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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 21, 2025 has been entered. Any previous objection/ rejection not repeated herein has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 now recites “causing a set of the cameras to capture a set of images documenting a manual transfer of the sample from the container to the processing cassette while the container and the processing cassette are in the work area”. Note: the examiner assumes the claimed “work area” corresponds to the interior platform 108 as shown in Fig. 1. There is nothing in the applicant’s disclosure that explicitly (or implicitly) supports the new claimed recitation that the work area 108 is “precisely” where the manual transfer of the sample from the container to the processing cassette (see applicant’s arguments on page 9 of the Reply filed May 21, 2025.
In fact, applicant’s specification states that “a second auxiliary camera 112 (mounted to the framework) is directed toward the space near to, but exterior of, the main system framework 114 with a field of view including staging area 116, where associated documents, requisitions, and additional containers and cassettes may be placed and visually documented” (see para [0060] et seq.) Thus, the original specification support that the staging area 116 is can also be used to visually document (i.e., via at least camera 112) the manual transfer of a sample from a container to a cassette. This is considered new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 6 refers to “a plurality of cameras” and line 16 recites “a set of the cameras”. It is unclear as to how the previously recited the “plurality of cameras” relates to the “set of the cameras”. Are these different cameras? Assume these are the same cameras. It is undefined how many cameras constitute a “set” of the plurality of cameras. Would one or all cameras be considered a set of the plurality of cameras? This is confusing, indefinite, and it is unclear whether this recitation finds support in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 9-11, and 18 as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visinoni et al., (US 2018/0173851; hereinafter “Visinoni”) in view of Sievert et al., (WO 2019/175371, see corresponding US 2021/0025791 for citations below; hereinafter “Sievert”) and/or Von Bueren et al., (US 2019/0105021; hereinafter “Von Bueren”) and Eisenberg et al., (US 2010/0088116; hereinafter “Eisenberg”).
As to claims 1 and 9-11, Visinoni teaches a device for processing and cataloging of a sample, in a container having a label with originating identifying data (tissue code).
the device comprising:
a framework (18) defining a work area including first (on the working area 2) and second locations (vicinity of the working area 2) for receiving the container (container can be , the cassette 4 or rack R (see para [0004]), respectively;
a plurality of cameras 5, 9 mounted in the framework (detecting means 5 is disclosed as a camera configured to detect the tissue code, see para [0051] et seq.) and measuring means 9 may also be a camera that measures quantitative properties of the tissue, see para [0057] et seq.);
a controller system coupled to the cameras, the controller system including a controller and a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the controller, cause carrying out of computer processes comprising:
causing at least two of the cameras 5 and 9 to capture contemporaneously (see below);
camera 9 takes an image of the sample (tissue) in the work area 2;
camera 5 takes an image of the identifying data (tissue code);
processing the image of the sample so as to produce a data output characterizing attributes of the sample (number of samples, appearance, volume of the sample, etc.; see para [0063] et seq.); and
integrating the data output into a catalog record output characterizing the sample, wherein the catalog record also includes the originating identifying data (see para 0069] et seq.)
Visinoni teaches an image is taken by the measuring means 9 may be taken as soon as (or at once) the detecting means 5 detects a tissue code received in the working area (see para, [0019] and [0065] et seq.) Visinoni teaches automatically measuring of quantitative properties of the tissue by means of a measuring means, preferably once being detected by the detection means (see para [0039] et seq.) In other words, the measuring means 9 and detecting means 5 of Visinoni are configured to capture a tissue code and the picture of the tissue inside the tissue cassette contemporaneously (at approximately the same time).
Furthermore, Visinoni teaches having a picture of the carrier allows further investigation in events of a problem. The picture preferably shows how the tissue and the carrier were at the end of carrier preparation. Based on the picture, it is possible to gain information such as number and position of tissues, color, morphology, foam presence, tissue code, etc. The picture may be later consulted to check for mismatching or errors (see para [0030] et seq.) Moreover, the tissue code may be retrieved based on the quantitative properties of the tissue. In particular, this may be used for restoring the relation between the tissue code and the tissue, if the relation between the tissue code and the tissue gets lost, e.g., when the tissue falls out of a tissue carrier carrying the tissue code (see para [0071] et seq.)
Visinoni does not explicitly teach causing one of the cameras to capture a set of images documenting a transfer of the sample from the container to the processing cassette (tissue cassettes are known to have an “enclosable volume” to hold the tissue therein), and analyzing the captured set of images documenting the transfer to identify a transfer error in which at least a portion of the sample has failed to have been transferred to the processing cassette.
In the related art of automated tissue sectioning, Sievert teaches causing at least one camera to capture a set of images documenting a transfer of the sample from the container to the processing cassette, and analyzing the captured set of images documenting the transfer to identify a transfer error in which at least a portion of the sample has failed to have been transferred to the processing cassette (the transfer includes a missing sample, non-transfer of sample and incorrect transfer cassette used). That is, Sievert teaches at para [0095] that FIG. 2f depicts the removal of the container body 115 from the filter 116. The sample 1000 is supported by the filter 116. A detector 1150 determines the emptiness of the container body 115. Under certain conditions, the sample 1000 can be stuck in the container body. In such a case, the control provision controlling the detector 1150, may initiate an error message to an operator for further activity. The error condition may further derive from an erroneously empty pathology container, i.e., a sample has never been entered into the pathology assembly and thus is also not present in the container assembly and as a result cannot be found at the filter 114.
Note: that Sievert states “[a]ll steps can be automated…” (see para [0025]). The use of the phrase “can be” indicates that this is an option, not a requirement. Thus, it follows logically, the steps of Sievert can be also manually performed. In addition, since the Sievert does not describe or show the specific mechanisms for transfer of the sample from the container to the processing cassette beyond the use of a general conveyor, thus it is reasonable to assume the steps in Sievert can be performed manually.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have included in system of Visinoni the control step analyzing the captured set of images documenting the transfer to identify an apparent deviation in activity from that associated with a normal transfer, as taught by Sievert for the expected benefit of reducing errors that would lead to misidentification or loss of specimens during tissue processing and transfer (as recognized by Visinoni at para [0030]) and Sievert at para [0050] et seq.)
Visinoni appears to teach the control step of using computer vision (interpreted as software connected to at least one camera capable of reading human text using object character recognition) to recognize the originating identifying data in the image thereof. The automatic detection may be performed by acquiring images of the working area with the detecting means 5, e.g., with a camera, and processing it with a software able to identify the codes in the image. Preferably, once a tissue with a valid tissue code is placed on the working area 2, the detecting means 5 automatically detects the presence of the tissue code and, thus, the presence of the tissue. Visinoni also teaches the optical reader of the detecting means 5 or an additional optical reader may be configured to take a picture of the tissue received by the working area 2. The optical reader or the additional optical reader may comprise a (digital) camera comprising an optic 6, e.g., a lens, and a processing unit 7 connected with the optic 6.
However, if Visinoni is found to not teach a the use of “computer vision”, then Von Bueren teaches it is known, at para [0023] “[d]evice 100 is operable to be mounted on a table or other surface and have sample carriers such as cassettes be brought to the device. Device 100 includes base 110 and lid or cover 120 hingedly connected to base 110 through, for example, hinge 115. In one embodiment, the electronics for a barcode reader reside in lid 120. Such electronics representatively include a light source, lens and light sensor translating optical impulses into electrical ones. In another embodiment, a barcode scanner may be based on a light source and photodiode configuration wherein a photodiode(s) measures an intensity of a light reflected back from light source from the sample carrier. In another embodiment, the electronics for a barcode reader include a charge coupled device (CCD) reader or a camera and image processing techniques to decode a barcode and/or human readable text. A camera using computer vision offers a benefit of not only being useful as a barcode reader but, when information on a barcode cannot be read by the barcode reader, the camera offers a picture of the barcode and possibly other readable information. Device 100 may therefore, in another embodiment, also include or alternatively include optical character recognition (OCR) processing capability. Other sample carrier identification readers such as RFID and others are also contemplated (see para [0023] et seq.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to have included in the sample processing system of Visinoni, a capability of one of the cameras to use computer vision to be able to read a human-readable label as well as barcodes and RFIDs using one camera having computer vision, as taught by Von Bueren, for the expected benefit of reduced equipment (less camera devices) with more capability which can provide a space savings in the apparatus.
Visinoni does not explicitly teach a “work area” which includes a first and second locations for receiving the container and processing cassette respectively. However, in the related art of specimen tracking and management verification, Eisenberg teaches RFID antenna pad 160 (reads on claimed “work area”) may include special form factors to hold bottles, blocks, slides, and combinations thereof (reads on “locations”). For example, RFID antenna pad 160 may include a pad with wells for bottles, slots for blocks, separate areas for blocks, bottles, and slides. RFID antenna pad 160 may be connected to network 6 (FIG. 1) and SMS 4 via a wireless connection, network cable, or may be connected to network 6 via client computing device 164. RFID reader 162 may include a processor, and can communicate over network 6 to a server for SMS 4. RFID antenna pad 160 and RFID reader 162 may be specially designed to withstand the laboratory environment. For example, RFID antenna pad 160 and RFID reader 162 may be waterproof or may include smooth surfaces for easy cleaning (see para [0113] et seq.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectivity filed to have included in the sample processing device of Visinoni, the work area of Eisenberg since Eisenberg teaches w work area with locations that would securely hold the sample container and processing cassette so as not to spill the contents during the manual transfer while also providing a surface that may be waterproof or may include smooth surfaces for easy cleaning (see para [0113] et seq.)
The applicant is advised that the Supreme Court has clarified that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formal disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Sup. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82, USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007), see MPEP 2143). In this case, it would be obvious to provide a work area within the framework to support the cameras of Visinoni over a work area, like that taught by Eisenberg, since the would no more than a predictable result. It is also note that applicant has not set forth an particular advantage of the work area including the first and second locations to receive the container and the cassette, respectively.
As to claims 4 and 18, Visinoni teaches the catalog record output includes the sample image and the image of the originating identifying data. However, Visinoni does not explicitly teach the record output also includes a time stamp indicating a time when the images of the originating identifying data and the sample were captured. However, the use of timestamps in keeping records of specimen tracking is well known in the art, see Eisenberg.
Eisenberg teaches a specimen tracking and management verification system that includes at each different locations within in the process of preparing the specimen, RFID stations at those locations read the RFID tag associated with the specimen to update a status and record timestamps within the RFID tag itself, a database of specimen management system 4, or both (see para [0075] et seq.) Eisenberg teaches an RFID tag for a given container is interrogated at a particular location, such as recording that the RFID tag and the corresponding container has been checked-in or out at the location and failure to arrive at the next location (i.e., the "destination" location) along the route within the defined expected time period after having been checked-out at the previous location (i.e., the "source" location) provides an indication to SMS 4 that the container may be lost (see para [0075] et seq.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included in the combined system of Visinoni, Sievert, and/or Von Bueren, the timestamp as taught by Eisenberg to determine a failure of the container to arrive at the next location (i.e., the "destination" location) along the route within the defined expected time period after having been checked-out at the previous location (i.e., the "source" location) provides an indication to specimen management system that the container may be lost such that necessary action is taken by the user (see para [0075] et seq.)
As to claim 7, Visinoni, Sievert, and/or Von Bueren do not explicitly teach the captured set of images is a video recording. However, it is expected that at least the cameras in Visinoni and Sievert are implicitly capable of producing a video recording. However, if not then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used one of the cameras in Visinoni and Sievert to capture the set of images using video recording, as this would provide continuous detection of the sample during processing to ensure that the sample has not been tampered with or otherwise
manipulated in a manner outside the desired protocol.
As to claim 9-11, Visinoni and Sievert teach the transfer error is one in which a portion of the sample is identified as missing, remained in the container, or transferred to the incorrect container (see para [0022] et seq.)
Claim 2, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visinoni in view of Sievert and/or Von Bueren, and Eisenberg as applied to claim 1, above, in further view of Kashiwabara et al., (JP 2017-116356; see attached machine-generate English translations for citations).
Visinoni, Eisenberg, Sievert, and/or Von Bueren do not specifically teach the image of the sample includes a composite image that includes the image of the originating identifying data and the image of the sample. In the related art of sample processing, Kashiwabara teaches an image file generation unit 262 which has a function of combining a plurality of image data acquired by the imaging mechanism 46, thereby generating a combined image file. In the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the imaging mechanism 46 includes three imaging devices (imaging devices 108, 110, and 112), and three image data are generated by them. The image file generation unit 262 combines the three-image data to generate one combined image file. For example, the image file generation unit 262 generates processed image data representing the stored specimen 62 by trimming each image data, and generates a composite image file by connecting the processed image data in the horizontal direction. The image file generation unit 262 may embed information on the stored specimen 62 as a character string in the composite image file. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included in the combined system of Visinoni, Eisenberg, Sievert, and/or Von Bueren a composite image for the expected benefit of providing the user the image of the origination data and the image of the sample in one composite image for easy reference by the user.
Claim 19 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Visinoni in view of Sievert and/or Von Bueren, and Eisenberg, as applied to claim 18, above, in further view of Kashiwabara et al., (JP 2017-116356; see attached machine-generate English translations for citations).
Visinoni, Sievert, and Eisenberg and/or Von Bueren do not specifically teach the data record includes a composite image that includes the image of the originating identifying data and the image of the sample. In the related art of sample processing, Kashiwabara teaches an image file generation unit 262 which has a function of combining a plurality of image data acquired by the imaging mechanism 46, thereby generating a combined image file. In the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the imaging mechanism 46 includes three imaging devices (imaging devices 108, 110, and 112), and three image data are generated by them. The image file generation unit 262 combines the three-image data to generate one combined image file. For example, the image file generation unit 262 generates processed image data representing the stored specimen 62 by trimming each image data, and generates a composite image file by connecting the processed image data in the horizontal direction. The image file generation unit 262 may embed information on the stored specimen 62 as a character string in the composite image file. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included in the combined system of Visinoni, Sievert, Eisenberg and/or Von Bueren a composite image for the expected benefit of providing the user the image of the origination data and the image of the sample in one composite image for easy reference by the user.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,684,295. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both recite a device for processing and cataloging of a sample, in a container having a label with originating identifying data, wherein the sample is to be transferred to a processing cassette, the processing cassette having second identifying data thereon, the device comprising:
a framework defining a work area, wherein the work area includes first and second locations for receiving the container and the cassette respectively;
a set (plurality) of cameras mounted in the framework;
a controller system coupled to the cameras, the controller system including a controller and a non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the controller, cause carrying out of computer processes comprising: causing members of the set (plurality) of cameras to capture at a moment in time: an image of the sample in the work area;
an image of the originating identifying data; and
a set of images documenting a transfer of the sample from the container to the processing cassette;
integrating the data output into a catalog record output characterizing the sample, such record also including the originating identifying data; and
analyzing the captured set of images documenting the transfer to identify a transfer error in which at least a portion of the sample has failed to have been transferred to the processing cassette.
The difference between the instant claims and the conflicting claims lies in the fact that conflicting claims include more elements, and thus, more specific (for example, the conflicting claims include the additional steps of obtaining image of the second identifying data and comparing the first and second digitally encoded texts to assure consistency between the originating identifying data of the container label and the second identifying data of the processing cassette and processing the image of the sample so as to produce a data output characterizing attributes of the sample), the conflicting patented claims are in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the instant claims. It is has been held that the “generic” invention is “anticipated” by the “species”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “in the vicinity” of the working area in Visinoni does not satisfy the claimed “within the working area”. The examiner notes that the claims requires at least two cameras to capture contemporaneously “an image of the sample in the work area” (in the container) and “an image of the originating identifying data” (which can be located on the container). The claim further requires selecting one of the cameras to capture the manual transfer of the sample from the container to the processing cassette. Thus, the location of the sample container and processing cassette located in the work area is obvious since the claims do not require the cameras to image the cassette itself after transfer of the sample from the container or obtaining any identifying data from the cassette while in the work area. Regardless, if not taught by Visinoni, then this feature is taught by Eisenberg, for the reasons delineated above.
The prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The “mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention’s nonobviousness.” See MPEP 2143 (I). The gap between the prior art and the claimed invention may not be “so great as to render the [claim] nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art.” Id. In determining obviousness, neither the particular motivation to make the claimed invention nor the problem the inventor is solving controls. The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. See 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap.
In this case, it is worth noting that like the instant invention, Visinoni recognizes that having a picture of the carrier allows further investigation in events of a problem during transfer. The picture preferably shows how the tissue and the carrier were at the end of carrier preparation. Based on the picture, it is possible to gain information such as number and position of tissues, color, morphology, foam presence, tissue code, etc., see para [0030] et seq. of Visinoni. And using a work area which includes specific locations for the sample container and the cassette would have been obvious for the reasons delineated above. Thus, the claims remain rejected over the prior art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 5:30am-3pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Jill A Warden can be reached on 571-272-1267. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798