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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 15 and 22 have been amended. Claim 17 has been cancelled. Claims 24-29 are new. Claims 15-16, 21-22, and 24-29 are currently pending and are examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
All claim objections and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are necessitated as outlined below.
New grounds of claim objections are necessitated as outlined below.
All 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are necessitated by the amendments as outlined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, lines 15-16: please amend “and being configured to contact the sample, and to allow” to – [[and]]the flat member being configured to contact the sample[[,]] and to allow —for purposes of consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claims 25-28 be found allowable, claim 24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 15-16, 21-22 and 24-29 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.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 requires a flat member comprising a liquid-permeable porous material that is partly fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir without being fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir along the entire outer periphery of the flat member. The flat member of the embodiment of Fig. 17 is made of a porous medium that allows a liquid to pass. However, the flat member of the embodiment of Fig. 17 is disclosed as being fixed along the entire outer edge of the flat member 81 by the fixed portion 811 [see Fig. 17; Page 18, lines 15-23 of the instant specification] and therefore is not partly fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir without being fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir along the entire outer periphery of the flat member, as required by claim 15. The specification and/or the figures do not support a flat member that is both a liquid permeable porous material and having a portion that is partly fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir without being fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir along the entire outer periphery of the flat member. Therefore, claim 15 is new matter. Claims 15, 21-22 and 24 are further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon claim 15.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 requires the flat member is partially liftably placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir. However, the specification and/or figures do not disclose anywhere that the flat member is partially liftably placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir. The specification only supports a porous flat member with a fixed portion that extends along the entire outer edge of the flat member and still allows a liquid to pass through owing to the flat member 81 being porous [Page 18, lines 15-23 of the instant specification; Fig. 17]. In the embodiment of Fig. 17 there is no mention of the flat member being partially liftably placed. Therefore, this limitation is unsupported by the disclosure. Therefore, claim 24 is new matter.
Regarding claim 25, claim 25 requires a flat member comprising a liquid-permeable porous material that is fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir at a portion of an outer periphery of the flat member and not fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir at a remaining portion of the outer periphery of the flat member such that the flat member is partially liftable. The flat member of the embodiment of Fig. 14 has a portion 811 fixed to the secondary reservoir 6 and not fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir at a remaining portion of the outer periphery [as seen in Fig. 14 of the instant specification]. However, the flat member of Fig. 14 is liquid impermeable as it is made from a resin impermeable to the diluted sample because the analytical tool A3 of this embodiment differs from the analytical tools A1 and A2 described above in that the flat member 81 has a portion 811 fixed to the secondary reservoir 6 [see Fig. 14 and 7; Page 17, lines 21-31 and Page 16, lines 24-26 of the instant specification]. The specification and/or the figures do not support a flat member that is both a liquid permeable porous material and is fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir at a portion of an outer periphery of the flat member and not fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir at a remaining portion of the outer periphery of the flat member. Additionally, the specification and/or figures do not disclose in the embodiment of Fig. 14 that the flat member is partially liftable. There is no mention in the disclosure in the embodiment of Fig. 14 that the flat member is liftable or even partially liftable. Therefore, claim 25 is new matter. Claims 26-29 are further rejected by virtue of its dependence upon claim 25.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 requires the flat member is partially liftably placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir. However, the specification and/or figures do not disclose anywhere that the flat member is partially liftably placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir. In the embodiment of Fig. 14 there is no mention of the flat member being partially liftably placed as required by claim 28. Therefore, this limitation is unsupported by the disclosure. Therefore, claim 28 is 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 24 and 28 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.
Regarding claim 24, claim 24 uses the term “liftably”. It is unclear what is the meaning of “liftably” as liftably is not a word in the English language. The instant specification does not define nor explain the word “liftably”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “the flat member is partially liftably placed” because how can a member be simultaneously placed and “liftably”. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Therefore, the scope of claim 24 is indefinite.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 uses the term “liftably”. It is unclear what is the meaning of “liftably” as liftably is not a word in the English language. The instant specification does not define nor explain the word “liftably”. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “the flat member is partially liftably placed” because how can a member be simultaneously placed and “liftably”. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Therefore, the scope of claim 28 is indefinite.
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 15-16, 21-22 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US20100181199A1) in view of Oishi et al. (US20100006436A1), Weber et al. (US20030133841A1) and Liu et al. (US20120245042A1). Hengko et al. (How to Choose the Right Filter Pore Size for Industrial Filtration System?, 2025, Hengko, Pages 1-15, https://www.hengko.com/news/how-to-choose-the-right-filter-pore-size-for-industrial-filtration-system/) used as evidence for claim 16 and 26.
Regarding claim 15, an analytical tool for analysis of a sample by capillary electrophoresis (Sugiyama teaches an electrophoresis chip 2 [corresponding to an analytical tool] for analysis of a sample by capillary electrophoresis, [Para. 0011, 0092-0093, Figs. 2 and 3A-3C]), the analytical tool comprising:
an inlet reservoir into which the sample is introduced (Sugiyama teaches a liquid reservoir 4c for sample introduction, [Para. 0093, 0099 and Fig. 3]);
a secondary reservoir having an opening at a bottom of the secondary reservoir (Sugiyama teaches a secondary liquid reservoir 4d having an opening at a bottom of the secondary reservoir 4d that connects to the end of the channel 5y, [Para. 0093, 0098 and Figs. 3A and 3C]);
a connection channel connecting the inlet reservoir to the bottom of the secondary reservoir through the opening at the bottom of the secondary reservoir (Sugiyama teaches a connection channel 5y connecting the liquid [inlet] reservoir 4c to the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d through the opening at the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d [the liquid reservoir 4c and the liquid reservoir 4d are in communication with each other via the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y], [Para. 0093 and Figs. 3A and 3C]), an area of the bottom of the secondary reservoir being larger than a cross-sectional area of the connection channel (Sugiyama teaches an area of the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d is larger than the cross-sectional area of the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y [Fig. 3A and 3C]);
the limitation “the connection channel being configured such that the sample introduced from the inlet reservoir flows into the secondary reservoir through the connection channel and the opening at the bottom of the secondary reservoir” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Sugiyama teaches the above connection channel 5y for sample introduction as shown in Fig. 3 that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Sugiyama teaches the connection channel 5y connecting the liquid [inlet] reservoir 4c to the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d through the opening at the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d [the liquid reservoir 4c and the liquid reservoir 4d are in communication with each other via the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y], [Para. 0093 and Figs. 3A and 3C]. Sugiyama further teaches the sample is added to the liquid reservoir 4c [the inlet reservoir] where the liquid reservoir 4c and the liquid reservoir 4d are in communication with each other via the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y, [Fig. 3A and 3C, Para. 0093, 0098-0099], and thus the connection channel 5y for sample introduction is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations of such that the sample introduced from the inlet reservoir flows into the secondary reservoir through the connection channel and the opening at the bottom of the secondary reservoir.)
a capillary in communication with the connection channel at a location between the inlet reservoir and the secondary reservoir and not directly connected to the inlet reservoir or the secondary reservoir (Sugiyama teaches a capillary channel for sample analysis 5x in communication with the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y at a location between the liquid [inlet] reservoir 4c and the secondary liquid reservoir 4d, and not directly connected to the liquid [inlet] reservoir 4c or the secondary liquid reservoir 4d, [Para. 0093, Fig. 3A-3C]), wherein a voltage is applied to the capillary for causing electrophoresis (Sugiyama teaches a voltage is applied to the electrodes 6a and 6b thereby creating a voltage/potential difference between both ends of the capillary channel for sample analysis 5x for causing electrophoresis [Para. 0100-0100 and Fig. 3A-3C])
Sugiyama is silent to a flat member comprising a liquid-permeable porous material and placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir so as to cover the opening at the bottom of the secondary reservoir.
However, Sugiyama teaches the sample contains blood protein, wherein at least one blood protein is hemoglobin, where the concentration of hemoglobin is measured [Para. 0068].
Oishi teaches a method of measuring hemoglobin by using an electrophoresis apparatus for capillary electrophoresis [Abstract and Figs. 1-2 and Para. 0018]. Oishi further teaches a separation medium that comprises an ion exchanger, where the migration path 23 and 24 [corresponding to a connection channel] is filled with the ion exchanger and is beneficial because when a sample is introduced into the migration path filled with the ion exchanger, hemoglobins contained in the sample are moved by electrophoresis and contact the ion exchanger to be separated into each type; therefore, it is possible to detect each separated substance with a detector [Para. 0078-0079, 0240, 0245 and Fig. 2a and 2b]. The shape of the ion exchanger is desirably a perfect sphere “bead” and the size of the ion exchanger is desirably 1 micron [Paras. 0091-0093].
Sugiyama and Oishi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrophoretic devices (Fig. 3 of Sugiyama and Abstract of Oishi). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the separation medium in the channels, including the connection channel 5y, of Sugiyama with the separation medium of Oishi which comprises an ion exchanger that fills the migration paths 23 and 24, since Oishi teaches it would be beneficial because when a sample is introduced into the migration path filled with the ion exchanger, hemoglobins contained in the sample are moved by electrophoresis and contact the ion exchanger to be separated into each type; therefore, it is possible to detect each separated substance with a detector [Para. 0079 of Oishi]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the arts (MPEP 2143[I][B]). Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Weber discloses an electrophoresis capillary “channel” (16; Figure 1) having at each end an end element (10) in a reservoir (20,22) for capillaries of chip channels for use in capillary electrophoresis, where the end elements each have a membrane (14) [Figure 1, Abstract and Paras. 0046-0048]. The membrane 14 corresponds to a flat member and is a liquid-permeable porous film, the membrane having a pore size corresponding to the particle size of the packing material packed into the column/channel 16 in order to retain the packing material 18/separation medium, such as beads, within the column/channel 16 [Para. 0046-0047]. The liquid-permeable porous membrane terminates the chip channel and is provided for retaining the carrier material/packing material/separation medium contained in the chip channel [Para. 0023, 0021, 0031].
Modified Sugiyama and Weber are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capillary electrophoresis in chip channels (Fig. 3 of Sugiyama and Abstract of Weber). Given the teachings of modified Sugiyama that a spherical “bead” ion exchanger fills the connection channel, as outlined in the rejection above, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ends of the connection channel, which includes the bottom of the secondary reservoir, of modified Sugiyama, to provide a flat member, which is a liquid-permeable porous material having a pore size corresponding to the particle size of the packing material/separation medium packed in the channel, which terminates the ends of the chip channel, as taught by Weber, since Weber teaches it would be beneficial for retaining the carrier material/packing material/separation medium contained in the chip channel [Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 of Weber]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results, MPEP 2143[I][A].
[AltContent: oval]As outlined in the rejection above, Modified Sugiyama yields providing a flat member, which is a liquid-permeable porous material that terminates the ends of the connection channel 5y, the ends of the connection channel include the bottom of the secondary reservoir and thus the flat member is placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir so as to cover the opening of the secondary reservoir in order to retain the carrier material/packing material/separation medium contained in the chip channel [see rejection above; Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 and Fig. 1a-1b of Weber; Fig. 3a and 3c of Sugiyama; Para. 0078-0079, 0240, 0245 and Fig. 2a and 2b of Oishi].
the flat member being partly fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir without being fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir along the entire outer periphery of the flat member (Modified Sugiyama inherently meets this limitation as the opening in the secondary reservoir of Sugiyama is not in the center of the reservoir, but in an outer peripheral area. Therefore, Modified Sugiyama as modified by Weber to provide a liquid-permeable porous flat member/membrane that terminates the ends of the chip channel is inherently only partially fixed along its outer periphery and not fixed in the peripheral region where the opening is [see annotated Fig. 3A and 3B of Sugiyama above, see rejection above and Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 and Fig. 1a-1b of Weber; Fig. 3a and 3c of Sugiyama])
Alternative to the finding of inherently above, Liu teaches a debubbler for a microfluidic device/capillary device (Para. 0044 and 0054, Abstract). Liu teaches a flat member/membrane covering a second reservoir/outlet as seen in Fig. 1 that is partly fixed by an adhesive such as tape to the bottom of the secondary reservoir/outlet without being fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir along the entire outer periphery of the flat member/membrane as there is an outer peripheral portion of the membrane that is not fixed at the bottom of the secondary/reservoir outlet as seen in Fig. 1, such that the flat member/membrane deforms where the membrane is not fixed [corresponding to partially liftable], and this configuration is beneficial for suitably attaching the membrane to the substrate (Fig. 1, Para. 0024, and 0041-0042).
Modified Sugiyama and Liu are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capillary and microfluidic devices (Fig. 3 and Abstract of Sugiyama and Para. 0044 and 0054 of Liu). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flat member/membrane of modified Sugiyama to be partly fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir by an adhesive without being fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir along the entire outer periphery of the flat member/membrane, with an outer peripheral portion of the membrane that is not fixed at the bottom of the secondary/reservoir outlet, such that the flat member/membrane deforms where the membrane is not fixed, as taught by Liu, since Liu teaches this would be beneficial for suitably attaching the membrane/flat member and is a suitable alternative manufacturing design (Para. 0024 and Fig. 1 of Liu). Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results, MPEP 2143[I][A].
The limitation “and being configured to contact the sample, and to allow the sample in the connection channel to enter the secondary reservoir” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Modified Sugiyama teaches the above flat member that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Sugiyama teaches the connection channel 5y connecting the liquid [inlet] reservoir 4c to the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d through the opening at the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d [the liquid reservoir 4c and the liquid reservoir 4d are in communication with each other via the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y] [Para. 0093 and Figs. 3A and 3C]. Sugiyama further teaches the sample is added to the liquid reservoir 4c [the inlet reservoir] where the liquid reservoir 4c and the liquid reservoir 4d are in communication with each other via the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y [Fig. 3A and 3C, Para. 0093, 0098-0099], and thus the sample would reach the secondary reservoir. Modified Sugiyama yields the flat member, which is a liquid-permeable porous membrane, placed at the ends of the connection channel, including at the bottom of the secondary reservoir, and thus the flat member is specifically configured to perform the functional limitation of configured to contact with the sample (see rejection above and Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 and Fig. 1a-1b of Weber; Fig. 3a and 3c of Sugiyama). The liquid-permeable porous membrane is permeable to liquid and thus would allow the sample which is contained in blood and would be in a liquid, to enter the secondary reservoir from the connection channel [see rejection above; Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 and Fig. 1a-1b of Weber; Fig. 3a and 3c. Para. 0068-0069, 0005 of Sugiyama]. Furthermore, Weber teaches the liquid-permeable porous membrane 14 terminating the ends of the channel, provided at both ends [inlet and outlet], and then the inlet and outlet of the capillary channel 16 are inserted into the inlet sample vessel 20 and the outlet sample vessel 22, and thus the membrane 14 must allow the sample to pass through so that the electrophoresis of the sample may be performed to be detected at the detector 26 [Weber: Para. 0046-0048, 0023, 0021, 0031 and Fig. 1a-1b]. Therefore, the flat member of modified Sugiyama is specifically configured to perform the functional recitations above.)
Regarding claim 16, the analytical tool according to claim 15, wherein the flat member covers at least a part of the bottom of the secondary reservoir (Modified Sugiyama teaches the flat member/membrane covers at least a part of the bottom of the secondary reservoir as outlined in the rejection of claim 15 above, where the flat member is placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir so as to cover the opening of the secondary reservoir in order to retain the carrier material/packing material/separation medium contained in the chip channel and thus covers at least a part of the bottom of the secondary reservoir [see rejection of claim 15 above, Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 and Fig. 1a-1b of Weber; Fig. 3a and 3c of Sugiyama; Para. 0078-0079, 0240, 0245 and Fig. 2a and 2b of Oishi]) and
The limitation “allows gas flow” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Modified Sugiyama teaches the above flat member/membrane that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Modified Sugiyama teaches the membrane/flat member is a liquid-permeable porous film, the membrane having a pore size corresponding to the particle size of the packing material packed into the column/channel 16 in order to retain the packing material 18/separation medium, such as beads, within the column/channel 16 [Para. 0046-0047 of Weber]. Modified Sugiyama also teaches an ion exchanger which fills the channel and the shape of the ion exchanger is desirably a perfect sphere “bead” and the size of the ion exchanger is desirably 1 micron [see rejection of claim 15 above and Paras. 0091-0093, 0078-0079 of Oishi]. Thus, modified Sugiyama yields a membrane with a pore size of 1 micron in order to retain the packing material/ion exchanger within the channel. A membrane with a 1 micron pore size inherently allows gas to pass through as gas molecules, such as oxygen or nitrogen, are smaller than liquid molecules, and this is further evidenced by Hengko et al. which shows a 1 micron pore size in a membrane allows gas to pass through (see e.g., Table 1 on page 2; Page 4, entire section of Gas filtration: Precision for Purity).
Regarding claim 21, the analytical tool according to claim 15, the limitation “wherein the analytical tool is configured as a disposable tool” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Sugiyama teaches the electrophoresis chip 2 that is made out of a substrate such as PDMS and glass that is used for electrophoresis and is configured to be disposed of as a disposable tool [Para. 0035, 0101. Fig. 3A-3C], therefore being specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above).
Regarding claim 22, an analytical system (Sugiyama teaches a micro total analysis system comprising a capillary electrophoresis analysis apparatus 1 and an electrophoresis chip 2 [together corresponding to an analytical system], [Fig. 2 and Para. 0007, 0085]) comprising:
the analytical tool set forth in claim 15 (Modified Sugiyama teaches the analytical tool [electrophoresis chip] as set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above [Para. 0085 and Fig. 2-3 of Sugiyama, see rejection of claim 15 above]); and
an analyzing unit into which the analytical tool is installed and configured to perform analysis by capillary electrophoresis in the capillary (Modified Sugiyama teaches the capillary electrophoresis analysis apparatus 1 [analyzing unit] into which the electrophoresis chip/analytical tool is installed and configured to perform analysis by capillary electrophoresis in the capillary channel for sample analysis 5x [capillary tube], [see e.g.., Fig. 2-3, Para. 0005-0006, 0097-0101 of Sugiyama, see rejection of claim 15 above]).
Regarding claim 24, the analytical tool according to claim 15, wherein the flat member is partially liftably placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir (As outlined in the rejection of claim 15 above, Modified Sugiyama yields the flat member/membrane is partly fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir such that the flat member/membrane deforms where the membrane is not fixed [corresponding to partially liftable], thus the flat member/membrane is placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir in a partially liftable manner [see rejection of claim 15 above; Fig. 1, Para. 0024, and 0041-0042 of Liu])
Regarding claim 25, an analytical tool for analysis of a sample by capillary electrophoresis (Sugiyama teaches an electrophoresis chip 2 [corresponding to an analytical tool] for analysis of a sample by capillary electrophoresis, [Para. 0011, 0092-0093, Figs. 2 and 3A-3C]), the analytical tool comprising:
an inlet reservoir into which the sample is introduced (Sugiyama teaches a liquid reservoir 4c for sample introduction, [Para. 0093, 0099 and Fig. 3]);
a secondary reservoir having an opening at a bottom of the secondary reservoir (Sugiyama teaches a secondary liquid reservoir 4d having an opening at a bottom of the secondary reservoir 4d that connects to the end of the channel 5y, [Para. 0093, 0098 and Figs. 3A and 3C]);
a connection channel connecting the inlet reservoir to the bottom of the secondary reservoir through the opening at the bottom of the secondary reservoir (Sugiyama teaches a connection channel 5y connecting the liquid [inlet] reservoir 4c to the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d through the opening at the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d [the liquid reservoir 4c and the liquid reservoir 4d are in communication with each other via the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y], [Para. 0093 and Figs. 3A and 3C]), an area of the bottom of the secondary reservoir being larger than a cross-sectional area of the connection channel (Sugiyama teaches an area of the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d is larger than the cross-sectional area of the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y [Fig. 3A and 3C]);
the limitation “the connection channel being configured such that the sample introduced from the inlet reservoir flows into the secondary reservoir through the connection channel and the opening at the bottom of the secondary reservoir” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Sugiyama teaches the above connection channel 5y for sample introduction as shown in Fig. 3 that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Sugiyama teaches the connection channel 5y connecting the liquid [inlet] reservoir 4c to the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d through the opening at the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d [the liquid reservoir 4c and the liquid reservoir 4d are in communication with each other via the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y], [Para. 0093 and Figs. 3A and 3C]. Sugiyama further teaches the sample is added to the liquid reservoir 4c [the inlet reservoir] where the liquid reservoir 4c and the liquid reservoir 4d are in communication with each other via the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y, [Fig. 3A and 3C, Para. 0093, 0098-0099], and thus the connection channel 5y for sample introduction is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations of such that the sample introduced from the inlet reservoir flows into the secondary reservoir through the connection channel and the opening at the bottom of the secondary reservoir.)
a capillary in communication with the connection channel at a location between the inlet reservoir and the secondary reservoir and not directly connected to the inlet reservoir or the secondary reservoir (Sugiyama teaches a capillary channel for sample analysis 5x in communication with the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y at a location between the liquid [inlet] reservoir 4c and the secondary liquid reservoir 4d, and not directly connected to the liquid [inlet] reservoir 4c or the secondary liquid reservoir 4d, [Para. 0093, Fig. 3A-3C]), wherein a voltage is applied to the capillary for causing electrophoresis (Sugiyama teaches a voltage is applied to the electrodes 6a and 6b thereby creating a voltage/potential difference between both ends of the capillary channel for sample analysis 5x for causing electrophoresis [Para. 0100-0100 and Fig. 3A-3C]).
Sugiyama is silent to a flat member comprising a liquid-permeable porous material and placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir so as to cover the opening at the bottom of the secondary reservoir.
However, Sugiyama teaches the sample contains blood protein, wherein at least one blood protein is hemoglobin, where the concentration of hemoglobin is measured [Para. 0068].
Oishi teaches a method of measuring hemoglobin by using an electrophoresis apparatus for capillary electrophoresis [Abstract and Figs. 1-2 and Para. 0018]. Oishi further teaches a separation medium that comprises an ion exchanger, where the migration path 23 and 24 [corresponding to a connection channel] is filled with the ion exchanger and is beneficial because when a sample is introduced into the migration path filled with the ion exchanger, hemoglobins contained in the sample are moved by electrophoresis and contact the ion exchanger to be separated into each type; therefore, it is possible to detect each separated substance with a detector [Para. 0078-0079, 0240, 0245 and Fig. 2a and 2b]. The shape of the ion exchanger is desirably a perfect sphere “bead” and the size of the ion exchanger is desirably 1 micron [Paras. 0091-0093].
Sugiyama and Oishi are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrophoretic devices (Fig. 3 of Sugiyama and Abstract of Oishi). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the separation medium in the channels, including the connection channel 5y, of Sugiyama with the separation medium of Oishi which comprises an ion exchanger that fills the migration paths 23 and 24, since Oishi teaches it would be beneficial because when a sample is introduced into the migration path filled with the ion exchanger, hemoglobins contained in the sample are moved by electrophoresis and contact the ion exchanger to be separated into each type; therefore, it is possible to detect each separated substance with a detector [Para. 0079 of Oishi]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the arts (MPEP 2143[I][B]). Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2144.07].
Weber discloses an electrophoresis capillary “channel” (16; Figure 1) having at each end an end element (10) in a reservoir (20,22) for capillaries of chip channels for use in capillary electrophoresis, where the end elements each have a membrane (14) [Figure 1, Abstract and Paras. 0046-0048]. The membrane 14 corresponds to a flat member and is a liquid-permeable porous film, the membrane having a pore size corresponding to the particle size of the packing material packed into the column/channel 16 in order to retain the packing material 18/separation medium, such as beads, within the column/channel 16 [Para. 0046-0047]. The liquid-permeable porous membrane terminates the chip channel and is provided for retaining the carrier material/packing material/separation medium contained in the chip channel [Para. 0023, 0021, 0031].
Modified Sugiyama and Weber are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capillary electrophoresis in chip channels (Fig. 3 of Sugiyama and Abstract of Weber). Given the teachings of modified Sugiyama that a spherical “bead” ion exchanger fills the connection channel, as outlined in the rejection above, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ends of the connection channel, which includes the bottom of the secondary reservoir, of modified Sugiyama, to provide a flat member, which is a liquid-permeable porous material having a pore size corresponding to the particle size of the packing material/separation medium packed in the channel, which terminates the ends of the chip channel, as taught by Weber, since Weber teaches it would be beneficial for retaining the carrier material/packing material/separation medium contained in the chip channel [Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 of Weber]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results, MPEP 2143[I][A].
As outlined in the rejection above, Modified Sugiyama yields providing a flat member, which is a liquid-permeable porous material that terminates the ends of the connection channel 5y, the ends of the connection channel include the bottom of the secondary reservoir and thus the flat member is placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir so as to cover the opening of the secondary reservoir in order to retain the carrier material/packing material/separation medium contained in the chip channel [see rejection above; Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 and Fig. 1a-1b of Weber; Fig. 3a and 3c of Sugiyama; Para. 0078-0079, 0240, 0245 and Fig. 2a and 2b of Oishi].
[AltContent: oval]
the flat member being fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir at a portion of an outer periphery of the flat member and not fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir at a remaining portion of the outer periphery of the flat member (Modified Sugiyama inherently meets this limitation as the opening in the secondary reservoir of Sugiyama is not in the center of the reservoir, but in an outer peripheral area. Therefore, Modified Sugiyama as modified by Weber to provide a liquid-permeable porous flat member/membrane that terminates the ends of the chip channel is inherently only partially fixed along its outer periphery and not fixed in the peripheral region where the opening at the bottom of the secondary reservoir is [see annotated Fig. 3A and 3B of Sugiyama above, see rejection above and Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 and Fig. 1a-1b of Weber; Fig. 3a and 3c of Sugiyama])
Alternative to the finding of inherently above, Liu teaches a debubbler for a microfluidic device/capillary device (Para. 0044 and 0054, Abstract). Liu teaches a flat member/membrane covering a second reservoir/outlet as seen in Fig. 1 that is partially fixed by an adhesive such as tape to the bottom of the secondary reservoir/outlet without being fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir along the entire outer periphery of the flat member/membrane as there is an outer peripheral portion of the membrane that is not fixed at the bottom of the secondary/reservoir outlet as seen in Fig. 1, such that the flat member/membrane deforms where the membrane is not fixed [corresponding to partially liftable], and this configuration is beneficial for suitably attaching the membrane to the substrate (Fig. 1, Para. 0024, and 0041-0042).
Modified Sugiyama and Liu are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of capillary and microfluidic devices (Fig. 3 and Abstract of Sugiyama and Para. 0044 and 0054 of Liu). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flat member/membrane of modified Sugiyama to be fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir by an adhesive at the bottom of the secondary reservoir at a portion of an outer periphery of the flat member/membrane, with an outer peripheral portion of the membrane that is not fixed at the bottom of the secondary/reservoir outlet, such that the flat member/membrane deforms where the membrane is not fixed, as taught by Liu, since Liu teaches this would be beneficial for suitably attaching the membrane/flat member and is a suitable alternative manufacturing design (Para. 0024 and Fig. 1 of Liu). Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results, MPEP 2143[I][A].
such that the flat member is partially liftable (Modified Sugiyama as outlined above yields the flat member/membrane is partly fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir such that the flat member/membrane deforms where the membrane is not fixed [corresponding to partially liftable], thus the flat member/membrane is placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir in a partially liftable manner [see rejection of claim 15 above; Fig. 1, Para. 0024, and 0041-0042 of Liu]); and
The limitation “the flat member being configured to contact the sample and to allow the sample in the connection channel to enter the secondary reservoir” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Modified Sugiyama teaches the above flat member that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Sugiyama teaches the connection channel 5y connecting the liquid [inlet] reservoir 4c to the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d through the opening at the bottom of the secondary liquid reservoir 4d [the liquid reservoir 4c and the liquid reservoir 4d are in communication with each other via the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y] [Para. 0093 and Figs. 3A and 3C]. Sugiyama further teaches the sample is added to the liquid reservoir 4c [the inlet reservoir] where the liquid reservoir 4c and the liquid reservoir 4d are in communication with each other via the capillary channel for sample introduction 5y [Fig. 3A and 3C, Para. 0093, 0098-0099], and thus the sample would reach the secondary reservoir. Modified Sugiyama yields the flat member, which is a liquid-permeable porous membrane, placed at the ends of the connection channel, including at the bottom of the secondary reservoir, and thus the flat member is specifically configured to perform the functional limitation of configured to contact with the sample (see rejection above and Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 and Fig. 1a-1b of Weber; Fig. 3a and 3c of Sugiyama). The liquid-permeable porous membrane is permeable to liquid and thus would allow the sample which is contained in blood and would be in a liquid, to enter the secondary reservoir from the connection channel [see rejection above; Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 and Fig. 1a-1b of Weber; Fig. 3a and 3c. Para. 0068-0069, 0005 of Sugiyama]. Furthermore, Weber teaches the liquid-permeable porous membrane 14 terminating the ends of the channel, provided at both ends [inlet and outlet], and then the inlet and outlet of the capillary channel 16 are inserted into the inlet sample vessel 20 and the outlet sample vessel 22, and thus the membrane 14 must allow the sample to pass through so that the electrophoresis of the sample may be performed to be detected at the detector 26 [Weber: Para. 0046-0048, 0023, 0021, 0031 and Fig. 1a-1b]. Therefore, the flat member of modified Sugiyama is specifically configured to perform the functional recitations above.)
Regarding claim 26, the analytical tool according to claim 25, wherein the flat member covers at least a part of the bottom of the secondary reservoir (Modified Sugiyama teaches the flat member/membrane covers at least a part of the bottom of the secondary reservoir as outlined in the rejection of claim 15 above, where the flat member is placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir so as to cover the opening of the secondary reservoir in order to retain the carrier material/packing material/separation medium contained in the chip channel and thus covers at least a part of the bottom of the secondary reservoir [see rejection of claim 15 above, Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 and Fig. 1a-1b of Weber; Fig. 3a and 3c of Sugiyama; Para. 0078-0079, 0240, 0245 and Fig. 2a and 2b of Oishi]) and
The limitation “allows gas flow” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Modified Sugiyama teaches the above flat member/membrane that is specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above (Modified Sugiyama teaches the membrane/flat member is a liquid-permeable porous film, the membrane having a pore size corresponding to the particle size of the packing material packed into the column/channel 16 in order to retain the packing material 18/separation medium, such as beads, within the column/channel 16 [Para. 0046-0047 of Weber]. Modified Sugiyama also teaches an ion exchanger which fills the channel and the shape of the ion exchanger is desirably a perfect sphere “bead” and the size of the ion exchanger is desirably 1 micron [see rejection of claim 15 above and Paras. 0091-0093, 0078-0079 of Oishi]. Thus, modified Sugiyama yields a membrane with a pore size of 1 micron in order to retain the packing material/ion exchanger within the channel. A membrane with a 1 micron pore size inherently allows gas to pass through as gas molecules, such as oxygen or nitrogen, are smaller than liquid molecules, and this is further evidenced by Hengko et al. which shows a 1 micron pore size in a membrane allows gas to pass through (see e.g., Table 1 on page 2; Page 4, entire section of Gas filtration: Precision for Purity).
Regarding claim 27, the analytical tool according to claim 25, the limitation “wherein the analytical tool is configured as a disposable tool” is a functional recitation. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does [MPEP 2114(II)]. A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, Sugiyama teaches the electrophoresis chip 2 that is made out of a substrate such as PDMS and glass that is used for electrophoresis and is configured to be disposed of as a disposable tool [Para. 0035, 0101. Fig. 3A-3C], therefore being specifically configured to perform the functional limitations above).
Regarding claim 28, the analytical tool according to claim 25, wherein the flat member is partially liftably placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir (As outlined in the rejection of claim 25 above, Modified Sugiyama yields the flat member/membrane is partly fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir such that the flat member/membrane deforms where the membrane is not fixed [corresponding to partially liftable], thus the flat member/membrane is placed on the bottom of the secondary reservoir in a partially liftable manner [see rejection of claim 25 above; Fig. 1, Para. 0024, and 0041-0042 of Liu]).
Regarding claim 29, an analytical system (Sugiyama teaches a micro total analysis system comprising a capillary electrophoresis analysis apparatus 1 and an electrophoresis chip 2 [together corresponding to an analytical system], [Fig. 2 and Para. 0007, 0085]) comprising:
the analytical tool set forth in claim 25 (Modified Sugiyama teaches the analytical tool [electrophoresis chip] as set forth in the rejection of claim 15 above [Para. 0085 and Fig. 2-3 of Sugiyama, see rejection of claim 15 above]); and
an analyzing unit into which the analytical tool is installed and configured to perform analysis by capillary electrophoresis in the capillary (Modified Sugiyama teaches the capillary electrophoresis analysis apparatus 1 [analyzing unit] into which the electrophoresis chip/analytical tool is installed and configured to perform analysis by capillary electrophoresis in the capillary channel for sample analysis 5x [capillary tube], [see e.g.., Fig. 2-3, Para. 0005-0006, 0097-0101 of Sugiyama, see rejection of claim 15 above]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 7-8, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered and all 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn.
Applicant’s Argument #1:
Applicant argues on page 7 that pending claim 15, on which all other rejected claims depend, recites "the flat member being partly fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir without being fixed to the bottom of the secondary reservoir along the entire outer periphery of the flat member, and being configured to contact the sample, and to allow the sample in the connection channel to enter the secondary reservoir." The cited references do not teach or suggest these features.
Examiner’s Response #1:
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined above, Modified Sugiyama inherently meets this limitation as the opening in the secondary reservoir of Sugiyama is not in the center of the reservoir, but in an outer peripheral area. Therefore, Modified Sugiyama as modified by Weber to provide a liquid-permeable porous flat member/membrane that terminates the ends of the chip channel is inherently only partially fixed along its outer periphery and not fixed in the peripheral region where the opening is [see annotated Fig. 3A and 3B of Sugiyama above, see rejection above and Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 and Fig. 1a-1b of Weber; Fig. 3a and 3c of Sugiyama].
In response to applicant's argument that the flat member being configured to contact the sample, and to allow the sample in the connection channel to enter the secondary reservoir, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The arguments are unpersuasive because Modified Sugiyama teaches all structural limitations as presently claimed device and thus anticipate the claims or render the claims obvious in view of other cited references. The distinctions as argued by applicant are for intended use, or as functional limitations, which do not add patentable weight to the presently claimed device.
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s Argument #2:
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that the Examiner alleges that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the ends of the connection channel of Sugiyama to provide a flat member formed of a liquid-permeable porous material having a pore size corresponding to the particle size of the separation medium packed in the channel, relying on Weber for the proposition that such a structure would be beneficial for retaining carrier material, packing material, or separation medium within a chip channel. Weber and therefore the alleged combination including Weber, however, requires that the liquid-permeable membrane disclosed therein be fixed along the entire perimeter of the capillary. That is, Weber merely teaches retention of packing material within a channel and does not teach or suggest a flat member that is partially fixed to a reservoir bottom in the specific manner recited in claim 15, nor one that functions to both contact the sample and permit controlled sample entry into a secondary reservoir. Thus, amended claim 15 and its dependent claims are patentable over the cited references.
Examiner’s Response #2:
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the rejection. Modified Sugiyama as modified by Weber yields providing a flat member, which is a liquid-permeable porous material that terminates the ends of the connection channel 5y. As outlined above, Modified Sugiyama inherently meets this limitation as the opening in the secondary reservoir of Sugiyama is not in the center of the reservoir, but in an outer peripheral area. Therefore, Modified Sugiyama as modified by Weber to provide a liquid-permeable porous flat member/membrane that terminates the ends of the chip channel is inherently only partially fixed along its outer periphery and not fixed in the peripheral region where the opening is [see annotated Fig. 3A and 3B of Sugiyama above, see rejection above and Para. 0023, 0021, 0031, 0046-0047 and Fig. 1a-1b of Weber; Fig. 3a and 3c of Sugiyama].
In response to applicant's argument that the flat member being configured to contact the sample, and permit controlled sample entry into a secondary reservoir, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The arguments are unpersuasive because Modified Sugiyama teaches all structural limitations as presently claimed device and thus anticipate the claims or render the claims obvious in view of other cited references. The distinctions as argued by applicant are for intended use, or as functional limitations, which do not add patentable weight to the presently claimed device.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., permit controlled sample entry into a secondary reservoir) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Based on the above response #1-2, the amended claim 15 is still unpatentable over the prior art of the record.
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 SOMMER OSMAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/S.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights