DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 6/4/2026. Claims 1-9 are pending. A final action on the merits of claims 1-9 is as follows.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Osa et al. (hereinafter “Osa”, US 10743927 B1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Osa discloses an anchor bolt (anchor bolt in Figs. 3 and 4) adapted to be screwed into a patient’s skull ([Abstract]: the anchor bolt is for the threading engagement with the skull of a patient) for the purpose of placing a depth electrode at a desired location within the patient’s cranium ([Col 1, lines 8-14]: the present invention relates to an anchor bolt driver device for placing an anchor bolt for subsequent neurosurgery electrode placement), the anchor bolt comprising:
a collar located at a proximal end of the anchor bolt (collar 25 in Fig. 3 and 4 highlighted below);
cap threads on an outer surface of the collar (threads on outer surface of the collar shown below);
a subdural stem located at a distal end of the anchor bolt (subdural stem 24 in Figs. 3 and 4 highlighted below);
skull threads on an outer surface of the subdural stem (skull threads on stem shown below);
an external stem (external stem highlighted below – the length and structure of the stem are not defined by the claim);
a recovery fitting section located between the external stem and the subdural stem (recovery fitting section highlighted below which is between the external stem and subdural stem), wherein said recovery fitting section be adapted for engagement with a wrench or socket wrench (the “recovery fitting section” is not given any specific structure in the claim and the round stem section of Osa is capable of engaging with a wrench because a wrench can be placed around it; additionally, the claim is not specific to the type of wrench and strap wrenches and pipe wrenches are a known types of wrenches for engaging with round surfaces);
an internal lumen extending along a longitudinal axis through the anchor bolt (internal lumen 22 in Figs. 3 and 4 highlighted below) including through the collar, the external stem, the recovery fitting section, and the subdural stem (lumen penetrates through the collar, external stem, recovery fitting section, and subdural stem as shown below);
a controlled break point in the external stem or between the external stem and the recovery fitting (controlled break point is the thin portion of the bolt highlighted in Figs. 3 and 4 below which is between the external stem and recovery fitting – the claim does not provide any structure or function to this break point and a thin section in the walls of the bolt would break prior to other portions of the bolt if there was an impact);
an axial broach (broach 23 highlighted in Figs. 3 and 4 below) in the collar accessible from the proximal end of the anchor bolt (broach is in the collar and accessible on the proximal end of the bolt in Figs. 3 and 4), said broach adapted to enable a wrench or fitting ([Col 3, lines 25-36]: the formed end portion 23 receives a socket of the driver device) to turn the anchor bolt clockwise or counterclockwise around the longitudinal axis ([Col 4, line 53-Col 5, line4]: the end portion 23 receives the socket to screw the bolt into the skull);
wherein said anchor bolt is adapted to be screwed into a pre-drilled hole in the patient’s skull ([Col 4, line 53-Col 5, line4]: hole is pre-drilled into the skull) such that the subdural stem is embedded in the patient’s skull and the remaining parts of the anchor bolt remain external to the patient’s skull and skin ([Col 4, line 53-Col 5, line4]: the driver connects to end portion 23, thus it is inherent that threads 24 which are on the subdural stem are embedded in the patient’s skull as seen in Fig. 6F – ensuring only the subdural stem is embedded in the skull is simply a matter of stopping the driver before more of the bolt is embedded which the device is capable of doing as this is a functional limitation) with the recovery fitting section being closer to the subdural stem than the controlled break point (the recovery fitting section is closer to the subdural stem than the controlled break point as highlighted below), and the internal lumen permitting access for a depth electrode inside the patient's skull ([Col 1, lines 8-14]: the present invention relates to an anchor bolt driver device for placing an anchor bolt for subsequent neurosurgery electrode placement; thus a depth electrode can be inserted through the lumen since this is a functional limitation and the lumen allows for the electrode placement);
and further wherein the controlled break point comprises a portion of the anchor bolt that breaks preferentially when a lateral force is applied to the collar or external stem of the installed anchor bolt from any lateral direction (this is a functional limitation and provides no specific structure to the break point; the limitation “preferentially” is simply interpreted as before another part, like before the thicker stem; the claim does not state it can only break at that point or that it must break at that point, only that it is the preferred point of breakage; the “controlled break point” as mapped is the thin-walled portion of the stem which would preferentially break when subject to any lateral force on the collar or external stem because it has thinner walls than the remainder of the bolt and thus forms the weakest point of the bolt stem).
PNG
media_image1.png
839
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Osa discloses the anchor bolt recited in claim 1 wherein the internal lumen has a constant diameter within tolerance through the external stem, the recovery fitting section, and the subdural stem (the lumen 22 has a constant diameter through the three sections as seen in Fig. 4).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osa as applied to claim 1 and described above, in view of Osa (hereinafter “Osa ‘325”, US 10786325 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Osa discloses an assembly (assembly shown in Fig. 5) including the anchor bolt recited in claim 1 (anchor bolt 20 in Fig. 5) further comprising:
a cap (caps 29 in Fig. 5) with an axial opening that is adapted to be tighten onto the threaded collar of the anchor bolt with the depth electrode being placed through the axial opening of the threaded cap ([Col 5, lines 5-7]: the anchor bolts are positioned in the skull having caps through which electrode leads extend – the caps engage with the proximal end as seen in Fig. 5).
While it is the examiner’s opinion that the caps are inherently threaded in order to be compatible the threads 25, Osa is specifically silent to the caps having threads. Osa is also silent to the assembly comprising an internal gasket located within the cap and also having an opening through which the depth electrode is placed.
Osa ‘325 teaches an anchor bolt fixation system for catheter probes and electrodes having different diameters ([Abstract]). The system has a removable reducing tube that is provided for insertion into the lumen of an anchor bolt and anchor bolt cap ([Abstract]). The system can be used with a reducing tube for smaller diameter catheters as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, or without a reducing tube for larger diameter catheters as seen in Figs. 3 and 4 ([Col 2, lines 17-26], [Col 3, lines 42-50]). The latter configuration is similar to the one disclosed by Fig. 5 of Osa, since Osa does not disclose the use of a reducing tube. Osa ‘325 further teaches that the silicone gasket 15 and the anchor bolt cap 20 fixate the catheter in the anchor bolt ([Col 3, lines 42-50]). The gasket sits in the indentation 30 in the proximal end of the anchor bolt and provides a seal when the reducing tube is introduced into the lumen of the anchor bolt ([Col 2, lines 52-67]). In the case where no reducing tube is utilized, the same function would occur as the gasket forms a seal with the catheter since that is the tube that is inserted through the lumen of the seal, as seen in Figs. 3 and 4. Furthermore, the anchor bolt cap 20, as seen in Figs. 3 and 4, has threads which engage with the threads on the end of the anchor bolt ([Col 3, lines 5-23]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cap threads and the gasket of Osa ‘325 with the system of Osa such that when assembled, the gasket and threaded cap fixate the depth electrode in place and provides a seal around it, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the Osa/Osa ‘325 combination discloses the assembly recited in claim 2 wherein the components are each made from a non-ferrous, biocompatible material that is conditionally suitable for magnetic resonance imaging (Osa ‘325 [Col 3, lines 30-41]: the anchor bolt cap is Grade 23 titanium; [Col 2, lines 34-42]: the gasket 15 is made of medical grade silicone – these are both known in the art to be non-ferrous and biocompatible materials suited for MRI).
Osa further discloses that typical bone screws and anchor bolts are typically made of nonferrous materials such as titanium or polymer such as PEEK ([Col 1, lines 45-51]).
However, Osa is silent to the specific material of the anchor bolt in Figs. 3 and 4.
Osa ‘325 further teaches that the anchor bolt may be made of Grade 23 titanium ([Col 3, lines 24-29]). Osa ‘325 further states that certain procedures may require the use of MRI guidance ([Col 1, lines 13-30]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize Grade 23 titanium for the anchor bolt, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. Grade 23 titanium is a known material to utilize for depth electrodes, as taught by Osa ‘325 and disclosed by Osa, and it is also a non-ferrous, biocompatible material that is suitable for use in MRIs. Thus, utilizing Grade 23 titanium for the anchor bolt would result in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Osa discloses the anchor bolt recited in claim 1.
Osa further discloses that typical bone screws and anchor bolts are typically made of nonferrous materials such as titanium or polymer such as PEEK ([Col 1, lines 45-51]).
However, Osa is silent to the material of the anchor bolt being Grade 23 titanium.
Osa ‘325 further teaches that the anchor bolt may be made of Grade 23 titanium ([Col 3, lines 24-29]). Thus, Grade 23 titanium is a known material in the art to utilize for anchor bolts for depth electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize Grade 23 titanium for the anchor bolt, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Osa/Osa ‘325 combination as applied to claim 2/1 and described above, in further view of Skakoon et al. (hereinafter “Skakoon”, US 7204840 B2).
Regarding claim 3, the Osa/Osa ‘325 combination discloses the assembly recited in claim 2 as described above.
However, the Osa/Osa ‘325 combination is silent to the assembly further comprising an elastomeric cap that covers the threaded cap and the tail of the depth electrode when the anchor bolt and the depth electrode are installed and in use.
Skakoon teaches devices and method to provide accurate targeting, placement, and stabilization of an electrode into the brain ([Abstract]). Fig. 1 of Skakoon shows an electrode inserted into the patient’s brain along with the anchoring system and an elastomeric cap which covers the burr hole, stabilizer, rigid cap, electrode tail, and base plate ([Col 4, lines 26-46]). The anchoring system has a stabilizer 110 and rigid cap 112 as seen in Fig. 1, which is similar to the fixation bolt and threaded cap of the Osa/Osa ‘325 combination ([Col 4, lines 26-46]). The elastomeric cap 114 is made of silicone or other elastomer and softens the profile of the implanted apparatuses and allows for contouring to more closely match the skull’s surface ([Col 4, lines 26-46]). The upturned portion of the electrode, which is the electrode tail as seen in Fig. 1, is directed to the outside of the cap and skin flap as seen in Fig. 1 ([Col 4, lines 47-52]). While the style of the stabilizer is different than the bolt of the Osa/Osa ‘325 combination, the benefit of a conformal cap is apparent to the combination. Combining an elastomeric cap with the combination would soften the exterior of the device for the patient and cover the implantation site. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elastomeric cap of Skakoon with the anchor bolt system of the Osa/Osa ‘325 combination in order to provide a cap that covers the threaded cap and the tail of the electrode which would allow the system to better contour and conform to the surface of the patient’s head.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osa as applied to claim 1 and described above, in view of Seykora et al. (hereinafter ‘Seykora’, US 20220047312 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Osa discloses the anchor bolt recited in claim 1. The external stem is circular as seen in Figs. 3 and 4 (Figs. 3 and 4 clearly show a round bolt with a smooth, round stem; it is clear that the threads are around a circular stem and no angles are shown on the external stem; [Claim 13]: the anchor bolt has a diameter – thus the anchor bolt is circular since the diameter is a measurement used to describe circular objects) and the break point of Osa is further defined by a step down in diameter such that the wall around the inner lumen is thinner at the controlled break point as seen in Figs. 3 and 4.
However, Osa is silent to the controlled break point being constructed by tapering the outer diameter of the external stem narrower as the external stem approaches the recovery fitting.
Seykora teaches medical instruments and components that have targeted torsional failure ([Abstract]). Such targeted torsional failure helps prevent a surgeon from applying excessive torque that may damage the bone ([Abstract]). To provide such a targeted torsional failure, the instrument components are provided with a breakaway section that breaks at a desired amount of torque at a desired location ([Abstract]). The break-away section allows the screw to break upon a critical force being applied or a side-load being applied ([0065], [0070]). As seen in Figs. 1A-1K, the breakaway section can take a variety of forms where the diameter of the stem goes from a larger to smaller section. Figs. 1A and 1K specifically show the diameter of the stem tapering from a larger diameter to a smaller diameter at the breakaway section. Modifying the controlled break point of Osa to include these tapers would be well within the ordinary level of skill in the art as it is simply a change in the shape of the region. Furthermore, this taper satisfies the claim language because the combination would include a taper that narrows as it approaches the recovery fitting, resulting in the wall thickness being thinner around the lumen at the controlled break point. The claim does not limit the whether or not an opposite taper can be present on the opposite side of the break point. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the breakaway shape of Seykora with the thin walled portion of Osa such that the outer circular diameter tapers to a narrower diameter and then taper back out to allow for a targeted torsional failure point that helps prevent a surgeon from applying excessive torque that may damage the bone.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osa as applied to claim 1 and described above.
Regarding claim 7, Osa discloses the anchor bolt recited in claim 1.
However, Osa is silent to the failure torque of the anchor bolt at the controlled break point.
Osa also discloses that anchor bolts are typically made of titanium ([Col 1, lines 45-51]). Osa also discloses that the thickness of the walls decreases in the break point region as shown in Fig. 4. The material and thinning of the wall create are the structural features that determine the load at failure. The claim does not limit the materials, shape, or dimensions of the bolt that result in the failure point and the claim is written entirely functionally. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the bolt such that the moment at failure is in the range of 12-18 pound-inches, since 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osa as applied to claim 1 and described above, in view of Moorman et al. (hereinafter “Moorman”, US 20230346501 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Osa discloses the anchor bolt recited in claim 1 wherein the internal lumen in the external stem has a first diameter (diameter of lumen 22 that is on the proximal end as shown in Fig. 4).
However, Osa does not disclose the internal lumen in the subdural stem having a second diameter that is smaller than the diameter of the internal lumen in the external stem.
Moorman teaches a cranial access device that includes a cranial bolt that comprises a passageway for receiving a neurosurgical tool, similar to the device of Osa ([Abstract]). Moorman further teaches that the internal diameter can be uniform throughout its length, like in Osa, or the diameter of the central passageway may be increased from the distal end to the proximal end ([0030]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the diameter of the lumen of Osa as taught by Moorman, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues that Osa does not disclose a controlled break point. However, this is not persuasive. The claim does not provide any specific structure to this point. It need only break there “preferentially”. The location in Osa that the examiner maps to the “controlled break point” is a thin-walled section of the bolt. This location would break prior to the remainder of the stem because the wall is thinner and thus weaker since the entire bolt is made of the same material. Thus, this location preferentially breaks prior to another point on the bolt. The claim does not limit that this must be the only point that breaks on the bolt, or even that it must be the first to point to break. The claim only that it is preferred that it breaks there. The thin wall would result in that location likely, and thus preferentially, breaking first. The applicant further states that this point is no weaker than the threads of the bold and the threads would “most likely” break first. However, no support is provided for this statement. The threads have thicker walls than the thin section as seen in Figs. 3 and 4 of Osa, thus there is no indication that they would break before the thin-walled section. Additionally, even if the threads did break first, the claim does not limit that the “controlled break point” must be the first and only point that breaks. As the claim is written, the structure of Osa satisfies the claim language. Applicant’s arguments that if the anchor bolt is made of stronger materials, it would injure the patient if impacted are not persuasive. This limitation is not present in the claims and there is no specific structure claimed that differentiates Osa from the instant application. The “controlled break point” must be given specific structure that overcomes the structure of a thin-walled section as disclosed by Osa.
Additionally, applicant’s arguments that the “controlled break point” of Osa would not preferentially break from an impact from any lateral direction is not persuasive. The walls of the “controlled break point” in Osa are thinner, and thus weaker that the remainder of the bolt. No matter the direction of impact, there is less material in that location than the remainder of the bolt’s stem. Thus, it would still preferentially break at that point regardless of impact direction because there is less material in that location to resist impact.
Applicant’s arguments that Osa does not disclose a recovery fitting for engagement with a wrench are not persuasive. As claimed, a recovery fitting is simply a portion of the stem that can be engaged with a wrench. The claim doesn’t state any more function than this nor is any specific structure provided. The applicant asserts that because Osa has a circular cross section, it cannot meet the definition of recovery fitting. This is not persuasive. Should the bolt of Osa be broken at the controlled break point, a wrench can be slid over the portion that is mapped as the recovery fitting. The claim does not state that the wrench must be used to remove the bolt, only that it engages with the recovery fitting. Furthermore, the type of wrench is not specified. Small pipe wrenches, like those sold by Rhevosil (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FT3GHHHH/ref=sspa_dk_detail_9?pf_rd_p=4adc092d-0184-45e6-8bd0-773f48fbf8ff&pf_rd_r=MN25GHYTQ5GW877JP3MH&pd_rd_wg=QRobH&pd_rd_w=MhRyi&content-id=amzn1.sym.4adc092d-0184-45e6-8bd0-773f48fbf8ff&pd_rd_r=9890c36f-2b07-41dd-ac1a-ca0d6d5aa929&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9kZXRhaWxfdGhlbWF0aWM&th=1) are capable of engaging and removing small round bolts. Similarly, strap wrenches, like those sold by Libraton (https://www.amazon.com/LIBRATON-Strap-Wrench-Filter-Rubber/dp/B0B1ZR5RPV/ref=sr_1_5?adgrpid=1333710168772323&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.cbvjAz6v-MmdtiNvpY5IT8o8dFAuKfIUur2R6zL3SY2vMSDh1orWyHeQmV-9m0VU19_ibwI-VO5kMEJE-RWokcN7BcitC4cioNfkDRBjikaD60EEbXydusbAsSqSmmI2IIq2I1Odtf22kQDI9sbsqgC8qRmjS0c4wsFh6uEA48PKYQ9N81FpMKjMbnvRQ5IT2Prx4dARAR5Pn73q-6u5YSStQUkeUvEVCNt7WGfIf0xfuV02jMCStIVpC2hOWdqUQcJD6CMgp6lbBGkAnhCZ-_EzPHjgUOKMqFkHnvarciQ.u5yWvTfYec2p170QJ40Noo3Nw-K5YCaMiVsIGQEJDtk&dib_tag=se&gb=2&hvadid=83357170668069&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvexpln=0&hvlocphy=81484&hvnetw=o&hvocijid=4453601065972559010--&hvqmt=e&hvtargid=kwd-83358100927919%3Aloc-190&hydadcr=29005_14559904&keywords=strap%2Bwrench&mcid=c0bbce55ca40396eb252f265c198a12d&qid=1786736156&sr=8-5&th=1) can be tightened around a round surface for removal. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the portion of the stem mapped to the recovery fitting in Ossa are capable of engaging with different types of wrenches. Should the applicant wish to overcome Osa, additional structure must be provided to this portion of the bolt.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 5 are not persuasive. Applicant argues that titanium grade 23 is stronger than titanium grade 2 and is therefore not obvious to use with the device of Osa is not persuasive. Osa makes no mention that the device must be made of titanium grade 2, only that it can be made of titanium. Osa ‘325 teaches a very similar anchor bolt made of titanium grade 23 ([Col 3, lines 24-29]). Osa ‘325 makes no mention of a controlled break point. Thus, it is not persuasive that a bolt without a controlled break point cannot be made of titanium grade 23, because Osa ‘325 teaches a bolt made of titanium grade 23 and makes no mention of requiring a controlled break point. Thus, Grade 23 titanium is a known material in the art to utilize for anchor bolts for depth electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize Grade 23 titanium for the anchor bolt, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 6 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. Specifically, Seykora is used to teach the newly amended claim.
The rejections of claim 5 is maintained as explained above.
The rejection of claim 6 remains as explained above.
The rejections of claims 2-4 and 7-9 are maintained because they are not specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments and the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
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 WILLIAM E MOSSBROOK whose telephone number is (703)756-1936. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/W.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights