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
The previous objection to the specification for failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter of claim 13 has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments made to claim 13 on 4/17/2026.
The previous rejection of claim(s) 5 and 13-20 over 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite has been overcome in light of the amendments made to claim(s) 5 and 13 on 4/17/2026.
The previous rejection of claim(s) 17 over 35 U.S.C. 112(d) for failing to further limit the subject matter of claim 13 has been overcome in light of canceling claim 17 on 4/17/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Sardesai et al. (US 2021/0046291 A1) fails to disclose a perfusion balloon that is both configured to allow perfusion of blood flow during inflation and tapered toward the distal end of the catheter shaft because Sardesai’s balloon 107 is designed for orienting and maneuvering the transporter catheter through vasculature. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, the lumen 104 that inflates the orienting balloon 107 is attached to a Luer connector 111 which is then connected to a syringe, valve etc. to provide for the introduction of balloon inflation media ([0055]). Thus, the user manually controls inflation of the balloon 107. Therefore, the user may partially inflate the balloon 107 such that its diameter does not occlude a vessel and in this scenario the balloon is configured to allow perfusion of blood flow. Further, as clearly shown in Figure 1, the balloon 107 is tapered toward the distal end of the catheter shaft. This tapering would also allow for perfusion of blood flow within a vessel at least when the balloon is only partially inflated by a user.
Applicant argues certain embodiments of Sardesai mention that the surface of the orienting balloon “may have a wavy contour or other three-dimensional contours (not shown) when inflated to provide channels for perfusion of blood across the orienting balloon when the orienting balloon is inflated” ([0062]), and this refers to optional surface contours on an orienting balloon, not to a perfusion balloon that is itself “configured to allow perfusion of blood flow when inflated”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The wavy surface contours are a part of the balloon. In other words, the surface of the balloon constitutes the structure of the balloon itself. These particular wavy surface contours on the orienting balloon make the balloon itself a perfusion balloon because they allow for blood to flow through the surface channels when the balloon is fully inflated. Whether the perfusion taught in Sardesai is an ancillary or a primary function is irrelevant because the fact remains that Sardesai does disclose a balloon that both orientates and allows for perfusion. It must be noted that Sardesai discloses the invention as claimed, even if the particular structure is optional. The fact that Sardesai discloses additional functions not claimed is irrelevant.
Applicant states that the present claims define a perfusion balloon whose configuration for blood perfusion during inflation is a defining structural characteristic, not an optional surface treatment. However, the examiner does not find any particular structural characteristic in the originally filed specification that allows for the claimed perfusion. The only structure of the “perfusion-style balloon” 105 found in the specification is that it “may have an inflated diameter of approximately 15-25 mm” and “may have a taper”. Similarly, the orienting balloon of Sardesai expands to diameters in the range of 12-18 mm upon inflation ([0013]) and the orienting balloon 107 includes a taper (Fig. 1). Accordingly, the balloon of Sardesai is sized and shaped in the same manner as applicant’s balloon i.e., structurally equivalent to the claimed balloon and fully capable of achieving the claimed function of allowing perfusion of blood flow when inflated and tapered toward the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft.
Applicant argues that the anchoring balloon 109 is designed for anchoring the transporter catheter to the inner surface of an introducer catheter ([0013]-[0014]) and is not a “post-dilatory” balloon i.e., a balloon configured for post-dilation of a valve or other anatomical structure. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the noncompliant anchoring balloon 109 ([0065]) of Sardesai is not a “post-dilatory” balloon, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the anchoring balloon 109 is found to be structurally equivalent to the claimed “post-dilatory noncompliant balloon” because the balloon 109 is noncompliant ([0065]) and because the balloon 109 is sized to inflate to the diameter of the transport catheter (see for example, Fig. 2), which is about the same size as the orienting balloon ([0065]) and the orienting balloon is 12-18 mm upon inflation ([0013]). Thus, the balloon 109 is about 12-18 mm upon inflation which is within applicants range of the “post-dilatory noncompliant balloon” as “the proximal balloon may have an inflated diameter of approximately 15-20 mm” ([0015]). Hence, the anchoring balloon 109 of Sardesai is found to be structurally equivalent to the claimed post-dilatory balloon and fully capable of achieving post-dilatory functionality.
Applicant argues that the present claims define a “perfusion dilation catheter” in which both the perfusion balloon and the post-dilatory noncompliant balloon are components of a unitary catheter system designed for structural heart intervention while Sardesai discloses a transporter catheter that operates inside an introducer catheter or other outer catheter. In response to Applicant's argument that Sardesai includes additional structure, i.e., an introducer catheter or other outer catheter not required by Applicant's invention, it must be noted that Sardesai discloses the invention as claimed. The fact that Sardesai discloses additional structure not claimed is irrelevant. The parts of the claimed perfusion dilatation system discussed above and noted in the rejection below are found to be structurally equivalent to the claimed invention and fully capable of achieving the claimed functionally. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments over Sardesai are not found persuasive.
With respect to claims 10 and 19, applicant argues the present specification discloses that the positioning of the perfusion balloon approximately 8-10 mm from the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft is a deliberate design choice to facilitate engagement with the stent frame of a bioprosthetic aortic valve to allow the perfusion balloon to engage the top of the stent frame while maintaining sufficient catheter length distal to the balloon for crossing the valve ([0052], [0066]). However, such language is not found in the specification. Paragraph [0052] recites “According to various embodiments, the perfusion-style balloon 105 may be positioned at or near the distal end 120 of the elongated shaft. According to various embodiments, the perfusion-style balloon 105 may be positioned approximately 8-10 mm from the distal end 120 of the elongated catheter shaft 110. It is noted, however, that other positions of the perfusion-style balloon 105 may be incorporated while maintaining the spirit and functionality of the present disclosure.” Paragraph [0066] similarly recites “According to various embodiments, the perfusion-style balloon 105 may be positioned at or near the distal end 120 of the elongated shaft…The distal end may be positioned approximately 8-10 mm from the distal end 120 of the elongated catheter shaft 110. It is noted, however, that other suitable positions of the distal end of the perfusion-style balloon 105 in relation to the distal end 120 of the elongated catheter shaft 110 may be incorporated, while maintaining the spirit and functionality of the present disclosure.” Thus, the benefit of engaging the top of the stent frame while maintaining sufficient catheter length distal to the balloon for crossing the valve is not explicitly recited and instead, the specification specifically teaches that the spirit and functionality of the present disclosure can be incorporated with the perfusion-style balloon 105 at or near the distal end 120 of the elongated shaft, similar to that of Sardesai. Accordingly, criticality on the claimed range is not found.
With respect to claims 12 and 20, applicant argues Perkins’ wire lumens (158, 160) are configured to receive light fibers for activating drugs in vessel walls ([0047]), which is structurally and functionally distinct from wire lumens configured to receive wires through the elongated catheter shaft to the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not provided any evidence as to why Perkins’ wire lumens (158, 160) are structurally distinct from wire lumens configured to receive wires as claimed. It is the examiner’s position that the wire lumens (158, 160) of Perkins’ are capable of receiving wires therein as the lumens receive light fibers i.e., wires.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, motivation to modify Sardesai’s transporter catheter can be found in the teachings of Perkins’ as the light fibers allow for light transmission ([0042]). Further, one of knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would know and understand the benefits of having light in a treatment site to better illuminate the site for more clear and accurate manipulation of the device. Additionally, all of applicants invention, that of Sardesai and that of Perkins are directed to the same, analogous art of balloon catheters. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Perkins when modifying Sardesai.
For at least the reasons stated above, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 upon which it depends as claim 1 now recites wherein the distal balloon is “tapered toward the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft”. Claim 8 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1 upon which it depends as claim 1 now recites “wherein the proximal balloon comprises a post-dilatory noncompliant balloon”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sardesai et al. (US 2021/0046291 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sardesai discloses a perfusion dilatation catheter (catheter 100; Fig. 1), comprising: an elongated catheter shaft (shaft 101), comprising a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 1), configured to: enclose a plurality of lumens (including at least first lumen 104, second lumen 105, and third lumen 106; Fig. 1; [0053]), comprising: a proximal balloon inflation lumen (third lumen 106); and a distal balloon inflation lumen (first lumen 104); and house at least one inflation port (ports through connectors 111) configured to supply at least one inflation medium through the proximal balloon inflation lumen and the distal balloon inflation lumen ([0055]); a proximal balloon system, comprising: a proximal balloon (anchoring balloon 109) positioned along the elongated catheter shaft (Fig. 1); wherein the proximal balloon comprises a post-dilatory noncompliant balloon (balloon 109 is noncompliant and capable of being used “post-dilatory”; [0065]); and the proximal balloon inflation lumen (106; as 106 communicates with anchoring balloon 109; [0053]); and a distal balloon system, comprising: a distal balloon (orienting balloon 107) positioned along the elongated catheter shaft (Fig. 1), distal to the proximal balloon (Fig. 1), wherein the distal balloon (107) is tapered toward the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft (Fig. 1); and the distal balloon inflation lumen (104; as 104 communicates with orienting balloon 107; [0053]).
Sardesai fails to explicitly disclose wherein the distal balloon comprises a perfusion balloon configured to allow perfusion of blood flow when inflated.
However, Sardesai teaches an embodiment (Fig. 4a-4c) in which the distal balloon (orienting balloon 407) has a wavy contour or other three-dimensional contour when inflated to provide channels for perfusion of blood across the orienting balloon when the orienting balloon is inflated ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distal balloon of Sardesai to be a perfusion balloon configured to allow perfusion of blood flow when inflated as taught by the additional embodiment of Sardesai in order to maintain blood flowing through a vessel wall during inflation, reducing the risk of myocardial injury.
Regarding claim 2, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai further discloses wherein the proximal balloon (109) and the distal balloon (107): are affixed to an outer surface of the elongated catheter shaft (Fig. 1); and are separated by a set distance (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai further discloses wherein the set distance is approximately 10- 15 mm (as the gap between the distal end of the anchoring balloon and the proximal end of the orienting balloon may be in the range of about 10 mm; [0065]).
Regarding claim 4, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai further discloses wherein: the at least one inflation port (111) comprises a first inflation port (111 at the proximal end of 106; Fig. 1) and a second inflation port (111 at the proximal end of 104; Fig. 1), the first inflation port (111 at end of 106) is configured to supply the at least one inflation medium through the proximal balloon inflation lumen (106) to the proximal balloon (109; as 106 communicates with anchoring balloon 109; [0053]), and the second inflation port (111 at end of 104) is configured to supply the at least one inflation medium through the distal balloon lumen to the distal balloon (107; as 104 communicates with orienting balloon 107; [0053]).
Regarding claim 6, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai further discloses wherein the distal balloon (107) is tapered toward the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai further discloses wherein the distal balloon (107) has an inflated diameter of approximately 15-20 mm (as the orienting balloon expands to diameters in the range of 12-18 mm upon inflation; [0013]).
Regarding claim 8, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai further discloses wherein the proximal balloon (109) comprises a post-dilatory noncompliant balloon (as the anchoring balloon is non-compliant; [0065]).
Regarding claim 9, Sardesai modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein the proximal balloon has an inflated diameter of approximately 15-20 mm.
However, Sardesai teaches that the distal balloon has an inflated diameter of approximately 15-20 mm (as the orienting balloon expands to diameters in the range of 12-18 mm upon inflation; [0013]) and both the distal (107) and proximal (109) balloons appear to have the same outer inflated diameter in Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify proximal balloon of modified Sardesai to have an inflated diameter of approximately 15-20 mm in light of the teachings of Sardesai in order to effectively anchor the proximal balloon within vasculature.
Regarding claim 10, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai discloses wherein: the distal balloon (107) comprises a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 1), and the distal end of the distal balloon is approximately 3 mm from the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft ([0074]) but fails to explicitly disclose the distal end of the distal balloon is approximately 8-10 mm from the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distal balloon of modified Sardesai to be approximately 8-10 mm from the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the perfusion dilation catheter of Sardesai would not operate differently with the claimed distance of the distal balloon from the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft and since the distal balloon would still inflate at the modified distance, the catheter would function appropriately having the claimed distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0016]).
Regarding claim 11, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai further discloses wherein the plurality of lumens comprises a lumen (second lumen 105) configured to receive a curved-tipped guidewire (as the transporter catheter is configured to track over a guidewire that may have a variety of shapes in lumen 105; [0053]; [0066]).
Regarding claim 13, Sardesai discloses a perfusion dilatation catheter (catheter 100), comprising: an elongated catheter shaft (shaft 101), comprising a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 1), configured to: enclose a plurality of lumens (first lumen 104, second lumen 105, and third lumen 106), comprising: a proximal balloon inflation lumen (106); and a distal balloon inflation lumen (104); and house at least one inflation port (ports through connectors 111) configured to supply at least one inflation medium through the proximal balloon inflation lumen and the distal balloon inflation lumen ([0053]; [0055]); a distal balloon system, comprising: a balloon (compliant orienting balloon 107; [0066]) positioned along the elongated catheter shaft (Fig. 1) and tapered toward the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft (Fig. 1); and the distal balloon inflation lumen (104); and a proximal balloon system, comprising: a post-dilatory noncompliant balloon (noncompliant anchoring balloon 109; [0066]) positioned along the elongated catheter shaft (Fig. 1), proximal to the balloon (Fig. 1); and the proximal balloon inflation lumen (106).
Sardesai fails to explicitly disclose wherein the distal balloon comprises a perfusion balloon configured to allow perfusion of blood flow when inflated.
However, Sardesai teaches an embodiment (Fig. 4a-4c) in which the distal balloon (orienting balloon 407) has a wavy contour or other three-dimensional contour when inflated to provide channels for perfusion of blood across the orienting balloon when the orienting balloon is inflated ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distal balloon of Sardesai to be a perfusion balloon configured to allow perfusion of blood flow when inflated as taught by the additional embodiment of Sardesai in order to maintain blood flowing through a vessel wall during inflation, reducing the risk of myocardial injury.
Regarding claim 14, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai further discloses wherein the perfusion balloon (modified 107) and the post-dilatory noncompliant balloon (109): are affixed to an outer surface of the elongated catheter shaft (Fig. 1); and are separated by a set distance (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai further discloses wherein the set distance is approximately 10- 15 mm (as the gap between the distal end of the anchoring balloon and the proximal end of the orienting balloon may be in the range of about 10 mm; [0065]).
Regarding claim 16, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai further discloses wherein: the at least one inflation port (111) comprises a first inflation port (111 at the proximal end of 106; Fig. 1) and a second inflation port (111 at the proximal end of 104; Fig. 1), the first inflation port (111 at end of 106) is configured to supply the at least one inflation medium through the proximal balloon inflation lumen (106) to the post-dilatory noncompliant balloon (109; as 106 communicates with anchoring balloon 109; [0053]), and the second inflation port (111 at end of 104) is configured to supply the at least one inflation medium through the distal balloon lumen to the perfusion balloon (modified 107; as 104 communicates with orienting balloon 107; [0053]).
Regarding claim 18, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai discloses the perfusion balloon has an inflated diameter of approximately 15-20 mm (as the orienting balloon expands to diameters in the range of 12-18 mm upon inflation; [0013]), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the post-dilatory noncompliant balloon has an inflated diameter of approximately 15-20 mm.
However, Sardesai teaches that the perfusion-style balloon has an inflated diameter of approximately 15-20 mm (as the orienting balloon expands to diameters in the range of 12-18 mm upon inflation; [0013]) and both the perfusion (modified 107) and post-dilatory noncompliant (109) balloons appear to have the same outer inflated diameter in Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify post-dilatory noncompliant balloon to have an inflated diameter of approximately 15-20 mm in light of the teachings of modified Sardesai in order to effectively anchor the post-dilatory noncompliant balloon within vasculature.
Regarding claim 19, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai discloses wherein: the perfusion balloon (modified 107) comprises a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 1), and the distal end of the perfusion balloon is approximately 3 mm from the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft ([0074]) but fails to explicitly disclose the distal end of the perfusion-style balloon is approximately 8-10 mm from the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perfusion balloon of modified Sardesai to be approximately 8-10 mm from the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the perfusion dilation catheter of Sardesai would not operate differently with the claimed distance of the perfusion-style balloon from the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft and since the perfusion-style balloon would still inflate at the modified distance, the catheter would function appropriately having the claimed distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the distance “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0016]).
Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sardesai et al. (US 2021/0046291 A1) in view of Perkins (US 2020/0276038 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Sardesai modified discloses the invention as claimed above, and Sardesai discloses wherein the plurality of lumens comprises a wire lumen (guidewire lumen 105) configured to receive a wire (guidewire) through the elongated catheter shaft to the distal end of the elongated catheter shaft ([0053]), but fails to disclose a plurality of wire lumens.
However, Perkins teaches a balloon catheter (100; Fig. 1) with a plurality of lumens (154, 150, 158, 160, 164; Fig. 4A) having a plurality of ports (115; Fig. 1), with first (150) and second (154) lumens inflating first and second distal balloons ([0046]), a guidewire lumen (164; [0037]) and additional wire lumens (158, 160) configured to receive wires (light fibers; [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of lumens of modified Sardesai to comprise a plurality of wire lumens as taught by Perkins in order to allow for light fibers to be extended through the elongated catheter shaft to better illuminate the treatment site.
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