Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12, and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Claim 25 presents, in independent form, the subject matter of original claim 1 in combination with claims 3 and 4. Claims 3 and 4 were rejected in the office action of 7/15/2026 over Sithian in view of Laiso and further in view of Freund. Applicant’s response presents no argument addressing those rejections on their merits; claims 3 and 4 are asserted to be allowable solely by dependency from amended claim 1, no argument is present with respect to claim 25. Since claim 25 does not recite the limitations added to claim 1 by amendment, Applicant’s arguments concerning amended claim 1 the second stitched region, the second and third pockets, the second pocket being between the first and third pockets etc. are inapplicable to it. The rejection of the subject matter of original claim 1 and claims 3 and 4 over Sithian in view of Laiso and further in view of Freund is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10,16, and 19 /are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 20230018683 issued to Mayer.
Regarding claim 1,
Mayer discloses a method for using a patient positioning and support system (Mayer: [0048] “bedding systems that allow for inserts such as pillows, wedges, or other cushioning or supportive structures to be inserted into pockets in the bedding to support and/or change the position of a person lying on the bedding … The repositioning may include, without limitation, elevating, rotating, or supporting an area of anatomy”) the method comprising: placing a patient above a first sheet positioned on a support surface such that a head region of the patient is proximate to a first pocket, a sacral region of the patient is proximate to a second pocket, and a leg region of the patient is proximate to a third pocket, (Mayer: FIG. 11A see also [0072] sheet 1100 with bottom layer 1102 and top layer 1104 placed on the mattress, the top layer having “three horizontal pockets 1106, 1108, 1110 … configured to provide support to the head and shoulders, sacrum and buttocks, and legs and feet, respectively”; see also [0011] and FIG. 20 as well as [0120]) the first sheet being of the patient positioning and support system that includes a second sheet that cooperates with the first sheet and a first stitched region to define the first pocket, cooperates with the first sheet and as second stitched region to define the third pocket, cooperates with the first stitched region and the second stitched region to define the second pocket, the second pocket being between the first pocket and the third pocket, the first sheet coupled to the second sheet along the first stitched region and the second stitched region; (Mayer: FIG. 11A and [0072] sheet 1100 “can include a bottom layer 1102 operably attached to a smaller top layer 1104 that can be made of, for example, the same material, or a different material, such as a stretch/compression/jersey fabric material. The top layer 1104 can include nine total pockets, including three horizontal pockets 1106, 1108, 1110” the three pockets being directly adjacent along the length of the top layer and separated by two traverse lines of stitching, the middle pocket 1108, lying between pockets 1106 and 1110 and bounded by both lines; ) and inserting a first portion of a first support device in the first pocket (Mayer: [0011] “Each of the plurality of pockets is configured to receive at least one of a pressure redistributing insert or a repostioning insert through at least one opening” see also [0088]) thereby elevating the head region (Mayer: [0055] the top pocket of the multi-pocket sheet in FIG. 11 “can be configured to fit a standard twin pillow for additional head occiput support” see also [0066] [0072] as well as [0048] which talks about inserts received in the pockets are used for “elevating, rotating, or supporting an area of anatomy.”) while the first sheet extends between the sacral region and the support surface and between the leg region and the support surface. (Mayer: [0011] “When the system is arranged over the surface of a mattress, the first layer lies between the surface of the mattress and the second layer such that the at least one opening is above the first layer” see also [0072] and FIG. 11A bottom layer 1102 is beneath top layer 11-4 carrying the sacral pocket 1108 and leg pocket 1110)
Regarding claim 3,
Mayer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: inserting a second portion of the first support device in the first pocket, such that the first support device is enclosed in the first pocket. (Mayer: [0059] FIG. 3C “Stitching along approximately one-third of upper and lower lateral edge of pocket, leaving an opening in which to place inserts … the stitching serves as retainers for pads”; see also [0063] as well as FIG. 3A where (315) closes the opening over the inserted pad)
Regarding claim 8,
Mayer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: subsequent to inserting the first portion of the first support device in the first pocket, inserting a first portion of a second support device in the second pocket (Mayer: [0072] see FIG. 11A (1106, 1108, 1110 each “sized and configured to accommodate inserts.” See also [0066] “there can be, for example, three inserts for three pockets. The inserts can correlate to a preselected body part associated with each pocket … a spine and sacrum embodiment with a depression for the shoulder, spine, and coccyx (middle)”) thereby elevating the sacral region while the first sheet extends between the head region and the support surface and between the leg region and the support surface, (Mayer: 0072) second pocket 1108 “configured to provide support to the … sacrum and buttocks,” located between (1106) and (1110) receiving a pressure-redistributing or repositioning insert that supports and elevates the sacral region refer also to [0055] pockets placed “in body areas most at risk for pressure sores, such as the sacrum.” And lastly [0121] states method steps “need not be performed in the order recited”)
Regarding claim 10,
Mayer discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: subsequent to inserting the first portion of the second support device in the second pocket, inserting a first portion of a third support device in the third pocket (Mayer: [0072] third pocket 1110 “sized and configured to accommodate inserts”; see also [0066] “The bottom, third and lower pocket, could house an insert as described, and shaped to elevate knees, and to decrease pressure on calcaneus … three inserts for three pockets”) thereby elevating the leg region while the first sheet extends between the head region and the support surface and between the sacral region and the support surface (Mayer: [0072]) wherein the first pocket, the second pocket, and the third pocket each extend between a first side of the patient positioning and support system and a second side opposite the first side, and the first support device, the second support device, and the third support device being inserted from the first side. (Mayer: [0072] see also [0088] and FIG.16 which explicitly shows openings)
Regarding claim 16,
Mayer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: subsequent to inserting the first portion of the first support device in the first pocket, inserting a first portion of a second support device in the second pocket, thereby elevating the sacral region of the patient while the first sheet extends between the head region and the support surface and between the leg region and the support surface; and subsequent to inserting the first portion of the second support device in the third pocket, thereby elevating the leg region while the first sheet extends between the head region and the support surface and between the sacral region and the support surface. (Mayer: [0066] “There can be, for example, three inserts for three pockets. The inserts can correlate to a preselected body part associated with each pocket … the center insert can be created to contain the torso and sacrum, with above-described materials, minimizing pressure to high-risk bony prominences. The bottom, third and lower pocket, could house an insert as described, and shaped to elevate knees, and to decrease pressure on calcaneus”; See also [0121] “Any methods disclosed herein need not be performed in the order recited,” such that inserting the sacral insert after the head insert and the leg insert after the sacral insert is within the disclosed method of Mayer.)
Regarding claim 19,
Mayer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: removing the first portion of the first support device from the first pocket thereby lowering the head region while the first sheet extends between the sacral region and the support surface and between the leg region and the support surface. (Mayer: [0088] openings 1613 “allow for the insertion and removal of inserts”; [0089] the caregiver may “change, remove or insert cushions or wedges from either side of the bed, and without having to remove the patient from the bed” The examiner notes that should a caregiver find a need to, the insert in the first pocket can be removed at any point of time)
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, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of U.S. Patent No. 7971292 issued to Sithian.
Regarding claim 2,
Mayer discloses the method of claim 1.
Mayer does not appear to disclose wherein inserting the first portion of the first support device further comprises securing the first support device to an interior of the first pocket, the first support device including a first engagement region and the interior of the first pocket including a first pocket engagement region, the first engagement region engaging with the first pocket engagement region to secure the first support device.
However, Sithian discloses wherein inserting the first portion of the first support device further comprises securing the first support device to an interior of the first pocket, the first support device including a first engagement region and the interior of the first pocket including a first pocket engagement region, the first engagement region engaging with the first pocket engagement region to secure the first support device. (Sithian: col. 5 lines 40-56 talk about using hook and loop fasteners/buttons to secure pillows to the pockets)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support device of Mayer with an engagement region that engages the hook-and-loop strip 317 on the interior of Mayer’s pocket, as taught by Sithian, in order to hold the insert in its intended position within the pocket and prevent it from shifting or being displaced during patient movement and repositioning.
Regarding claim 9,
Mayer in view of Sithian discloses the method of claim 8, wherein: inserting the first portion of the first support device further comprises securing the first support device to an interior of the first pocket, (Mayer: [0059] see FIG. 3 (317) and Sithian col. 5 lines 40-56) the first support device including a first engagement region and the interior of the first pocket including a first pocket engagement region, (Sithian: FIG. 1 (50, 54) carried on the pillow 14 may be interpreted as a first engagement region, and the mating fastener strip 50 or slot 52 on the interior of the first pocket (34) may be interpreted as the first pocket engagement region) the first engagement region engaging with the first pocket engagement region to secure the first support device; (Sithian: FIG. 1 see col. 5 and 2 complementary fasteners engage one another to secure the pillow 14 within the pocket, “at least one fastener is provided which is preferably positioned within at least one of the pockets for fastening the pillow”) and inserting the first portion of the second support device further comprises securing the second support device to an interior of the second pocket, the second support device including a second engagement region and the interior of the second pocket including a second pocket engagement region, the second engagement region engaging with the second pocket engagement region engaging to secure the second support device. (The examiner notes that the combination of Mayer and Sithian discloses this since Mayer discloses a pocket in the head region and the teaching of inserting pillows into pockets simultaneously and Sithian discloses the engagement features)
Regarding claim 11,
Mayer in view of Sithian discloses the method of claim 10, wherein: inserting the first portion of the first support device further comprises securing the first support device to an interior of the first pocket, (Mayer: [0059] see FIG. 3 (317) and Sithian col. 5 lines 40-56) the first support device including a first engagement region and the interior of the first pocket including a first pocket engagement region, (Sithian: FIG. 1 (50, 54) carried on the pillow 14 may be interpreted as a first engagement region, and the mating fastener strip 50 or slot 52 on the interior of the first pocket (34) may be interpreted as the first pocket engagement region) the first engagement region engaging with the first pocket engagement region to secure the first support device; (Sithian: FIG. 1 see col. 5 and 2 complementary fasteners engage one another to secure the pillow 14 within the pocket, “at least one fastener is provided which is preferably positioned within at least one of the pockets for fastening the pillow”) and inserting the first portion of the second support device further comprises securing the second support device to an interior of the second pocket, the second support device including a second engagement region and the interior of the second pocket including a second pocket engagement region, the second engagement region engaging with the second pocket engagement region engaging to secure the second support device. (The examiner notes that the combination of Mayer and Sithian discloses this since Mayer discloses a pocket in the head region and the teaching of inserting pillows into pockets simultaneously and Sithian discloses the engagement features)
Claim(s) 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of U.S. Publication No. 20120073056 issued to Freund.
Regarding claim 4,
Mayer discloses the method of claim 3.
Mayer does not appear to disclose further comprising: subsequent to inserting the second portion of the first support device in the first pocket, inserting a second support device in the first pocket, such that the first support device and the second support device are enclosed in the first pocket.
However, Freund discloses further comprising: subsequent to inserting the second portion of the first support device in the first pocket, inserting a second support device in the first pocket, such that the first support device and the second support device are enclosed in the first pocket. (Freund: FIG. 2 see [0021] “FIG. 2 shows the adjustable pillow with the three (3) inserts placed in the stretchable cover to provide an initial height, overall firmness and surface firmness. “)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert a second support device into the first pocket of Mayer as taught by Freund in order to permit a caregiver to adjust and tailor the elevation provided at the pocket to the head region of the patient.
Regarding claim 20,
Mayer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: inserting a second portion of the first support device in the first pocket, such that the first support device is enclosed in the first pocket (Mayer: [0059] See FIG. 3C stitching “serves as retainers for pads,” FIG. 3A (315))
Mayer does not appear to disclso subsequent to inserting the second portion of the first support device in the first pocket, inserting a second support device in the first pocket, such that the first support device and the second support device are enclosed in the first pocket.
However, Freund discloses placing a plurality of separate inserts in a single cover such that the inserts are enclosed together (Freund: FIG. 2 see [0021])
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert a second support device into the first pocket of Mayer as taught by Freund in order to permit a caregiver to adjust and tailor the elevation provided at the pocket to the head region of the patient.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of U.S. Publication No. 20120073056 issued to Freund further in view of Sithian.
Regarding claim 5,
Mayer in view of Freund discloses the method of claim 4.
Mayer in view of Freund does not appear to disclose wherein inserting the second support device further comprises securing the first support device and the second support device to an interior of the first pocket, the first support device including a first engagement region, the second support device including a second engagement region, the interior of the first pocket including a first pocket engagement region, the first engagement region and the second engagement region engaging with the first pocket engagement region to secure the first support device and the second support device.
However, Sithian discloses wherein inserting the second support device further comprises securing the first support device and the second support device to an interior of the first pocket, the first support device including a first engagement region, the second support device including a second engagement region, the interior of the first pocket including a first pocket engagement region, the first engagement region and the second engagement region engaging with the first pocket engagement region to secure the first support device and the second support device. (Sithian discloses the engagement system (see claim 3) via hook and loop system (50) and/or buttons. When Freund is combined the engagement system would be applied to the second pillow inserted within the pocket)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to provide each of the first and second support devices of Mayer in view of Freund with an engagement region engaging the pocket engagement region, as taught by Sithian in order to hold the insert in its intended position within the pocket and prevent it from shifting or being displaced during patient movement and repositioning.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of U.S. Patent No. 5274862 issued to Palmer.
Regarding claim 6,
Mayer discloses the method of claim 1.
Mayer does not appear to disclose further comprising: prior to inserting the first portion of the first support device in the first pocket, rotating the patient from a supine position to a prone position.
However, Palmer discloses rotating the patient from a supine position to a prone position. (Palmer: col. 2 lines 64-67 “For the turning device 50 to turn a patient 60 from the supine position to a face down position middle section 52 should be approximately the width of or less than the width of the patient's torso 62.” And col. 1 lines 39-43 “Thus the age old tradition of turning over a patient every two hours by hand prevails and decubitus management for the immobile patient remains a serious problem.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the patient of Mayer from a supine position to a prone position prior to inserting the first support device, as taught by Palmer, in order to relieve pressure on the patient’s posterior and sacral surfaces and to manage decubitus formation by turning the immobile patient off of his or her back, consistent with turning practice.
Regarding claim 7,
Mayer discloses the method of claim 1.
Mayer does not appear to disclose further comprising: prior to inserting the first portion of the first support device in the first pocket, rotating the patient from a prone position to a supine position.
However, Palmer discloses rotating the patient from a supine position to a prone position. (Palmer: col. 2 lines 64-67 “For the turning device 50 to turn a patient 60 from the supine position to a face down position middle section 52 should be approximately the width of or less than the width of the patient's torso 62.” And col. 1 lines 39-43 “Thus the age old tradition of turning over a patient every two hours by hand prevails and decubitus management for the immobile patient remains a serious problem.” See claims 3 and 4 which talk about doing the reverse action i.e. supine to prone.)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the patient of Mayer from a prone position to a supine position prior to inserting the first support device, as taught by Palmer, in order to relieve pressure on the patient’s head stomach and thighs in order to manage decubitus formation by turning the immobile patient off of his or her back, consistent with turning practice.
Regarding claim 15,
Mayer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein placing the patient above the first sheet further comprises placing the patient in a … position such that a stomach region of the patient is disposed between the sacral region and a second pocket, (Mayer: [0072] see FIG. 11A) the method further comprising: subsequent to inserting the first portion of the first support device in the first pocket, inserting a first portion of a second support device in the second pocket thereby elevating the stomach region while the second sheet supports the head region and the leg region. (Mayer: [0066] three inserts for three pockets including a center insert “to contain the torso” see also [0011])
Neither reference suggest the orientation of the patient.
However, Palmer discloses a prone position (Palmer: col. 2 lines 64-67 “For the turning device 50 to turn a patient 60 from the supine position to a face down position middle section 52 should be approximately the width of or less than the width of the patient's torso 62.” And col. 1 lines 39-43 “Thus the age old tradition of turning over a patient every two hours by hand prevails and decubitus management for the immobile patient remains a serious problem.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the patient of Mayer from a supine position to a prone position or vice versa prior to inserting the first support device, as taught by Palmer, in order to relieve pressure on the patient’s posterior and sacral surfaces and to manage decubitus formation by turning the immobile patient off of his or her back, consistent with turning practice.
Regarding claim 17,
Mayer discloses the method of claim 1. further comprising prior to inserting the first portion of the first support device in the first pocket, (Mayer: [0121])
Mayer does not appear to disclose further comprising prior to inserting the first portion of the first support device in the first pocket, rotating the patient from a supine position to a prone position.
However, Palmer discloses rotating the patient from a supine position to a prone position. (Palmer: col. 2 lines 64-67 “For the turning device 50 to turn a patient 60 from the supine position to a face down position middle section 52 should be approximately the width of or less than the width of the patient's torso 62.” And col. 1 lines 39-43 “Thus the age old tradition of turning over a patient every two hours by hand prevails and decubitus management for the immobile patient remains a serious problem.”)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rotate the patient of Mayer from a supine position to a prone position or vice versa prior to inserting the first support device, as taught by Palmer, in order to relieve pressure on the patient’s posterior and sacral surfaces and to manage decubitus formation by turning the immobile patient off of his or her back, consistent with turning practice.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7971292 issued to Sithian over U.S. Patent No. 6415466 issued to Laios further in view of U.S. Publication no. 20120073056 issued to Freund.
Regarding claim 25,
Sithian discloses a method for using a patient positioning and support system, (Sithian: FIGS. 1-4 (12, 14) see abstract “A bedsheet, a system, and a method for use thereof for elevating at least one leg or heel of the patient lying on a mattress is disclosed.”) the method comprising: placing a patient above a first sheet positioned on a support surface such that a … region of the patient is proximate to a first pocket, a… region of the patient is proximate to a second pocket, and a …. Region of the patient is proximate to a third pocket (Sithian: FIG. 1 (12) has a first sheet (16) that a patient lies upon, the first sheet (16) being fitted to cover the top of the mattress (11), col. 3 lines 32-38 see also FIG. 2B (34) and col. 3 lines 54-65 “It will be appreciated that the first and second sheets 16, 24 of the bedsheet 12 together define an expandable first pocket 34 FIG. 2B (34, 36, 46) are three pockets over which body regions of the patient are positioned, the upper end (20) being located where the head lies, the third pocket (46) being “disposed under the leg of the patient” (col. 4 lines 1-8)) the first sheet being of the patient positioning and support system that includes a second sheet that cooperates with the first sheet and a first stitched region to define the first pocket, the first sheet coupled to the second sheet along the first stitched region; (Sithian: col. 3 lines 39-50 first and second sheets (16, 24) define a first pocket 34, (24) being attached to (16) via stitching at end 25) the first sheet coupled to the second sheet along the first stitched region (Sithian: col. 3 lines 49-52 “preferably accomplished using stitching”) and inserting a first portion of a first support device in the first pocket (Sithian: FIG. 2B (14) and col. 3 lines 60-67 talk about a pillow (14) being inserted into the first pocket (34)) thereby elevating the …. region while supporting a sacral region of the patient and a leg region of the patient. (Sithian: FIG. 2B pillow (14) forms an elevated surface (39) that elevates the body region while the remaining body regions rest upon and are supported by the sheet (12) the examiner notes that depending on the dimension of the patient the sacral region may also be supported by the other pockets.) inserting a second portion of the first support device in the first pocket, such that the first support device is enclosed in the first pocket. (Sithian: col. 5 lines 40-56 talk about using hook and loop fasteners to secure pillows into the pockets) …
Sithian does not appear to disclose elevating a head region; … further comprising: subsequent to inserting the second portion of the first support device in the first pocket, inserting a second support device in the first pocket, such that the first support device and the second support device are enclosed in the first pocket.
Sithian does not appear to disclose elevating a head region.
However, Laiso discloses elevating a head region. (Laiso: FIG. 1 (12) elevates the head region of a patient via pillow (15) see col. 3 lines 30-42)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sithina by positioning the first pocket of Sithian’s bedsheet so as to receive the first support device beneath, and thereby elevate, the head region of the patient, as taught by Laiso, while the sacral and leg regions remain supported by the first sheet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification since Sithian identifies elevation of the patient’s head with pillows as a conventional and desirable caregiving practice (Sithian: background) and selecting the head as the region to be elevated amounts to applying Sithian’s own pocket-and-pillow technique to one of a finite number of body regions a caregiver would predictably wish to elevate.
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sithina by positioning the first pocket of Sithian’s bedsheet so as to receive the first support device beneath, and thereby elevate, the head region of the patient, as taught by Laiso, while the sacral and leg regions remain supported by the first sheet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification since Sithian identifies elevation of the patient’s head with pillows as a conventional and desirable caregiving practice (Sithian: background) and selecting the head as the region to be elevated amounts to applying Sithian’s own pocket-and-pillow technique to one of a finite number of body regions a caregiver would predictably wish to elevate.
However, Freund discloses further comprising: subsequent to inserting the second portion of the first support device in the first pocket, inserting a second support device in the first pocket, such that the first support device and the second support device are enclosed in the first pocket. (Freund: FIG. 2 see [0021] “FIG. 2 shows the adjustable pillow with the three (3) inserts placed in the stretchable cover to provide an initial height, overall firmness and surface firmness. “)
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert a second support device into the first pocket of Sithian in view of Laiso as taught by Freund in order to permit a caregiver to adjust and tailor the elevation provided at the pocket to the head region of the patient.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21-24 are allowed.
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 ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
