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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 6/04/24 has been entered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-20 are being addressed by this Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pearson on pp. 7- 9 of applicant’s Remarks, filed 6/04/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the amended claim because the amended claim does not require multiple suture loops on the same stent. Amended claim 1 includes the limitation “a first suture loop spaced both laterally and longitudinally relative to an adjacent suture loop along a first stent of the component when the component is in an expanded configuration.” This limitation describes the first suture loop. In fact, “an adjacent suture loop” is not even positively recited. The only verb “spaced” refers to “a first suture loop.” How is the first suture loop spaced? Both laterally and longitudinally relative to an adjacent suture loop. Note that laterally and longitudinally are adverbs. Where is the first suture loop spaced? Along a first stent.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “multiple suture loops (36) are spaced apart laterally and longitudinally from one another with respect to the same stent” See bottom of p. 7 of applicant’s Remarks, filed 6/04/26) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Application claims 12- 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8- 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651. U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 is cited in the IDS filed 1/17/25. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding application claim 12, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 anticipates application claim 12.
Regarding application claim 13, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 anticipates application claim 13.
Regarding application claim 14, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 anticipates application claim 14.
Regarding application claim 15, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 anticipates application claim 15.
Regarding application claim 16, claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 anticipates application claim 16.
Regarding application claim 17, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 anticipates application claim 17.
Regarding application claim 18, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 anticipates application claim 18.
Regarding application claim 19, claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 anticipates application claim 19.
Regarding application claim 20, claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 further anticipates application claim 20.
Application claims 1- 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 7 and 12- 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 in view of Pearson et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0289713 A1). Pearson is cited in the IDS filed 1/17/25.
Regarding application claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 claims application claim 1 except for
(application claim 1) 1) each suture loop attached to the inner surface, or outer surface, of the stent graft,
(application claim 1) “i) whereby tension on the at least one ligature longitudinally aligns the suture loops along the longitudinal axis of the component, thereby at least partially radially constricting the stent graft.”
However, Pearson teaches a stent graft system in the same field of endeavor (Ps. [0001], [0007])
(application claim 1) 1) each suture loop (136) attached to the outer surface, of the stent graft (100) (P. [0031] - -first and second ends 146, 147 of first thread 132 are tied to each other to form first thread loop 136, and first thread loop 136 is tied to a strut 105 of a stent 104, as shown in detail in FIG. 3A; it is noted that suture loop (136) is attached to the outer surface of the stent graft (100) via strut 105 of stent 104),
(application claim 1) b) at least one ligature (150) (Figs. 6- 7, 9- 12) having a proximal end and a distal end, the at least one ligature (150) extending through at least some of the plurality of suture loops (130, 136, 138, 140) (See Fig. 6) (P. [0033] - - same trigger wire 150 is used for all the circumferentially constraining sutures),
i) whereby tension on the at least one ligature (150) longitudinally aligns the suture loops (130,136, 138, 140) along the longitudinal axis of the luminal graft component (102) (See Figs. 6, 7) (P. [0033] - - trigger wire 150 extending generally longitudinally along stent-graft 100 is inserted through first thread loop 136 at nor near the interlocking location 140; Preferably, the same trigger wire 150 is used for all the circumferentially constraining sutures), thereby at least partially radially constricting the stent graft (100) (Ps. [0004], [0029], [0040] - - it is desirable to be able to accurately position the stent-graft. However, stents of the stent-graft are normally designed to expand to a size larger than the target vessel to ensure apposition against the vessel wall. Thus, re-positioning the stent-graft after deployment is difficult. It is thus desirable to partially deploy the stent-graft to a diameter larger than the delivery catheter diameter, but smaller than the fully deployed diameter to enable re-positioning of the stent-graft; anchor stent 112 is held by a tip capture mechanism during delivery and partial deployment of stent-graft 100. The tip capture mechanism holds proximal-most crowns 113A of anchor stent 112 in a reduced diameter configuration after retraction of the outer sheath or sleeve covering stent-graft 100, as known to those skilled in the art; With the proximal end portion of main vessel stent-graft 100 now positioned as desired, delivery sheath 886 is shown retracted in FIG. 10 to expose at least couplings 120, 122 of main vessel stent-graft prosthesis 100. Anchor stent 112 is still captured or restrained by the tip capture mechanism of delivery system 882 such that the proximal end portion of stent-graft 100 does not fully deploy. Further, first threads 132 of circumferentially constraining sutures 130 prevent the stent-graft prosthesis 100 from fully deploying in the areas that have been released from sheath 886. These areas radially expand from the delivery configuration to a reduced diameter configuration that is radially larger than the delivery configuration but 30 to 60% smaller in diameter than the deployed configuration).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the stent graft system of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 to include whereby tension on the at least one ligature longitudinally aligns the suture loops attached to the stent graft along the longitudinal axis of the component, thereby at least partially radially constricting the stent graft according to the teachings of Pearson because it would be desirable to partially deploy the stent-graft to a diameter larger than the delivery catheter diameter, but smaller than the fully deployed diameter to enable re-positioning of the stent-graft (Pearson - - P. [0004]).
Regarding application claim 2, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 in view of Pearson claims application claim 1, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 further anticipates application claim 2.
Regarding application claim 3, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 in view of Pearson claims application claim 1, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 further anticipates application claim 3.
Regarding application claim 4, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 in view of Pearson claims application claim 1, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 further anticipates application claim 4.
Regarding application claim 5, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 in view of Pearson claims application claim 1, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 further anticipates application claim 5.
Regarding application claim 6, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 in view of Pearson claims application claim 1, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 further anticipates application claim 6.
Regarding application claim 7, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 in view of Pearson claims application claim 1, claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 further anticipates application claim 7.
Regarding application claim 8, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 in view of Pearson claims application claim 1, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 further anticipates application claim 8.
Regarding application claim 9, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 in view of Pearson claims application claim 1, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 further anticipates application claim 9.
Regarding application claim 10, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 in view of Pearson claims application claim 1, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 further anticipates application claim 10.
Regarding application claim 11, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 in view of Pearson claims application claim 1, claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,651 further anticipates application claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3- 7 and 9- 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pearson et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0289713 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
885
911
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Pearson discloses a stent graft system, comprising:
a) a stent graft (100) (Figs. 1, 5- 7, 9- 14) that includes
i) a component (102) (Figs. 1, 3- 6, 9) having longitudinally extending outer surface and a longitudinally extending inner surface, the inner surface defining a lumen having a longitudinal axis,
ii) a plurality of stents (112, 119, 104, 124, 126) (Figs. 1, 3- 7, 9- 14) distributed longitudinally along the component (102), and
iii) a plurality of suture loops (136) (Figs. 2, 4- 6) (P. [0030] - -Essentially, first thread 132 is folded back at approximately a mid-point thereof to form a first thread loop 136 as shown in Fig. 2),
1) each suture loop (136) attached to the outer surface, of the stent graft (100) (P. [0031] - -first and second ends 146, 147 of first thread 132 are tied to each other to form first thread loop 136, and first thread loop 136 is tied to a strut 105 of a stent 104, as shown in detail in FIG. 3A; it is noted that suture loop (136) is attached to the outer surface of the stent graft (100) via strut 105 of stent 104),
2) a first suture loop (L1) (See Annotated Fig. 1) both laterally and longitudinally relative to an adjacent suture loop (L2) (See Annotated Fig. 1) along a first stent of the component (102) when the component is in an expanded configuration (Fig. 1),
3) the plurality of suture loops (136) aligned longitudinally along a longitudinal axis of the stent graft (100) when the stent graft (100) is in a radially constricted configuration (Fig. 7),
b) at least one ligature (150) (Figs. 6- 7, 9- 12) having a proximal end and a distal end, the at least one ligature (150) extending through at least some of the suture loops (136),
i) whereby tension on the at least one ligature (150) longitudinally aligns the suture loops (136) along the longitudinal axis of the component (102), thereby at least partially radially constricting the stent graft (100) (Ps. [0033], [0034] - - as shown in FIG. 6, a release or trigger wire 150 extending generally longitudinally along stent-graft 100 is inserted through first thread loop 136. The steps of FIGS. 5 and 6 are repeated for each circumferentially constraining suture 130 of stent-graft 100; When each first thread loop 136 of each first thread 132 is engaged by trigger wire 150, each second thread 134 may be removed. This causes the stent 104 associated with the circumferentially constraining suture to try to expand to its radially expanded diameter. However, because trigger wire 150 holds first threaded loop 136 at the location where second thread 134 exited from between graft 102 and the stent 104, and the first thread length FL of first thread 132 is fixed and is less than the circumference of stent-graft 100, trigger wire 150 holds stent-graft 100 in a reduced diameter configuration).
Regarding claim 3, Pearson further discloses wherein each suture loop (136) having a first end and a second end, both first and second ends attached to the outer surface of the stent graft (100) (See Figs. 2, 3, 4 - - knot 148 is attached to the outer surface of the stent graft (100) via strut 105 of stent 104 and loop is attached to the outer surface of the stent graft (100) via interlocking location 140).
Regarding claim 4, Pearson further discloses wherein the suture loops (136) extend around less than an entire circumference of the stent graft (100) (P. [0034] - - First thread 132 has a first thread length FL that is less than the circumference of stent-graft 100. In particular, first thread length FL may be between 30% and 60% of the circumference of stent-graft 100 as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Pearson further discloses wherein at least a portion of the plurality of suture loops (136) are each nested between an opening of struts (105) (Figs. 3, 3A- 3C) of a stent of the plurality of stents (112, 119, 104, 124, 126) (See Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Pearson further discloses wherein the component (102) defines a fenestration (117, 120, 122) (Figs. 1, 7, 10- 14) (Ps. [0023], [0026] - - Scallop 117 is an open-topped fenestration; Stent-graft 100 also includes couplings 120, 122 for connecting stent-graft 100 to branch vessel prostheses (not shown) to accommodate the left and right renal arteries, respectively. Tubular graft 102 includes opposing fenestrations or openings formed through a sidewall of the graft material).
Regarding claim 7, Pearson further discloses wherein each of the plurality of suture loops (136) is a single loop of suture (P. [0030] - -First thread 132 is formed into a first thread loop 136 by having a first end 146 and a second end 147 of first thread 132 disposed tied to each other at knot 137, as shown in FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Pearson further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of suture loops (L1) (See Annotated Fig. 1) is closer to a distal end of the stent graft (100) than to a proximal end of the stent graft (100) (P. [0018] - - For the stent-graft prosthesis proximal is the portion nearer the heart by way of blood flow path while distal is the portion of the stent-graft further from the heart by way of blood flow path).
Regarding claim 10, Pearson further discloses wherein the plurality of stents (112, 119, 104, 124, 126) that are radially constricted by the ligatures (150) are radially self-expanding (Ps. [0009], [0018] - -a plurality of self-expanding stents; the term "self-expanding" is used in the following description with reference to one or more stent structures of the prostheses hereof).
Claim(s) 1- 5 and 8- 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roeder (US Pub. No. 2014/0180378 A1). Roeder is cited in the IDS filed 6/29/23. Roeder is cited in the IDS filed 1/17/25.
PNG
media_image2.png
915
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Roeder discloses a stent graft system, comprising:
a) a stent graft (112) (Figs. 1- 2, 5- 12) that includes
i) a component (120) (Figs. 1, 4) having longitudinally extending outer surface and a longitudinally extending inner surface, the inner surface defining a lumen having a longitudinal axis,
ii) a plurality of stents (110, 130a- d, 131) (Figs. 1- 2, 5-9) distributed longitudinally along the component (120), and
iii) a plurality of suture loops (140a- b, 160) (Figs. 1- 3, 5- 9) (Ps. [0048] - - diameter reducing connectors 140, suture loops 160),
1) each suture loop (140a- b, 160) attached to the inner surface, or outer surface, of the stent graft (112) (Ps. [0048], [0057] - - the diameter reducing connectors 140a are attached to the circumferentially adjacent distal bends of the proximal sealing stent 131, and the connectors 140b are attached to the circumferentially adjacent distal bends of the stent 130a that is longitudinally adjacent the proximal sealing stent 131; suture loops 160 attached to the stent-graft 112; it is noted that suture loops 140a- b are attached to the stent graft (112) via the stent 131),
2) a first suture loop (L1) (See Annotated Fig. 1) spaced both laterally and longitudinally relative to an adjacent suture loop (L2) (See Annotated Fig. 1) along a first stent of the component (120) when the component (120) is in an expanded configuration (Fig. 1),
3) the plurality of suture loops (140a- b, 160) aligned longitudinally along a longitudinal axis of the stent graft (112) when the stent graft (112) is in a radially constricted configuration (Fig. 2),
b) at least one ligature (150) (Figs. 1- 9) having a proximal end and a distal end, the ligature (150) extending through the suture loops (140a- b, 160) (See Fig. 2), wherein tension on the ligature (150) or stiffness of the ligature (150) substantially aligns the suture loops (140a- b, 160), thereby at least partially radially constricting the stent graft (112).
Regarding claim 2, Pearson further discloses wherein each suture loop (140a-b. 160) having a first end and a second end, both first and second ends attached to the inner surface of the stent graft (112) (Ps. [0048], [0057] - - a plurality of diameter reducing connectors 140, which may be formed by a plurality of loops 141 defined by sutures, wire loops or the like, are …attached to the graft material 120; suture loops 160 attached to the stent-graft 112).
Regarding claim 3, Roeder further discloses wherein each suture loop (140a- b, 160) having a first end and a second end, both first and second ends attached to the outer surface of the stent graft (Ps. [0048], [0057] - - the diameter reducing connectors 140a are attached to the circumferentially adjacent distal bends of the proximal sealing stent 131, and the connectors 140b are attached to the circumferentially adjacent distal bends of the stent 130a that is longitudinally adjacent the proximal sealing stent 131; suture loops 160 attached to the stent-graft 112; it is noted that suture loops 140a- b are attached to the stent graft (112) via the stent 131).
Regarding claim 4, Roeder further discloses wherein the suture loops (160) extend around less than an entire circumference of the stent graft (112) (See Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Roeder further discloses wherein at least a portion (L2) (See Annotated Fig. 1) of the plurality of suture loops (140a- b, 160) are each nested between an opening of struts of a stent of the plurality of stents (130a- d, 131).
Regarding claim 8, Roeder further discloses wherein a majority of the plurality of suture loops 140a- b, 160) are closer to a proximal end (P) (See Annotated Fig. 1) of the stent graft (112) than a distal end (D) (See Annotated Fig. 1) of the stent graft (112).
Regarding claim 9, Roeder further discloses wherein at least one (L2) (See Annotated Fig. 1) of the plurality of suture loops (140a- b, 160) is closer to a distal end (D) (See Annotated Fig. 1) of the stent graft (112) than to a proximal end (P) (See Annotated Fig. 1) of the stent graft (112).
Regarding claim 10, Roeder further discloses wherein the plurality of stents (110, 130a- d, 131) that are radially constricted by the ligatures (150) are radially self-expanding (P. [0041]- - A stent may be self-expanding).
Regarding claim 11, Roeder further discloses wherein the at least one ligature (150) comprises a plurality of ligatures (P. [0053] - - the stent-graft 112 further includes a plurality of triggers wires 150 that extend in a generally longitudinal direction along the perimeter of the stent-graft 112),
a) a first ligature (W1) (See Annotated Fig. 1) extending through a portion of the plurality of suture loops (140a- b, 160) distributed about a proximal portion of the component (See Annotated Fig. 1 - - above the dashed line),
b) a second ligature (W2) (See Annotated Fig. 1) extending through a portion of the plurality of suture loops (140a- b, 160) distributed about a distal portion of the component (See Annotated Fig. 1 - - below the dashed line),
It is noted that “a portion of the plurality of suture loops” through which the first and second ligatures (W1, W2) extend are not exclusive to those distributed in the proximal portion or the distal portion respectively.
c) whereby tension of the first ligature (W1) independently controls radial expansion of the plurality of stents (110, 130a- d, 131) along the proximal portion of the component (See Annotated Fig. 1 - - above the dashed line) (P. [0082] - - a single trigger wire 150 can be retracted along the length of the stent-graft 112, allowing the bare stent 110, sealing stent 131, and stent 130 to partially expand in the area of the retracted trigger wire 150), and
d) whereby tension of the second ligature (W2) independently controls radial expansion of the plurality of stents (110, 130a- d, 131) along the distal portion of the component (See Annotated Fig. 1 - - below the dashed line) (P. [0082] - - Following retraction of this trigger wire 150, another trigger wire 150 can be retracted, expanding the bare stent 110, sealing stent 131, and stent 130 an additional sequential amount. This can be repeated for the remainder of the trigger wires 150).
It is noted that “radial expansion” is broadly interpreted as at least some expansion.
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.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roeder (US Pub. No. 2014/0180378 A1) in view of Pearson et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0289713 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Roeder discloses the apparatus of claim 2, but Roeder does not disclose a fenestration.
However Pearson teaches circumferentially constraining sutures for a stent graft
(claim 3) wherein the flexible luminal graft component (102) (Fig. 1) defines a fenestration (117) (Fig. 1) (P. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the Roeder flexible luminal graft component in order to include a fenestration as taught by Pearson because it would allow the stent graft disclosed by Roeder to be positioned within the aorta distal of the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and to extend around and/or frame the ostium of the SMA (Pearson - - P. [0023]). The motivation for the modification would have been to avoid blockage of blood flow into the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) (Pearson - - P. [0023]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KANKINDI RWEGO whose telephone number is (303)297-4759. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday: 10:00- 5:00 MT.
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, (Jackie) Tan-Uyen Ho can be reached at 571 272-4696. 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.
/KANKINDI RWEGO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights