth paragraphs into page 5 first paragraph), a core extending from one of the anterior body segment and the posterior body segment into the interior space in the body (see Fig below where the anterior and posterior body segments each has a core), wherein further expansion of the body is prevented by interaction of the core with the other of the anterior body segment and the posterior body segment (see Fig below, page 4 3rd and fourth paragraphs into page 5 first paragraph, where the cores are brought closer together and abut to prevent further expansion).
PNG
media_image7.png
573
920
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anterior and posterior body segments of Jimenez to each include a core that extends into the interior space in view of Allibone because the cores define the maximum amount the anterior and posterior body segments can be moved towards each other and thus prevents and further expansion. Examiner notes that with the modification, the cores would help prevent over expansion and prevent potential failures of the flexures.
Regarding Claim 16, Jimenez as modified discloses wherein the core comprises a first core and a second core having different axial lengths (see annotated figure of Allibone above in claim 3 where there are two cores of different lengths), wherein each different axial length is configured to permit a predetermined amount of expansion of the body (see annotated Figure of Allibone above in claim 15 where the lengths of the cores determine the amount the anterior and proximally body segments are moved towards each other).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jimenez US 2020/0281739 and Allibone GB 2436292, as applied to claim 15, and in further view of Jimenez US 2023/0104776 (hereinafter ‘776).
Jimenez as modified discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where the device is for fusion (abstract in Jimenez) but does not disclose the core includes one or more slots through which a bone graft material may be infused.
Jimenez ‘776 discloses a posterior body segment (#114) with a core the includes one or more slots (#158) through which a bone graft material may be infused (paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of the cores of Jimenez as modified, such as the one for the posterior body segment, to include one or more slots in view of Jimenez ‘776 above because this allows for the infusion of bone growth for bone growth through the device.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jimenez US 2020/0281739.
Jimenez discloses the claimed invention as discussed above where the flexures (flexures with the hook #118, see 112 rejection above) have a height (height measured from coming out of the page as seen in Figs 1b, 2b, 3b, 3c), a thickness and a length (see fig where only one flexure is annotated but the other flexures have the same configuration, see Fig below where there is an length and thickness) and wherein the ratio of the thickness to length is less than 0.2 (see Fig below where the flexure thickness appears to be less than 20 percent of the length and thus the ration would be less than 0.2).
PNG
media_image8.png
422
724
media_image8.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, Jimenez does not explicitly disclose the ratio of the thickness to length is less than 0.2.
However, as discussed above and see Fig above, the thickness is much smaller than the overall length. As such, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ratio of the thickness to length to be less than 0.2, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and is already inferred to by the drawings of Jimenez. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A).
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 JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE whose telephone number is (571)270-5032. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 am - 6pm EST.
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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
/JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights