Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 9/8/2026. As directed by the amendment, the status of the claim(s) are:
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-13 has/have been amended;
Claim(s) 8 is/are cancelled;
Claim(s) 14-21 is/are new;
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-21 is/are presently pending.
The amendment(s) to the claim(s) is sufficient to obviate the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation(s) from the previous office action(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on p. 11-12 that the prior art of record does not teach the recited feature of imaging across an entire region. After review, this is not persuasive because Kittrell teaches such a feature (Fig. 21-23; Fig. 24, 64; Fig. 27; Col. 13 lines 30-56 “lenses…which changes the spot size 27 and beam divergence”; Col. 18 lines 35-40 “It is focused onto the input end”; Col. 20 lines 8-33 “imaging detector, can be used to map the distribution of plaque and other tissue…field of view”).
Applicant argues on p. 14 that the prior art of record does not teach the balloon limitation as recited in stretching the wall and setting a pre-set optical path distance. After review, this is not persuasive because Tearney teaches having a pre-set distance and that the balloon is used with imaging (Fig. 23, balloon; [0072] “the balloon 2040 which, when inflated, may center the imaging optics”; [0124] “A balloon centration mechanism (as described above) 2620 may be used to maintain a constant distance between the optical probe 2630 and the tissue surface 261”). As for the balloon stretching the wall, this would be inherent in the use of the balloon pressing against the internal lumen/organ.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 12-17, 20-21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tearney (US 20070282403 A1; 12/6/2007; cited in IDS; cited in previous office action) in view of Fischer (US 20140017635 A1; 1/16/2014; cited in IDS; cited in previous office action), and further in view of Kittrell (US 5693043 A; 12/2/1997; cited in IDS; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 1, Tearney teaches a method for treating a disorder associated with an organ of a subject ([0008]-[0009]; [0065]), the method comprising:
transmitting, using a catheter comprising a catheter body and a laser transmitting element comprising at least one optic fiber, a laser beam in a first direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the catheter body (Fig. 21-23; [0016]);
exerting pressure on at least part of a wall of the organ, using at least one pressure-inducing element comprising a balloon coupled with the catheter body, so as to stretch the wall, thereby setting a pre-set optical path distance between an optical axis of the catheter body and the wall of the organ (Fig. 23, balloon; [0072] “the balloon 2040 which, when inflated, may center the imaging optics”; [0124] “A balloon centration mechanism (as described above) 2620 may be used to maintain a constant distance between the optical probe 2630 and the tissue surface 261”);
impinging the laser beam on a target area of the wall of the organ in a spiral or helical pattern ([0018] “helical”; claim 9; claim 19; Fig. 29C) by directing the beam in a direction essentially perpendicular to the transmitted beam using a rotatable optical element comprising a rotatable prism or mirror, concomitantly with moving of the catheter along its longitudinal axis (Fig. 18-20; Fig. 22-23);
focusing the beam, using a focusing lens arranged to receive the beam directed by the rotatable optical element, into target tissue at the target area within, beneath or in contact with the wall of the organ (Fig. 21-23), such that the focused laser beam is brought to a focus in the target tissue at the pre-set optical path distance (Fig. 21-23; [0124] “A balloon centration mechanism (as described above) 2620 may be used to maintain a constant distance between the optical probe 2630 and the tissue surface 261”; [0143] “For example, the light from the fiber containing both imaging and therapy light can first be focused by a first GRIN lens 1100.”).
Tearney does not teach wherein the focused laser beam has a beam diameter of less than 1 mm at focal length in a range of 2-25 mm. Note that Tearney teaches to "vary the depth of laser damage ... while not significantly altering the transverse extent of injury" ([0110]). However, Fischer teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract) teach wherein the focused laser beam has a beam diameter of less than 1 mm ([0018] "may have a diameter of about 0.1 microns to about 50 microns"; [0050]) at focal length in a range of 2-25 mm ([0019]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney to include this feature as taught by Fischer because this is a suitable dimension for laser treatment ([0016]; [0018]). 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. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP 2144.05.
The combination of Tearney and Fischer does not teach imaging, using an imaging element comprising an imaging lens and a detector array, the detector array comprising a plurality of detector elements, a region of the wall of the organ comprising the target area and tissue surrounding the target area, by forming on the detector array, using the imaging lens, an image of the region from light returning from the wall of the organ, the plurality of detector elements receiving the returning light from respective different portions of the region concurrently while the focused laser beam is incident on the target tissue, such that the image formed on the detector array is spatially resolved across the region. Note that Tearney teaches imaging (Fig. 23) but not at least a portion of laser radiation back-reflected from the target area. However, Kittrell teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract) imaging, using an imaging element comprising an imaging lens and a detector array, the detector array comprising a plurality of detector elements, a region of the wall of the organ comprising the target area and tissue surrounding the target area, by forming on the detector array, using the imaging lens, an image of the region from light returning from the wall of the organ, the plurality of detector elements receiving the returning light from respective different portions of the region concurrently while the focused laser beam is incident on the target tissue, such that the image formed on the detector array is spatially resolved across the region (Fig. 21-23; Fig. 24, 64; Fig. 27; Col. 13 lines 30-56 “lenses…which changes the spot size 27 and beam divergence”; Col. 18 lines 35-40 “It is focused onto the input end”; Col. 20 lines 8-33 “imaging detector, can be used to map the distribution of plaque and other tissue…field of view”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney and Fischer to include this feature as taught by Kittrell because this enables diagnosis of the tissue (Fig. 24; Col. 18 lines 20-30; Col. 19 lines 27-35; Col. 19 lines 50-55).
Claim 9 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, in the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell, Tearney teaches wherein the focused laser beam is configured to heat the target tissue to a temperature above 45° C ([0059] "temperatures in excess of 60-70° C"; [0063] "laser heating...beginning as low as 45° C").
Claim 10 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell teaches further comprising adjusting a focal plane of the focused laser beam, based on the image formed on the detector array, so as to locate the focus in an identified layer of the wall of the organ (Tearney [0143] “focus the imaging light”; Kittrell Fig. 21-23; Fig. 24, 64; Fig. 27; Col. 13 lines 30-56 “lenses…which changes the spot size 27 and beam divergence”; Col. 18 lines 35-40 “It is focused onto the input end”; Col. 20 lines 8-33 “imaging detector, can be used to map the distribution of plaque and other tissue…field of view”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney and Fischer to include this feature as taught by Kittrell because this enables diagnosis of the tissue (Fig. 24; Col. 18 lines 20-30; Col. 19 lines 27-35; Col. 19 lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell teaches wherein the laser beam transmitted by the laser transmitting element has a beam diameter in a range of 1-20 mm (Tearney Fig. 27; [0093]; [0129]; Fischer [0025]; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP 2144.05.). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney to include this feature as taught by Fischer because this is a suitable dimension for laser treatment ([0016]; [0018]).
Claim 13 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell teaches wherein the focusing lens is mounted on a translator configured to adjust a focal plane of the focused laser beam based on the image formed on the detector array. (Tearney [0143] “focus the imaging light”; Kittrell Fig. 21-23; Fig. 24, 64; Fig. 27; Col. 13 lines 30-56 “lenses…which changes the spot size 27 and beam divergence…translates lens…lens assembly 222 may be translated”; Col. 16 lines 43-44 “mechanical translator”; Col. 18 lines 35-40 “It is focused onto the input end”; Col. 20 lines 8-33 “imaging detector, can be used to map the distribution of plaque and other tissue…field of view”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney and Fischer to include this feature as taught by Kittrell because this enables diagnosis of the tissue (Fig. 24; Col. 18 lines 20-30; Col. 19 lines 27-35; Col. 19 lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 14, Tearney teaches a catheter for treating a disorder associated with an organ of a subject, the catheter comprising:
an elongate catheter body (Fig. 21-23; [0016]);
a laser transmitting element coupled with the catheter body, the laser transmitting element comprising at least one optic fiber, the at least one optic fiber configured to transmit a laser beam in a first direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of said catheter body (Fig. 21-23; [0016]);
a rotatable optical element comprising a rotatable prism or mirror (Fig. 18-20; Fig. 22-23), the rotatable optical element configured to direct the beam to be essentially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the catheter body, such that longitudinal movement of the catheter, concomitant with rotation of the rotatable optical element, directs the beam along a spiral or helical path over a wall of the organ (Fig. 21-23; [0016]; [0018] “helical”; claim 9; claim 19; Fig. 29C);
a focusing lens arranged to receive the beam directed by the rotatable optical element and configured to focus the beam into target tissue at a target area within, beneath or in contact with the wall of the organ (Fig. 21-23).
Tearney does not teach such that the focused laser beam has a beam diameter of less than 1 mm at a focal length in a range of 2-25 mm. Note that Tearney teaches to "vary the depth of laser damage ... while not significantly altering the transverse extent of injury" ([0110]). However, Fischer teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract) teach wherein the focused laser beam has a beam diameter of less than 1 mm ([0018] "may have a diameter of about 0.1 microns to about 50 microns"; [0050]) at focal length in a range of 2-25 mm ([0019]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney to include this feature as taught by Fischer because this is a suitable dimension for laser treatment ([0016]; [0018]). 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. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP 2144.05.
In the combination of Tearney and Fischer, Tearney teaches at least one pressure-inducing element coupled with the catheter body and comprising a balloon, the balloon being configured, upon inflation, to exert pressure on at least part of the wall of the organ so as to stretch the wall, thereby setting a pre-set optical path distance between an optical axis of the catheter body and the target area at which distance the focused laser beam is brought to a focus in the target tissue (Fig. 23, balloon; [0072] “the balloon 2040 which, when inflated, may center the imaging optics”; [0124] “A balloon centration mechanism (as described above) 2620 may be used to maintain a constant distance between the optical probe 2630 and the tissue surface 261”).
The combination of Tearney and Fischer does not teach an imaging element comprising an imaging lens and a detector array, the detector array comprising a plurality of detector elements, wherein the imaging lens is configured to form on the detector array an image of a region of the wall of the organ from light returning from the wall of the organ along a return path extending from the wall of the organ via the rotatable optical element and the imaging lens to the detector array, the region comprising the target area and tissue surrounding the target area, and wherein the plurality of detector elements are arranged to receive the returning light from respective different portions of the region concurrently while the focused laser beam is incident on the target tissue, such that the image formed on the detector array is spatially resolved across the region. However, Kittrell teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract) an imaging element comprising an imaging lens and a detector array, the detector array comprising a plurality of detector elements, wherein the imaging lens is configured to form on the detector array an image of a region of the wall of the organ from light returning from the wall of the organ along a return path extending from the wall of the organ via the rotatable optical element and the imaging lens to the detector array, the region comprising the target area and tissue surrounding the target area, and wherein the plurality of detector elements are arranged to receive the returning light from respective different portions of the region concurrently while the focused laser beam is incident on the target tissue, such that the image formed on the detector array is spatially resolved across the region (Fig. 21-23; Fig. 24, 64; Fig. 27; Col. 13 lines 30-56 “lenses…which changes the spot size 27 and beam divergence”; Col. 18 lines 35-40 “It is focused onto the input end”; Col. 20 lines 8-33 “imaging detector, can be used to map the distribution of plaque and other tissue…field of view”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney and Fischer to include this feature as taught by Kittrell because this enables diagnosis of the tissue (Fig. 24; Col. 18 lines 20-30; Col. 19 lines 27-35; Col. 19 lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 15, in the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell, Kittrell teaches wherein the rotatable prism or mirror comprises a beam-splitter surface having partial transmittance, and wherein the returning light passes through the beam-splitter surface toward the imaging lens (Fig. 24; Col. 18 lines 35-45 “beam splitter”; it is inherent to beam splitters that partial transmittance is used on surface). ”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney and Fischer to include this feature as taught by Kittrell because this enables diagnosis of the tissue (Fig. 24; Col. 18 lines 20-30; Col. 19 lines 27-35; Col. 19 lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell teaches wherein the imaging element is arranged to rotate about the longitudinal axis of the catheter body together with the rotatable optical element (Tearney Fig. 21; Fig. 23). While Tearney does not teach the detector array is also arranged to rotate about the longitudinal axis of the catheter body, this would be an obvious rearrangement of parts to place the detector array next to the imaging element such that it rotates; MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell does not teach an endoscope having an endoscope lumen, the endoscope being configured to be introduced into a lumen of the organ, wherein the imaging lens and the detector array are disposed in the endoscope, and wherein the catheter body has an outer diameter selected to fit through the endoscope lumen. However, both Tearney and Kittrell suggest the use of endoscopes (Tearney [0007] “minimally invasive catheters or endoscope”; Kittrell Col. 4 lines 65-61 “endoscopes, can also be mounted”). ”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell to use an endoscope since this is an appropriate instrument to access internal organ (Tearney [0007] “minimally invasive catheters or endoscope”; Kittrell Col. 4 lines 65-61 “endoscopes, can also be mounted”).
Regarding claim 20, in the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell, Tearney inherently teaches wherein the balloon is configured, upon inflation, to increase an effective diameter of a lumen of the organ and to reduce a thickness of at least one layer of the wall of the organ (Fig. 23, balloon; [0072] “the balloon 2040 which, when inflated, may center the imaging optics”; [0124] “A balloon centration mechanism (as described above) 2620 may be used to maintain a constant distance between the optical probe 2630 and the tissue surface 261”). For the purposes of examination, Applicant is reminded that this is a product claim. Intended use/functional language does not require that reference specifically teach the intended use of the element. 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.
Regarding claim 21, in the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell, Tearney inherently teaches wherein exerting the pressure increases an effective diameter of a lumen of the organ and reduces a thickness of at least one layer of the wall of the organ (Fig. 23, balloon; [0072] “the balloon 2040 which, when inflated, may center the imaging optics”; [0124] “A balloon centration mechanism (as described above) 2620 may be used to maintain a constant distance between the optical probe 2630 and the tissue surface 261”). Where a reference discloses the terms of the recited method steps, and such steps necessarily result in the desired and recited effect, that the reference does not describe the recited effect in haec verba is of no significance as the reference meets the claim under the doctrine of inherency. Ex Parte Novitski, 26 USPQ2d 1389, 1390-91 (BdPatApp & Inter 1993).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Lane (US 20140074077 A1; 3/13/2014; cited in IDS; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell does not teach wherein the disorder is obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, insulin resistance, or a combination thereof. However, Lane teaches in the same field of endeavor (Fig. 5D; [0002]) wherein the disorder is obesity ([0002]; [0052]), diabetes ([0003] “diabetes”; [0052] “diabetes”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell to include this feature as taught by Lane because this enables laser treatment for overweight or obese individuals ([0002]; [0007]; [0052]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell does not teach wherein the organ is a duodenum and the wall of the organ is a duodenal wall. However, Lane teaches in the same field of endeavor (Fig. 5D; [0002]) wherein the organ is a duodenum and the wall of the organ is a duodenal wall ([0024]; [0055]; [0064]; [0066]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell to include this feature as taught by Lane because this enables laser treatment for overweight or obese individuals ([0002]; [0007]; [0052]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tearney, Fischer, Kittrell, and Lane teaches further comprising exerting pressure on at least part of the duodenal wall so as to obtain a fixed diameter thereof (Tearney Fig. 23, balloon; [0124] “A balloon centration mechanism (as described above) 2620 may be used to maintain a constant distance between the optical probe 2630 and the tissue surface 261” Lane Fig. 2, 28; Fig. 5B, 28, 28'; [0008] "tissue expander"; [0068]; [0055]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell to include this feature as taught by Lane because this enables laser treatment for overweight or obese individuals ([0002]; [0007]; [0052]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell as applied to claim(s) 9 above, and further in view of Maki (US 20020068963 A1; 6/6/2002).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell does not teach wherein the balloon is constructed from a polymer having high transparency to the laser beam, the polymer comprising a polyamide. However, Maki teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 8) wherein the balloon is constructed from a polymer having high transparency to the laser beam, the polymer comprising a polyamide ([0079]; [0150] “The balloon 630 is preferably made of a material with an excellent laser ray transmission capability such as polyolefin, polyester, polyamide, latex and cellulose, so that the temperature increase caused by energy absorbed by the balloon 630 is reduced when the laser ray passes through the balloon 630”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell to include these features as taught by Maki because this material is suitable for use with laser transmitting through balloon for treatment ([0079]; [0150]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell as applied to claim(s) 9 above, and further in view of Cropper (US 20080312490 A1; 12/18/2008).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell does not teach wherein the detector array comprises a CCD chip or a CMOS chip. However, Cropper teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 7; Fig. 11-12;) wherein the detector array comprises a CCD chip or a CMOS chip ([0041] “Such detectors may be physically separate, or parts of a common detector such as a CCD or CMOS device.”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell to include this feature as taught by Cropper because this is suitable for imaging in such a device (Fig. 11-12; [0041]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell as applied to claim(s) 9 above, and further in view of Papademetriou (US 20010020164 A1; 9/6/2001).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell does not teach wherein the focused laser beam forms at the target area a spot having a diameter of about 10 microns, and wherein the focused laser beam has a focus depth in a range of tens of microns. However, Papademetriou teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; [0001]) wherein the focused laser beam forms at the target area a spot having a diameter of about 20 microns, and wherein the focused laser beam has a focus depth in a range of tens of microns ([0040]-[0041]). Papademetriou specifically teaches that this is a results-effective variable [0040] “Spot size d is proportional to the focal length” [0041] “Thus, a small focal length produces a desirably small spot size”. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teaching of Tearney, Fischer, and Kittrell to include this feature as taught by Papademetriou because this enables adjusting for obtaining a small focal spot as needed ([0040]-[0041]); MPEP 2144.05 II. 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.
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 Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
