DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
Based on the claim amendments and remarks filed on 12/18/25, the previous prior art rejections are withdrawn and new rejections are applied to address the amended claims (see below).
Claim Status
Claims 9, 10, 1, 14, 17-20 are pending and examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9, 10, 1, 14, 17-20 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.
As to claim 9, it is unclear what applicants are attempting to describe as a stacked configuration in the second to last clause of the claim. The claims recite that a module of the second biological sample processing system is in a stacked configuration. However, the second biological sample processing system is only recited as having a singular module, and it is unclear how a singular module can be stacked. What is the module stacked with respect to? Are there multiple modules in the second biological sample processing system that are stacked with respect to each other? Are the second biological sample processing system and first biological sample processing system stacked with respect to each other? The examiner notes that a potential infringer would not understand what or how a singular module could form a stacked configuration without further clarification and/or correction.
Claims 10, 1, 14, 17-20 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
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 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gu et al (US 20070190525; hereinafter “Gu”; already of record) in view of Burd et al (US 20090088336; hereinafter “Burd”; already of record) in view of Nogawa et al (US 20030235514; hereinafter “Nogawa”; already of record) and in view of Fritchie et al (US 20090117620; hereinafter “Fritchie”).
As to claim 9, Gu teaches a method of analyzing a biological sample from a subject (Gu; abstract), the method comprising: providing a cartridge for holding the biological sample, the cartridge comprising: a first microfluidic channel having an opening configured to receive the biological sample; a second microfluidic channel configured to hold a mixture comprising a reagent and at least a portion of the biological sample; a receiving the cartridge in a biological sample processing system; receiving the biological sample in the opening of the first microfluidic channel; and performing an analysis on the biological sample using the biological sample processing system, wherein said performing comprises using at one or more optical detectors of the second biological sample processing system to analyze at least a portion of the biological sample held in the second microfluidic channel (Gu teaches a sample [164] which is placed onto a cartridge [115-118, 193] as shown in figure 16. Gu teaches that the cartridge has multiple channels, each accommodating a portion of the sample; Fig. 16, [116, 120, 127]. Gu also teaches other cartridges can be used; [133, 193]. Gu teaches that the cartridge is placed in the processing system which includes two detectors; Fig. 7 [81]. Gu teaches a user placing the cartridge in the biological sample processing system. Gu teaches analysis including a 5-part leukocyte differential; Figs. 17, 23 [60, 63, 155]).
Gu does not specifically teach that the cartridge has a rail configured to engage with a corresponding slot of a biological processing system, and receiving the cartridge and biological sample in the processing system, wherein said receiving comprises inserting the rail of the cartridge into a slot of the biological sample processing system. However, Burd teaches the analogous art of a cartridge that is placed into a processing system, where the cartridge has a rail configured to engage with a corresponding slot of a biological processing system, and receiving the cartridge and biological sample in the processing system, wherein said receiving comprises inserting the rail of the cartridge into a slot of the biological sample processing system (Burd teaches cartridge 610 which has a protruding rail on the side and is accepted into a slot of processing device; Fig. 6, 5 [149]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cartridge that is placed into a sample processing system of Gu to have included a rail that slides into a corresponding slot as in Burd because Burd teaches that this is a known technique for securing a cartridge to the processing system (Burd; [149], Fig. 6), and one of ordinary skill in the art would further understand that a rail and corresponding slot would help to guide and properly position the cartridge.
Modified Gu does not specifically teach receiving the cartridge and the biological sample in a module of a second biological sample processing system; and performing an analysis on the biological sample using the second biological sample processing system. However, Nogawa teaches the analogous art of a method for analyzing a biological sample (Nogawa; abstract) and receiving the cartridge in the first biological sample processing system using a sample handling system; receiving the cartridge in a module of a second biological sample processing system using the sample handling system; and performing a second analysis on one of the first portion or the second portion of the biological sample using the second biological sample processing system (Nogawa teaches multiple sample processing systems 6 and 14, which each perform a different analysis, where a sample handling system 3 sequentially delivers the samples to each processing system; Fig. 1, [13, 14, 23, 26, 27]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the sample analysis in the first sample processing system of Gu to have included a sample handling system to deliver the samples and to have included multiple sample processing systems as in Nogawa because Nogawa teaches that plural processing systems provide the advantage of multiple different analysis of the same sample (Nogawa; [13, 14]). Nogawa also teaches that the use of a sample handling system to deliver the samples provides the advantage of shortening total processing time through completing multiple analysis quickly by sending the samples for subsequent analysis (Nogawa; [14]).
Modified Gu does not teach that the second biological sample processing system comprises a module in a stacked configuration. However, Fritchie teaches the analogous art of an analyzer (Fritchie; Title, Figs. 1, 5-7 and 23 [66, 67, 69, 71, 77, 78, 117-119]) which includes modules in a horizontal configuration (Fritchie; Fig. 1, 2, 5-7) and also which includes modules in a vertically stacked configuration (Fritchie teaches a plurality of modules on an upper/first sample processing portion/layer and the samples are transferred to a detection unit #150 on a lower layer/second processing portion in order to decrease the device footprint; Fig. 23 [117-119]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the module of the second biological sample processing system of modified Gu to be stacked vertically as taught in Fritchie because Fritchie teaches that vertically arranging the device helps to decrease device footprint (Fritchie; [119]). Additionally, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the module of the second biological sample processing system of modified Gu to be stacked vertically as taught in Fritchie to create a more vertically arranged analyzer and thereby provide the advantage of decreased device footprint as taught by Fritchie since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.' 7.
As to claim 10, modified Gu teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the biological sample is a blood sample (Gu; [63, 193]).
As to claim 13, modified Gu teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the blood sample is a plasma sample (Gu teaches whole blood which would include plasma; [63, 193]).
As to claim 14, modified Gu teaches the method of claim 9, wherein at least one of the first biological sample processing system and the second biological system performs two or more assays at least partially in parallel, wherein the two or more assays is selected from the list consisting of: a nucleic acid amplification, an immunoassay, and a cytometric assay (Gu; [60, 63, 65, 81, 115, 158, 176] Figs 17-19).
As to claim 17, modified Gu teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the second biological sample processing system further comprises a housing (Gu; [81], Fig. 7. See also Nogawa in claim 9 above.).
As to claim 18, modified Gu teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the housing comprises a thermal control unit and a detection unit, wherein the detection unit comprises the one or more optical detectors (Gu teaches a system and detectors; [81], Fig. 7. Gu also teaches an incubator; [193] Fig. 36. See also Nogawa in claim 9 above.).
As to claim 19, modified Gu teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising identifying T-cell and B- cell populations in the biological sample (Gu; [155], Fig. 23).
As to claim 20, modified Gu teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising performing a hemoglobin assay on the biological sample (Gu; [139], Fig. 17-19).
Claims 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gibbons et al (US 20120309636; hereinafter “Gibbons”; already of record) in view of Gibbons et al (US 20060264781; hereinafter “Gibbons II”; already of record) and in view of Fritchie et al (US 20090117620; hereinafter “Fritchie”).
The applied reference has one common inventor (Elizabeth Holmes) with the instant application; however, the rest of the inventors in Gibbons are not on the instant application, and conversely the rest of the inventors of the instant application are not listed in the Gibbons reference. Based upon the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the Gibbons reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) and also as prior art under 102(a) as the reference was also published prior to the effective filing date of the instant application with includes CIP applications in the chain of continuity. The 102(e) rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.132 that any invention disclosed but not claimed in the reference was derived from the inventor of this application and is thus not an invention “by another”; (2) a showing of a date of invention for the claimed subject matter of the application which corresponds to subject matter disclosed but not claimed in the reference, prior to the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) date of the reference under 37 CFR 1.131(a); or (3) an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.131(c) stating that the application and reference are currently owned by the same party and that the inventor or joint inventors (i.e., the inventive entity) named in the application is the prior inventor under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 104 as in effect on March 15, 2013, together with a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321(c). This rejection might also be overcome by showing that the reference is disqualified under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) as prior art in a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a). See MPEP §§ 2146 et seq.
As to claim 9, Gibbons teaches a method of analyzing a biological sample from a subject (Gibbons; abstract), the method comprising: providing a cartridge for holding the biological sample, the cartridge comprising: an assay unit having an opening configured to receive the biological sample; an assay unit configured to hold a mixture comprising a reagent and at least a portion of the biological sample; and a rail configured to engage with a corresponding slot of a biological processing system; receiving the cartridge in a first biological sample processing system; receiving the biological sample in the opening of the assay unit; receiving the cartridge and the biological sample in a second biological sample processing system, wherein said receiving comprises inserting the rail of the cartridge into a slot of a module of the second biological sample processing system; and performing an analysis on the biological sample using the second biological sample processing system, wherein said performing comprises using at one or more optical detectors of the second biological sample processing system to analyze at least a portion of the biological sample held in the assay unit (Gibbons teaches a cartridge/assay unit which receives a sample at a first channel at a first part of the processing system where the cartridge/assay unit is then moved to the second processing system where it receives reagents, is heated, and is analyzed; [219, 395, 521, 637]. Gibbons also teaches moving the sample to capillary channels as assay unit, where capillary channels are microchannels, and then moving those channels to a detector; [679, 680, 681, 711, 713, 836]. Gibbons teaches the assay units/cartridges are used in the system [818] to perform multiple assays including cytometry [657, 733] and 5-part leukocyte differential [733]; Fig. 95. There are multiple detectors in the biological system [215, 542] and there are also detectors that detect labeling [415]. Gibbons teaches that the assays can be spatially separated as well; [191]. As best understood, Gibbons teaches a user placing the cartridge/cuvette in the device; [894, 207, 821, 835]. Gibbons also teaches biochemical and immunochemical analysis; [412]. Gibbons also incorporates by reference prior art Burd et al (US 20090088336; hereinafter “Burd”; already of record) in [211], where Burd teaches cartridge 610 with assay units which has a protruding rail on the side and is accepted into a slot of processing device, where the slotted stage provides accuracy and movement of the cartridge in the overall system(s); Fig. 6, 5 [109, 149]).
Gibbons does not specifically teach the assay units/cartridge include a first microfluidic channel having an opening configured to receive the biological sample; a second microfluidic channel configured to hold a mixture comprising a reagent and at least a portion of the biological sample. However, Gibbons II teaches the analogous art of a method of analyzing a sample with assay units/cartridge include a first microfluidic channel having an opening configured to receive the biological sample; a second microfluidic channel configured to hold a mixture comprising a reagent and at least a portion of the biological sample (Gibbons II teaches an assay cartridge with multiple different microchannels where the sample is loaded into the cartridge and then moved throughout the channel for processing with various reagents to enable detection; Fig. 1-4, [2, 9, 44, 45, 48, 50, 66, ]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the assay units which undergo various analysis of Gibbons to have been microfluidic assay units as in Gibbons II because Gibbons II teaches that fluidic devices that react a sample and reagent and are then read can be various configurations and that a microfluidic cartridge is a well-known configuration of a fluidic device (Gibbons II; [44]) and that the microfluidic device helps provide all the necessary reagents in an easily disposable fluidic device (Gibbons II; [46]).
Modified Gibbons does not teach that the second biological sample processing system comprises a module in a stacked configuration. However, Fritchie teaches the analogous art of an analyzer (Fritchie; Title, Figs. 1, 5-7 and 23 [66, 67, 69, 71, 77, 78, 117-119]) which includes modules in a horizontal configuration (Fritchie; Fig. 1, 2, 5-7) and also which includes modules in a vertically stacked configuration (Fritchie teaches a plurality of modules on an upper/first sample processing portion/layer and the samples are transferred to a detection unit #150 on a lower layer/second processing portion in order to decrease the device footprint; Fig. 23 [117-119]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the module of the second biological sample processing system of modified Gibbons to be stacked vertically as taught in Fritchie because Fritchie teaches that vertically arranging the device helps to decrease device footprint (Fritchie; [119]). Additionally, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the module of the second biological sample processing system of modified Gibbons to be stacked vertically as taught in Fritchie to create a more vertically arranged analyzer and thereby provide the advantage of decreased device footprint as taught by Fritchie since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.' 7.
As to claim 10, modified Gibbons teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the biological sample is a blood sample (Gibbons; [8, 9, 10, 15, 191]).
As to claim 13, modified Gibbons teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the blood sample is a plasma sample (Gibbons; [258]).
As to claim 14, modified Gibbons teaches the method of claim 9, wherein at least one of the first biological sample processing system and the second biological system performs two or more assays at least partially in parallel, wherein the two or more assays is selected from the list consisting of: a nucleic acid amplification, an immunoassay, and a cytometric assay (Gibbons teaches multiple assays [739], and cytometry [736], and 5-part leukocyte analysis [733, 657], and hemoglobin [419]. Gibbons also teaches biochemical and immunochemical analysis; [412]).
As to claim 17, modified Gibbons teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the second biological sample processing system further comprises a housing (Gibbons teaches a housing; [207, 821, 835]).
As to claim 18, modified Gibbons teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the housing comprises a thermal control unit and a detection unit, wherein the detection unit comprises the one or more optical detectors (Gibbons teaches all of the components in the housing; [207, 821, 835]. Gibbons teaches heaters; [394]).
As to claim 19, modified Gibbons teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising identifying T-cell and B- cell populations in the biological sample (Gibbons; [434, 731]).
As to claim 20, modified Gibbons teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising performing a hemoglobin assay on the biological sample (Gibbons; [419]).
Claims 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17, 18, 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burd et al (US 20090088336; hereinafter “Burd”; already of record) in view of Gibbons et al (US 20060264781; hereinafter “Gibbons II”) and in view of Fritchie et al (US 20090117620; hereinafter “Fritchie”).
As to claim 9, Burd teaches a method of analyzing a biological sample from a subject (Burd; abstract), the method comprising: providing a cartridge for holding the biological sample, the cartridge comprising: an assay unit having an opening configured to receive the biological sample; an assay unit configured to hold a mixture comprising a reagent and at least a portion of the biological sample; and a rail configured to engage with a corresponding slot of a biological processing system; receiving the cartridge in a first biological sample processing system; receiving the biological sample in the opening of the assay unit; receiving the cartridge and the biological sample in a second biological sample processing system, wherein said receiving comprises inserting the rail of the cartridge into a slot of a module of the second biological sample processing system; and performing an analysis on the biological sample using the second biological sample processing system, wherein said performing comprises using at one or more optical detectors of the second biological sample processing system to analyze at least a portion of the biological sample held in the assay unit (Burd teaches placing samples in assay units in one location as the first processing system [108, 203] and then where the assay unit is moved to a different second processing system for incubation, reaction with a reagent, and detection [124, 204, 205]. Burd teaches that assay units are part of a cartridge; [108]. Burd teaches cartridge 610 which has a protruding rail on the side and is accepted into a slot of processing device, where the slotted stage provides accuracy and movement of the cartridge in the overall system(s); Fig. 6, 5 [109, 149]. Burd teaches performing various analysis in the system using optical detectors; [57, 58, 94, 108, 109, 120, 124, 154, 183, 216, 245, 248, 251]).
Burd does not specifically teach the assay units/cartridge include a first microfluidic channel having an opening configured to receive the biological sample; a second microfluidic channel configured to hold a mixture comprising a reagent and at least a portion of the biological sample. However, Gibbons II teaches the analogous art of a method of analyzing a sample with assay units/cartridge include a first microfluidic channel having an opening configured to receive the biological sample; a second microfluidic channel configured to hold a mixture comprising a reagent and at least a portion of the biological sample (Gibbons II teaches an assay cartridge with multiple different microchannels where the sample is loaded into the cartridge and then moved throughout the channel for processing with various reagents to enable detection; Fig. 1-4, [2, 9, 44, 45, 48, 50, 66, ]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the assay units which undergo various analysis of Burd to have been microfluidic assay units as in Gibbons II because Gibbons II teaches that fluidic devices that react a sample and reagent and are then read can be various configurations and that a microfluidic cartridge is a well-known configuration of a fluidic device (Gibbons II; [44]) and that the microfluidic device helps provide all the necessary reagents in an easily disposable fluidic device (Gibbons II; [46]).
Modified Burd does not teach that the second biological sample processing system comprises a module in a stacked configuration. However, Fritchie teaches the analogous art of an analyzer (Fritchie; Title, Figs. 1, 5-7 and 23 [66, 67, 69, 71, 77, 78, 117-119]) which includes modules in a horizontal configuration (Fritchie; Fig. 1, 2, 5-7) and also which includes modules in a vertically stacked configuration (Fritchie teaches a plurality of modules on an upper/first sample processing portion/layer and the samples are transferred to a detection unit #150 on a lower layer/second processing portion in order to decrease the device footprint; Fig. 23 [117-119]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the module of the second biological sample processing system of modified Burd to be stacked vertically as taught in Fritchie because Fritchie teaches that vertically arranging the device helps to decrease device footprint (Fritchie; [119]). Additionally, without some statement of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the module of the second biological sample processing system of modified Burd to be stacked vertically as taught in Fritchie to create a more vertically arranged analyzer and thereby provide the advantage of decreased device footprint as taught by Fritchie since it has been generally recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.' 7.
As to claim 10, modified Burd teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the biological sample is a blood sample (Burd; [12, 13, 19, 20, 27, 28]).
As to claim 13, modified Burd teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the blood sample is a plasma sample (Burd; [12, 13, 19, 20, 27, 28]).
As to claim 14, modified Burd teaches the method of claim 9, wherein at least one of the first biological sample processing system and the second biological system performs two or more assays at least partially in parallel, wherein the two or more assays is selected from the list consisting of: a nucleic acid amplification, an immunoassay, and a cytometric assay (Burd; [57, 58, 94, 108, 243]).
As to claim 17, modified Burd teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the second biological sample processing system further comprises a housing (Burd teaches placing the assay units/cartridge within a device/system to be analyzed, where the device/system would have a housing to support all of the components; see claim 9 above).
As to claim 18, modified Burd teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the housing comprises a thermal control unit and a detection unit, wherein the detection unit comprises the one or more optical detectors (Burd teaches after placing samples in assay units in one location as the first processing system [108, 203] that the assay unit is moved to a different second processing system for incubation, reaction with a reagent, and detection [124, 204, 205]. Burd teaches performing various analysis in the system using optical detectors; [57, 58, 94, 108, 109, 120, 124, 154, 183, 216, 245, 248, 251])
As to claim 20, modified Burd teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising performing a hemoglobin assay on the biological sample (Burd; [267]).
Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Burd et al (US 20090088336; hereinafter “Burd”; already of record) in view of Gibbons et al (US 20060264781; hereinafter “Gibbons II”) and in view of Gu et al (US 20070190525; hereinafter “Gu”; already of record).
As to claim 19, modified Burd teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising identifying various assays including white cell and T-cell cell populations in the biological sample (Burd teaches T-Cell and white cells; [77, 266]).
Burd does not specifically teach a B-cell assay. However, Gu teaches the analogous art of a cartridge that enables various analysis to take place (Gu; Fig. 16, [115-118, 133, 193]) where the assay includes a 5-part leukocyte differential (Gu; Figs. 17, 23 [60, 63, 155]) and B-cell analysis (Gu; [155], Fig. 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the various assays that of Burd to have included B-cell analysis as in Gu because Gu teaches that B-cell are a composition of white cells that are commonly analyzed (Gu; [155], Fig. 23).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Pang et al (US 6060022; hereinafter “Pang”; already of record) teaches a transfer arm to multiple analyzers; Fig. 1.
Akutsu et al (US 20110256022; hereinafter “Akutsu”; already of record) teaches plural sample processing systems 400/500 with a sample handling system 300/320 which loads and unloads both 400 and 500; Fig. 1, 3, [39, 53, 56, 57]. Akutsu teaches that it is advantageous to have plural sample processing systems because a singular system can rarely test all of the necessary items; [86].
Zhou et al (US 20100054575; hereinafter “Zhou”; already of record) teaches two different channels with different imaging/detecting; [13].
McDevitt et al (US 20090215072; hereinafter “McDevitt”; already of record) teaches placing a cartridge into a device with multiple detectors for WBC analysis; Figs. 2, 8, 12 [73].
Valencia (US 20030219713; hereinafter “Valencia”; already of record) teaches placing a sample in a cartridge, and then placing the cartridge into an analyzer; Fig. 1-4 [103-104]. Valencia teaches that there are several channels to the cartridge, and the device performs multiple tests [274] using multiple detectors [272].
Pettigrew (US 20110275111; hereinafter “Pettigrew”; already of record) teaches using a blood sample and placing it in a cartridge for analysis of WBC differential [74] and where the WBC includes a five part differential shown in figure 1, and the cartridge with channels for blood sample portions; Fig. 7. Pettigrew also teaches the various channels used; [100-102] Fig 3-5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been considered, but are moot as the arguments are towards the amended claims and a new ground of rejection has been provided to address the claim amendments.
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 BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798