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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The claims filed 06/02/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-16, 18-21 are pending in the application. Applicant' s amendments to the claims have overcome every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 03/04/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All of the limitations of claim 11 are found in the independent claim 7. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0015639) in view of Watanabe (US 2017/0224363).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang discloses a method of treating a central airway obstruction (CAO), benign airway stenosis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or an airway tumor in a human subject (Para 0012), the method comprising: inserting a drug-coated balloon catheter into a target site in an airway (“airways”; Para 0043); inflating the balloon to dilate the airway and deliver a therapeutic agent to the airway wall; deflating the balloon; and withdrawing the balloon catheter from the target site (Para 0119); wherein the balloon is coated with a coating layer comprising the therapeutic agent and one or more additives, wherein the therapeutic agent comprises paclitaxel, sirolimus, or a derivative thereof (Para 0037, 0141-0142).
While Wang teaches treating COPD and describes that it is characterized by chronic bronchitis (i.e. inflammation of the bronchial airways) in Para 0009 and further teaches inserting the balloon catheter into airways distinct from the trachea or sinus (i.e. likely the bronchus) is silent regarding the target site is in a mainstem bronchus, bronchus intermedius, lobar bronchus, segmental bronchus, or sub-segmental bronchus.
Watanabe teaches an analogous method of treating a stenosed site (0002-0003) comprising inserting a drug-coated balloon catheter into a target site in a mainstem bronchus (See Fig 4; Para 0026-0027, 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to have the target site be a mainstem bronchus as taught by Watanabe in order to have a method that can treat obstructions in those portions of the airway (0003, 0103).
Regarding Claim 2, the modified invention of Wang and Watanabe discloses the balloon has a nominal diameter of 4 mm to 20 mm and a length of 30 mm to 65 mm (Para 0134 -Wang).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified invention of Wang and Watanabe discloses the coating layer comprises the therapeutic agent at a dose density of 1 pg/mm2 to 20 pg/mm2, the one or more additives comprise pentaerythritol ethoxylate (PEE), and the weight ratio of the one or more additives to the therapeutic agent in the coating is from 0.01:1 to 10:1 (“pentaerythritol ethoxylate can be the water-soluble additive”; Para 0120, 0144, 0214 -Wang).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified invention of Wang and Watanabe discloses the balloon is soaked in saline or water for prior to insertion to hydrate the coating (Para 0249 -Wang), however, is silent regarding the how long the balloon is to be soaked for.
Wang in Para 0315 indicates that it takes at least 1 minute to hydrate the coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to soak the balloon for at least 1 minute in order to hydrate the coating (Para 0315).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified invention of Wang and Watanabe discloses the balloon is inflated at the target site for 1 minute to 10 minutes (“the inflation period is from 0.1 minutes to 10 minutes”; Para 0123 -Wang).
Regarding Claim 6, the modified invention of Wang and Watanabe discloses the method results in: a reduction in the Myer-Cotton grade of the stenosis by at least one grade at 1 month post-procedure, a freedom from symptom-driven target lesion reintervention of at least 80% at 6 months post-procedure, an improvement in FEV1 of at least 100 mL in about 50% to about 70% of patients at 12 months post-procedure, an improvement in mMRC dyspnea score of at least 1 grade in about 75% to about 90% of patients at 12 months post-procedure, an improvement in Peak Expiratory Flow of greater than 18.8 L/min in about 85% to about 95% of patients at 12 months post-procedure, or a combination thereof (Examiner notes that the method disclosed by Wang appears to be identical to the method disclosed in paragraphs 0150-0155 of the instant specification (See rejection of claim 1 above). Since the limitations of this claim are a result of performing the disclosed steps with the disclosed structure and Wang and Mayse teaches the disclosed steps and structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method disclosed by Wang and Mayse would necessarily result in the same outcomes. It has been held that when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978).)
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0015639) in view of Hossainy (US 2015/0305943).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang discloses a method of treating chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) or chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) in a human subject (Para 0011, 0043, 0055), the method comprising: identifying a target lesion in a paranasal sinus or sinus drainage pathway; inserting a drug-coated balloon catheter into the target lesion (Para 0119), wherein the balloon is coated with a coating layer comprising a therapeutic agent and one or more additives, wherein the therapeutic agent comprises paclitaxel, sirolimus, or a derivative thereof (Para 0037, 0141-0142); the balloon is coated with the therapeutic agent at a dose density of 1 pg/mm2 to 20 pg/mm2, wherein the one or more additives comprise pentaerythritol ethoxylate (PEE), and wherein the weight ratio of the one or more additives to therapeutic agent in the coating is from 0.01:1 to 10:1 (“pentaerythritol ethoxylate can be the water-soluble additive”; Para 0120, 0144, 0214); inflating the balloon to dilate the lesion and deliver the therapeutic agent to the tissue; deflating the balloon; and withdrawing the balloon catheter (Para 0119).
While Wang teaches treating strictures in the sinuses, it is not abundantly clear the method is used to treat chronic rhinosinusitis or chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
Hossainy teaches an analogous method of treating a stricture in the sinuses caused by chronic rhinosinusitis (Para 0008, 00015); the method comprising identifying a target lesion in a paranasal sinus or sinus drainage pathway; inserting a drug-coated balloon catheter into the target lesion, wherein the balloon is coated with a coating layer comprising a therapeutic agent comprising paclitaxel (Para 0103, 0108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Wang to be used to treat chronic rhinosinusitis as taught by Hossainy in order to have a method that can treat strictures caused by chronic rhinosinusitis without the negative effects of standard treatments that rely on steroids (Para 0008).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified invention of Wang and Hossainy discloses the balloon is soaked in saline or water for prior to insertion to hydrate the coating (Para 0249 -Wang), however, is silent regarding the how long the balloon is to be soaked for.
Wang in Para 0315 indicates that it takes at least 1 minute to hydrate the coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to soak the balloon for at least 1 minute in order to hydrate the coating (Para 0315).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified invention of Wang and Hossainy discloses the balloon is inflated at the target site for 1 minute to 10 minutes (“the inflation period is from 0.1 minutes to 10 minutes”; Para 0123 -Wang).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified invention of Wang and Hossainy discloses the balloon has a labeled diameter of 7 mm to 20 mm and a length of 20 mm to 35 mm (Para 0134 -Wang).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified invention of Wang and Hossainy discloses the balloon is coated with the therapeutic agent at a dose density of 1 pg/mm2 to 20 pg/mm2, wherein the one or more additives comprise pentaerythritol ethoxylate (PEE), and wherein the weight ratio of the one or more additives to therapeutic agent in the coating is from 0.01:1 to 10:1 (“pentaerythritol ethoxylate can be the water-soluble additive”; Para 0120, 0144, 0214 -Wang).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified invention of Wang and Hossainy discloses the method results in: a freedom from target lesion reintervention due to recurrence of CRS or CRSwNP of at least 90% at 6 months post-procedure, or a mean change from baseline in SNOT-22 score of at least 8.9 points at 12 months post- procedure, or a mean change from baseline in Lund-Mackay CT score of at least 5 points at 12 months post-procedure, or a combination thereof (Examiner notes that the method disclosed by Wang and Hossainy appears to be identical to the method disclosed in paragraphs 0167-0170 of the instant specification (See rejection of claim 7 above). Since the limitations of this claim are a result of performing the disclosed steps with the disclosed structure and Wang and Hossainy teach the disclosed steps and structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method disclosed by Wang and Hossainy would necessarily result in the same outcomes. It has been held that when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978).).
Regarding Claim 13, the modified invention of Wang and Hossainy discloses the therapeutic agent is measurable in blood of fewer than 25% of patients at any time point following treatment (As the claim states “any time point”, the “time point” can be interpreted to be a time such as multiple days after treatment when paclitaxel would for sure no longer be in the blood)(Further, Examiner notes that the method disclosed by Wang and Hossainy appears to be identical to the method disclosed in paragraphs 0167-0170 of the instant specification (See rejection of claim 7 above). Since the limitations of this claim are a result of performing the disclosed steps with the disclosed structure and Wang and Hossainy teach the disclosed steps and structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method disclosed by Wang and Hossainy would necessarily result in the same outcomes. It has been held that when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978).).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0015639) in view of Hossainy (US 2015/0305943) and further in view of Stankus (US 2020/0230373).
Regarding Claim 21, the modified invention of Wang and Hossainy discloses all of the elements of the invention as discussed above, however, is silent regarding after the identifying the target lesion and before inserting the drug-coated balloon catheter into the target lesion, performing at the target lesion surgical dissection, irrigation, or balloon dilation with an uncoated balloon.
Stankus teaches an analogous method of delivering a drug by inflating a drug-coated balloon catheter into the target lesion where after the identifying the target lesion and before inserting the drug-coated balloon catheter into the target lesion, performing at the target lesion irrigation (Para 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to include irrigating the target lesion before inserting the drug-coated balloon catheter in order to enhance drug release from the expandable member (Para 0060).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0015639) in view of Hossainy (US 2015/0305943) and further in view of Becker (US 2004/0064150).
Regarding Claim 14, the modified invention of Wang and Hossainy discloses all of the elements of the invention as discussed above, however, is silent regarding the method comprises: performing a surgical ethmoidectomy to create a resected ethmoid cavity; inserting the balloon catheter into the resected ethmoid cavity; inflating the balloon to reshape and flatten residual bony partitions; and deflating and removing the balloon
Becker teaches an analogous method of treating a sinus system, including dilating a lesion (Para 0013) and performing a surgical ethmoidectomy to create a resected ethmoid cavity; inserting the balloon catheter into the resected ethmoid cavity; inflating the balloon to reshape and flatten residual bony partitions; and deflating and removing the balloon (Para 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to include performing a surgical ethmoidectomy as taught by Becker in order to restore patency of the sinus by enlarging the opening and allowing mucociliary clearance of mucus (Para 0008).
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossainy (US 2015/0305943) in view of Wang (US 2019/0015639).
Regarding Claim 15, A method of treating a eustachian tube disorder in a human subject (Para 0010), the method comprising: inserting a balloon catheter into the eustachian tube (Para 0101), wherein the balloon is coated with a coating layer (206, Fig 14) comprising a therapeutic agent, wherein the therapeutic agent comprises paclitaxel (Para 0108); inflating the balloon to dilate the eustachian tube and deliver the therapeutic agent to the tissue (Para 0015, 0103).
Hossainy is silent regarding one or more additives comprising pentaerythritol ethoxylate (PEE)deflating the balloon; and withdrawing the balloon catheter
Wang teaches a method of treating a nonvascular body lumen wherein a balloon of a balloon catheter is coated with coating layer comprising a therapeutic agent and one or more additives wherein the therapeutic agent comprises paclitaxel, and wherein the one or more additives comprise pentaerythritol ethoxylate (PEE) (Para 0141-0142); inflating the balloon to dilate the lesion and deliver the therapeutic agent to the tissue; deflating the balloon; and withdrawing the balloon catheter (Para 0119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify method to include deflating the balloon and withdrawing the balloon catheter in order to have a method that removes the balloon from the lumen once the drug is delivered and the balloon is no longer needed (Para 0119). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating layer as Wang teaches that pentaerythritol ethoxylate can be added to paclitaxel to improve the adhesive properties of the drug, solubility of the drug, and/or drug permeation (Para 0208).
Claims 16-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0015639) in view of Scopton (US 2004/0116852) and further in view of Cordray (US 2014/0243872).
Regarding Claim 16, Wang discloses a system comprising: a balloon dilation device comprising a tubular balloon catheter with an integrated inflation lumen, a hollow region under the balloon; and a guidewire lumen in the distal portion of the device, through which a positioning instrument may be inserted; ; and a positioning instrument (“guidewire”) configured to have a preconfigured tip shape inserted into the balloon device (Para 0312; See Fig 3).
Wang is silent regarding an access port in the distal portion of the device but proximal to the balloon, through which a positioning instrument may be inserted; and a positioning instrument configured to have a sinus seeker tip thereof with a preconfigured tip shape inserted into the balloon device through the access port in the distal portion of the device but proximal to the balloon, wherein the sinus seeker tip is attached to a handle.
Scopton teaches an analogous balloon catheter comprising an access port (20, Fig 1) in the distal portion of the device but proximal to the balloon, through which a positioning instrument (14, Fig 1) may be inserted; and a positioning instrument configured to have a preconfigured tip shape (26, Fig 1; the claim language doesn’t require any specific shape and thus a straight distal tip can interpreted as the preconfigured tip shape) inserted into the balloon device through the access port in the distal portion of the device but proximal to the balloon (Para 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Wang to instead have an access port and positioning instrument as taught by Scopton in order to facilitate positioning of the balloon catheter at the target site and allow for a shorter positioning instrument (Para 0003, 0005, 0017).
The modified invention of Wang and Scopton are silent regarding the positioning instrument having a sinus seeker tip and wherein the sinus seeker tip is attached to a handle.
Cordray teaches a positioning instrument (12, Fig 1) configured to have a sinus seeker tip (14, Fig 1; Para 0039) thereof with a preconfigured tip shape inserted into the balloon device (Para 0041), wherein the sinus seeker tip is attached to a handle (20, Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positioning instrument have a sinus seeker tip and a handle as taught by Cordray in order to have a positioning instrument that is shaped and angled for a specific sinus being treated (Para 0020, 0040, 0044).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified invention of Wang, Scopton, and Cordray discloses the balloon is coated with a coating comprising a therapeutic drug comprising paclitaxel, sirolimus, or a derivative thereof, and wherein the coating further comprises one or more additives (Para 0037, 0141-0142-Wang).
Regarding Claim 20, the modified invention of Wang, Scopton, and Cordray discloses a method of positioning the balloon dilation device of the system of claim 16 (See rejection of claim 16 above) in a nasal cavity, paranasal sinus, or sinus drainage pathway, comprising: inserting the sinus seeker tip of the positioning instrument into the port in the distal end of the balloon dilation device; and positioning the balloon catheter and positioning instrument into the nasal cavity and directing the balloon catheter to the target location (Para 0016 -Scopton; Para 0119 -Wang).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0015639) in view of Scopton (US 2004/0116852) and further in view of Cordray (US 2014/0243872) and further in view of Sweeney (US 2018/0185618) and further in view of Carter (US 2008/0051721)
Regarding Claim 19, the modified invention of Wang, Scopton, and Cordray discloses all of the elements of the invention as discussed above, however, is silent regarding the positioning instrument includes interchangeable tips secured by a set screw or threaded attachment.
Sweeney further teaches an analogous positioning instrument wherein the positioning instrument includes interchangeable tips (Para 0062-0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positioning instrument to include interchangeable tips as taught by Sweeney in order to allow a staff member to choose a tip based on the function the guide will be performing in the body of the patient (Para 0063).
The modified invention of Wang, Scopton, Cordray, and Sweeney disclose all of the elements of the invention, however, are silent regarding the interchangeable tips are secured by a set screw or threaded attachment.
Carter teaches an analogous positioning instrument (20, Fig 1) having an interchangeable tip (30, Fig 1) wherein the interchangeable tip is secured by a set screw or threaded attachment (threaded attachment 62, Fig 3C; Para 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment mechanism of the tip to be a threaded attachment as taught by Carter as threading is one of many well-known connection means that can be used for releasable attachment (Para 0041-0044).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/02/2026, on pages 8-13, regarding Wang and Mayse failing to teach all of the limitations of claims 1-6 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the current rejection that no longer relies on Mayse. The current rejection relies on Watanabe to teach treating a stenosed site (0002-0003) by inserting a drug-coated balloon catheter into a target site in a mainstem bronchus (See Fig 4; Para 0026-0027, 0066).
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/02/2026, on pages 14-18, regarding Wang’s specific guidance for sinus structure treatment directs to corticosteroids, not to paclitaxel have been full considered but is not persuasive. Applicant points to paragraphs 0131 and 0154 of Wang as using “chosen from” to recite a closed list of therapeutics for sinus stricture treatments, however, the paragraphs 0141 cited in the rejection above discusses treating a stricture in a nonvascular body lumen using “chosen from” language and recites paclitaxel. Para 0142 further states that the nonvascular body lumen can be the sinus. The disclosure of Wang discusses many embodiments for treating nonvascular lumen strictures using antiproliferative drugs such as paclitaxel that have a long term and persistent effect (Para 0040, 0141-0142). Further, claim 7 is now rejected in view of Hossainy which further confirms that strictures caused by chronic rhinosinusitis can be treated with paclitaxel without the negative effects of standard treatments that rely on steroids (Para 0008). Applicant further argues that Stankus teaches corticosteroids and does not teach PEE. These arguments are unclear as Stankus is not relied upon to teach the therapeutic or additives. Stankus is only relied upon to teach that irrigation may be used before insertion of a drug coated balloon in order to improved drug release from the balloon (Para 0060).
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/02/2026, on pages 18-23, regarding the rejection of claim 15 have been fully considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hossainy’s primary disclosure is for a polymeric stent and does not provide working examples for eustachian tube treatment with paclitaxel and PEE. As detailed in para 0103 of Hossainy, the drug can be delivered without the delivery of a stent. Further, the claim does not prevent the usage of a stent and thus, this argument is baseless. Applicant further argues that Hossainy lists paclitaxel as one of four examples without specific dose, formulation, or ballon configuration guidance. It is unclear how this is relevant considering the claim does not detail any of those features either. Hossainy discloses the features as claimed and not necessarily as disclosed in the instant specification. Applicant’s arguments directed to Hossainy not teaching PEE is not persuasive as Wang is relied on to teach the additive (See rejection of claim 15 above). The current rejection now relies on Hossainy to teach paclitaxel being used to treat eustachian tubes and Wang to teach that PEE can be added to paclitaxel to improve the adhesive properties of the drug, solubility of the drug, and/or drug permeation (Para 0208).
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/02/2026, on pages 23-30, regarding the rejection of claims 16-18 and 20 have been fully considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that Cordray teaches the seeker is the persistent component while claim 16 has the ballon catheter as the primary device. Wang and Scopton teach a guidewire that aids in placement of the balloon catheter at the treatment site (Para 0003 -Scopton). Cordray is relied on to teach the guidewire can have a sinus seeker tip that can aid in placement of the balloon catheter within a sinus cavity (Para 0011). As this is an apparatus claim, the modification of Wang, Scopton, and Cordray teach all of the structural elements of the claim. Applicant appears to be arguing how the devices are used; however, this is not relevant to the apparatus claim. Applicant further argues that Scopton’s access port is in a different location than the claimed access port and is claiming that the port is at a distal end of the catheter, distal to the balloon. Applicant points to port 18. In the rejection above, the access port of Scopton is indicated as port 20, best seen in Fig 1 of Scopton. The port 20 is positioned at the distal portion, but proximal to the balloon as claimed
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/02/2026, on pages 30-31, regarding the need for 5 references to arrive at the subject matter of claim 19 underscores that eh claimed invention is not an obvious combination of known elements have been fully considered but is not persuasive. As detailed in MPEP 2145(V), reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Applicant has not provided any rational as to why the 5 references do not obviate the claimed invention, therefore, this argument is not sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection of claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTARIUS S DANIEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am to 4:30pm EST.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at 571-272-4965. 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.
/ANTARIUS S DANIEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KEVIN C SIRMONS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights