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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 1/02/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 1/02/2026. The amendments filed on 1/02/2026 are entered.
The previous rejections of claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the applicant’s remarks/amendments. Examiner notes that the term “about” as recited in the claims is particularly interpreted to be limited by the applicant’s specification [00081] and the applicant’s arguments in the remarks of 1/02/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 7-10, 12, 16, 20, and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gemer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20190290314) hereinafter Gemer, in view of Bonutti et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160151646) hereinafter Bonutti, in view of Korb et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20070027431) hereinafter Korb, in further view of Borody et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220233209) hereinafter Borody.
Regarding claim 1, primary reference Gemer teaches:
A method for treating congestion (abstract), the method comprising:
applying ultrasound energy from a device to a subject having mucus ([0117]; [0123]; [0151], ultrasonic vibration from a piezoelectric crystal; [0152], heating sinus liquids such as mucus for dissolving);
wherein the device is located external to the subject ([0194]-[0196], figures 1A and 1B depict a device that is handheld by a user [0203], which locates the device external to the subject during use. Examiner notes that an interpretation that no part of the device may enter a nasal cavity region is not read into the broadest reasonable interpretation of “external to the subject” and therefore the gripper 1609 that is operable of the main body of the device external to the subject is sufficient to teach to the claim language)
wherein the ultrasound energy is applied at:
wherein the temperature is between about 100.00 F and about 112.00 F ([0152], temperature of 40 C is within the claimed range; see also [0151]).
Primary reference Gemer fails to teach:
A frequency of between about 500 kHz and about 2 MHz; and
However, the analogous art of Bonutti of a device for treatment of disorders within a patient using ultrasound energy (abstract) teaches:
A frequency of between about 500 kHz and about 2 MHz ([0041]-[0042], the ultrasound output energy is within the claimed range); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer to incorporate the ultrasound energy frequency treatment range as taught by Bonutti because the vibratory energy has a mechanical effect on target materials of interest such as mucus, which leads to effects on the viscosity and leads to improved drainage (Bonutti, [0041]-[0042]).
Primary reference Gemer further fails to teach:
A duration of between about 5 minute and about 60 minutes; and
However, the analogous art of Korb of a treatment of obstructions within mammalian glands (abstract) teaches:
A duration of between about 5 minute and about 60 minutes ([0028], time period of 10 to 60 minutes overlaps the claimed range; see also [0027]); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer and Bonutti to incorporate the treatment duration of up to 60 minutes as taught by Orb because long duration heat treatment application enables adequate melting of physical obstructions into a fluid form that is easily removable from the tissue (Korb, [0027]-[0028]). This enables treatment of even the most severe obstructions that require additional thermal energy to remove.
Primary reference Gemer further fails to teach:
ceasing the application of the ultrasound energy at a time when a target temperature of the mucus is reached,
However, the analogous art of Borody of a method for removal and destruction of biofilm (abstract) teaches:
ceasing the application of the ultrasound energy at a time when a target temperature of the biofilm is reached ([0284], “the liquid or fluid medium delivered to the body space or cavity to be treated is at approximately body temperature, or can be between about 1 to 38 degrees C. The temperature of the liquid or fluid medium delivered to the body space or cavity to be treated can be lower than body temperature to allow a few minutes of ultrasound treatment before the fluid's or liquid's temperature is elevated to a degree that it necessitates the stopping of treatment” with 38 degrees C being at “about 100 degrees F” as claimed, the necessitating of stopping of treatment forms a ceasing of application of ultrasound energy at a time when a target temperature of the biofilm is reached. In the combined invention, the temperature monitoring to prevent damage would apply to the treated mucus),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer, Bonutti, and Korb to incorporate the ceasing of application of energy when a target temperature is reached as taught by Borody because excessive temperature can cause additional thermal damage to associated tissue (Borody, [0284]). By stopping treatment at a measured level, efficient treatment can occur while limiting side effects.
Regarding claim 7, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Gemer further teaches:
wherein the mucus is thick mucus ([0072]; [0117]; [0123]; [0151], ultrasonic vibration from a piezoelectric crystal; [0152], heating sinus liquids such as mucus for dissolving from solid deposits).
Regarding claim 8, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Gemer further teaches:
wherein the device is configured to reduce mucus viscosity by about 10 percent to about 50 percent compared to its baseline viscosity ([0072]; [0117]; [0123]; [0151], ultrasonic vibration from a piezoelectric crystal for reducing the viscosity of the mucus, which, is considered sufficient to teach to viscosity decreasing; [0152], heating sinus liquids such as mucus for dissolving;).
Regarding claim 9, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Gemer further teaches:
wherein the device is configured to emit ultrasound energy to reduce the binding interaction between bound water and mucins, facilitating mucus clearance ([0072]; [0117]; [0123]; [0151], ultrasonic vibration from a piezoelectric crystal for reducing the viscosity, breaking mucus deposits, and mucus softening of the mucus, as well as assisting sinus lavage in breaking up the mucus, which is a form of binding between the lavage (water) and the mucus to facilitate clearance. Which, in light of the heating to the same temperatures as claimed, is considered sufficient to teach to changes in binding interactions; [0152], heating sinus liquids such as mucus for dissolving).
Regarding claim 10, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Gemer further teaches:
wherein the device is configured to emit ultrasound energy to break chemical bonds which create the elasticity and stickiness of the mucus ([0072]; [0117]; [0123]; [0151], ultrasonic vibration from a piezoelectric crystal for reducing the viscosity, breaking mucus deposits, and mucus softening of the mucus, which, in light of the heating to the same temperatures as claimed, is considered sufficient to teach to changes in chemical and chemical bonds; [0152], heating sinus liquids such as mucus for dissolving).
Regarding claim 12, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Gemer further teaches:
wherein the ultrasound energy is applied from the device to sinus cavities at a depth of about 1 to about 3 cm below the skin surface ([0082], cannula insertion depths (which include the piezoelectric crystal as cited above) may be advanced within the claimed range (see up to 60 mm into sinus) and is provided from the externally held device).
Regarding claim 16, primary reference Gemer teaches:
A device for the treatment of congestion (abstract), comprising:
(a) an ultrasound energy generator configured to operate ([0117]; [0123]; [0151], ultrasonic vibration from a piezoelectric crystal; [0152], heating sinus liquids such as mucus for dissolving);
(b) at least one applicator configured to externally deliver ([0194]-[0196], figures 1A and 1B depict a device that is handheld by a user [0203], which locates the device external to the subject during use. Examiner notes that an interpretation that no part of the device may enter a nasal cavity region is not read into the broadest reasonable interpretation of “external to the subject” and therefore the gripper 1609 that is operable of the main body of the device external to the subject is sufficient to teach to the claim language)
said ultrasound energy to mucus at an energy level sufficient to raise the temperature of the mucus to a target temperature, wherein the target temperature is between about 100.00 F and about 112.00 F ([0117]; [0123]; [0151], ultrasonic vibration from a piezoelectric crystal; [0152], heating sinus liquids such as mucus for dissolving which reduces viscosity and elasticity for removal at temperature of 40 C is within the claimed range);
(c) a control unit configured to
i. monitor temperature changes in real-time to ensure safety ([0152], temperature of 40 C is within the claimed range; see also [0151]); and
Primary reference Gemer fails to teach:
(a) a frequency range of about 500 kHz to about 21 MHz for ultrasound energy
ii. modulate the frequency, power level, and duration of energy delivery
(d) a feedback system to adjust parameters based on user-specific mucus properties
However, the analogous art of Bonutti of a device for treatment of disorders within a patient using ultrasound energy (abstract) teaches:
(a) a frequency range of about 500 kHz to about 21 MHz for ultrasound energy ([0041]-[0042], the ultrasound output energy is within the claimed range);
ii. modulate the frequency, power level, and duration of energy delivery ([0041]-[0042], selected frequency and power level form modulations for particular treatments; [0066]-[0081], teach to modulation and changes in the ultrasound parameters based upon algorithm calculations); and
(d) a feedback system to adjust parameters based on user-specific mucus properties ([0041]-[0042]; [0066]-[0081], teach to modulation and changes in the ultrasound parameters based upon user specific conditions of the sinus cavity of interest which forms user-specific mucus properties in that region; [0093]; [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer to incorporate the ultrasound energy frequency treatment range and modulation as taught by Bonutti because the vibratory energy has a mechanical effect on target materials of interest such as mucus, which leads to effects on the viscosity and leads to improved drainage (Bonutti, [0041]-[0042]). By targeting the parameters for the particular region of interest, improvement of treatment can be achieved, leading to better clinical outcomes and reduced pain or discomfort (Bonutti, [0070]).
Primary reference Gemer further fails to teach:
Provide controlled energy delivery for a duration of between about 5 minutes and about 60 minutes; and
However, the analogous art of Korb of a treatment of obstructions within mammalian glands (abstract) teaches:
Provide controlled energy delivery for a duration of between about 5 minutes and about 60 minutes; and ([0028], time period of 10 to 60 minutes overlaps the claimed range; see also [0027]); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer and Bonutti to incorporate the treatment duration of up to 60 minutes as taught by Orb because long duration heat treatment application enables adequate melting of physical obstructions into a fluid form that is easily removable from the tissue (Korb, [0027]-[0028]). This enables treatment of even the most severe obstructions that require additional thermal energy to remove.
Primary reference Gemer further fails to teach:
Cease operation of the application of the ultrasound energy at a time when a target temperature of the mucus is reached,
However, the analogous art of Borody of a method for removal and destruction of biofilm (abstract) teaches:
Cease operation of the application of the ultrasound energy at a time when a target temperature of the mucus is reached ([0284], “the liquid or fluid medium delivered to the body space or cavity to be treated is at approximately body temperature, or can be between about 1 to 38 degrees C. The temperature of the liquid or fluid medium delivered to the body space or cavity to be treated can be lower than body temperature to allow a few minutes of ultrasound treatment before the fluid's or liquid's temperature is elevated to a degree that it necessitates the stopping of treatment” with 38 degrees C being at “about 100 degrees F” as claimed, the necessitating of stopping of treatment forms a ceasing of application of ultrasound energy at a time when a target temperature of the biofilm is reached. In the combined invention, the temperature monitoring to prevent damage would apply to the treated mucus),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer, Bonutti, and Korb to incorporate the ceasing of application of energy when a target temperature is reached as taught by Borody because excessive temperature can cause additional thermal damage to associated tissue (Borody, [0284]). By stopping treatment at a measured level, efficient treatment can occur while limiting side effects.
Regarding claim 20, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 16. Primary reference Gemer further fails to teach:
wherein the applicator is configured for use on the sinus region and includes an ergonomic design to conform to facial contours
However, the analogous art of Bonutti of a device for treatment of disorders within a patient using ultrasound energy (abstract) teaches:
wherein the applicator is configured for use on the sinus region and includes an ergonomic design to conform to facial contours ([0042], treatment of the sinus cavity; [0047], silicon is a conformable material that enables transmission on a subject without coupling gel including a suction portion as in [0048] that provides attachment to the user skin (conforming to facial contours) see figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody to incorporate the ergonomic design to conform to facial skin regions as taught by Bonutti because it provides for efficient and complete transmission of ultrasound energy to the patient (Bonutti, [0047]-[0048]). This leads to higher accuracy in energy deployed to the tissue region, which improves treatment quality.
Regarding claim 22, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 16. Primary reference Gemer further fails to teach:
wherein the ultrasound energy generator is capable of pulsed delivery to minimize risks associated with continuous heating
However, the analogous art of Bonutti of a device for treatment of disorders within a patient using ultrasound energy (abstract) teaches:
wherein the ultrasound energy generator is capable of pulsed delivery to minimize risks associated with continuous heating ([0071]-[0074], pulsed ultrasound treatment provides a pulsed delivery, which therefore would minimize risk associated with continuous ultrasound).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody to incorporate the pulsed ultrasound treatment as taught by Bonutti because it can be utilized to minimize heating, which reduces the chance of overheating and associated side effects to a patient (Bonutti, [0071]).
Regarding claim 23, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 16. Primary reference Gemer further fails to teach:
wherein the control unit includes pre-programmed treatment protocols based on mucus viscosity
However, the analogous art of Bonutti of a device for treatment of disorders within a patient using ultrasound energy (abstract) teaches
wherein the control unit includes pre-programmed treatment protocols based on mucus viscosity ([0041]-[0042]; [0066]-[0081], teach to modulation and changes in the ultrasound parameters based upon user specific conditions of the sinus cavity of interest which forms user-specific mucus properties in that region. These pre-programmed algorithm based calculation therefore forms particular treatment protocols based on mucus characteristics such as viscosity; [0093]; [0111]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody to incorporate the pre-programmed treatment parameter algorithm protocols as taught by Bonutti because by targeting the parameters for the particular region of interest, improvement of treatment can be achieved, leading to better clinical outcomes and reduced pain or discomfort (Bonutti, [0070]).
Regarding claim 24, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 16. Primary reference Gemer further teaches:
wherein the device is a wand, mask, or vest ([0195], figures 1A and 1B show the treatment device 1000 which forms a teaching to a wand style device as claimed; see also: [0117]; [0123]; [0151], ultrasonic vibration from a piezoelectric crystal; [0152]).
Regarding claim 25, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 16. Primary reference Gemer further fails to teach:
wherein the device comprises more than one applicator
However, the analogous art of Bonutti of a device for treatment of disorders within a patient using ultrasound energy (abstract) teaches
wherein the device comprises more than one applicator ([0041], “with two or more transducers 310 outputting different frequencies such that the intersection of the ultrasound beams will create a different frequency at the desired treatment site”; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody to incorporate the simultaneous activation of more than one applicator as taught by Bonutti because the use of two transducers enables multiple frequencies to converge at a target site for production of a treatment beam frequency that leads to improved treatment with reduced side effects (Bonutti, [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 26, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 25. Primary reference Gemer further fails to teach:
wherein the more than one applicators are employed simultaneously
However, the analogous art of Bonutti of a device for treatment of disorders within a patient using ultrasound energy (abstract) teaches
wherein the more than one applicators are employed simultaneously ([0041], “with two or more transducers 310 outputting different frequencies such that the intersection of the ultrasound beams will create a different frequency at the desired treatment site”; [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody to incorporate the simultaneous activation of more than one applicator as taught by Bonutti because the use of two transducers enables multiple frequencies to converge at a target site for production of a treatment beam frequency that leads to improved treatment with reduced side effects (Bonutti, [0041]-[0042]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gemer, in view of Bonutti, in view of Korb, in further view of Borody as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hughes (U.S. Pat. No. 6058932) hereinafter Hughes.
Regarding claim 13, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Gemer further fails to teach:
further comprising the step of combining the ultrasound energy application with external air pressure modulation
However, the analogous art of Hughes of a respiratory therapeutic device for breaking up mucus and phlegm in a user’s airways (abstract) teaches:
further comprising the step of combining the ultrasound energy application with external air pressure modulation (col 12, lines 49-65, “he sensed change in ultrasound signature is used to cause the acoustic generator to stop the predetermined sequence and reproduce the waveform that caused the signature change until the plug is loosened and the user coughs up the mucus plug“ col 13, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody to incorporate the coughing to remove mucus after ultrasound treatment as taught by Hughes because it provides for complete removal of the mucus from a patient being treated, which leads to immediate improvement in symptoms and optimization of the overall treatment (Hughes, col 12, line 49 through col 13, line 7).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gemer, in view of Bonutti, in view of Korb, in further view of Borody as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Cosman, JR et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150320481) hereinafter Cosman.
Regarding claim 21, the combined references of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody teach all of the limitations of claim 16. Primary reference Gemer further fails to teach:
further comprising a temperature-controlled mechanism to limit heating to a maximum of about 112.00 F
However, the analogous art of Cosman of a treatment system for treating tissues of interest within the body using ablation electrodes (abstract) teaches:
further comprising a temperature-controlled mechanism to limit heating to a maximum of about 112.00 F ([0129], “In some embodiments, the set temperature for an electrode 160 with a temperature-sensing extension tip, it is advantageous to select a set temperature sufficiently below boiling to avoid boiling across an expected variety of typical tissue conditions. For example, the set temperature can be in the range 40-90 degC, 40 degC, 50 degC, 60 degC, 70 degC, 80 degC, 45 degC, 55 degC, 65 degC, 75 degC, 85 degC, or 90 degC.”, 40 or 50 degrees Celsius is roughly 112 degrees F and therefore is limited to that temperature).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mucus treatment method of Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody to incorporate the use of a selected temperature range with a maximum temperature of about 112 degrees F because it prevents the heating from getting too hot which could easily damage healthy tissues within the treatment region via boiling across a variety of typical tissue conditions (see Cosman, [0129]). This leads to the most efficient treatment possible, while reducing risks of side effects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7-10, 12-13, 16, and 20-26 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. Responses to arguments relevant to the current rejections are detailed below.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments on page 9 of the remarks, the applicant argues that the Gemer reference does not teach to a device located external to a subject. As disclosed in the above citations, the Gemer reference includes teachings in figure 1 to a handheld device with a gripping handle that is located external to the subject during use. The claim does not meaningful limit the interpretation of the prior art reference to preclude the device as taught by Gemer. The external position of a device as in claim 1 or “externally deliver” in claim 16 do not provide a particular location in which the partial insertion into a sinus cavity would not remain an externally operated and applied device. The language must particularly claim the portion of tissue for application that is an external region to differentiate from the current interpretation.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments on page 13 of the remarks, the applicant argues that the Bonutti reference teaches to biofilm disruption and not to treatment of mucus. One of ordinary skill in the art, with the teachings of Gemer to mucus disruption, would look to other energy application technologies in treatment and disruption of anatomical obstructions for benefits to the Gemer reference teachings alone. In this instance, Bonutti also teaches to analogous obstruction disruption and therefore the improvements as provided in the combined prior art invention would have been obvious.
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, the applicant argues that the combined references of Gemer and Bonutti fail to teach to the application of external energy to reach a target mucus temperature and therefore have no motivation to combine. In the current rejections, Gemer, Bonutti, Korb, and Borody are utilized to teach to all of the combined features and even if a particular reference fails to teach to all of the recited limitations, it does not preclude one of ordinary skill in the art from determining a reason to combine the references. In this instance, each combination in the above rejections has a particular motivation in which it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the combination. Different biological targets (but both within the same general form of extracellular obstructions) may utilize similar or analogous methods of treatment, that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily combine and modify. Biofilm and mucus are similarly treated and therefore merging known technologies would have been obvious to achieve better treatment efficiency or also less side effects to healthy tissue. The applicant further lists all of the other prior art inventions as being used in different specific treatment techniques, but as discussed above, all of these methods are similar in scope as being directed to energy deposition within the human body. Each method has similar applicators, similar structures, and similar risks to overheating healthy neighboring tissues. For these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to make obvious improvements and would have made the modifications in the above rejections.
For these reasons, the applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
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 SEAN A FRITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1292. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00-5:30 Second Fri 8:00-4:30.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/SEAN A FRITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798