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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 7/15/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 8, and 16-18 have been amended, claims 2-3 have been canceled, and claims 21-22 are added. Thus, claims 1, 4-22 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding the independent claims on page 7-9:
Applicant argues that the prior art relied upon in the preceding office action does not teach the following limitations of the presently amended claims:
“a cylindrical base body (2) having a proximal end, an opposite distal end, and a sidewall spanning between the proximal and opposite ends that defines an opening (2b)… a lip (5a) disposed within the base body (2) proximate to the proximal end of the base body (2) and extending inwardly from the sidewall of the base body (2) toward a central axis of the opening (2b) and around a periphery of the opening (2b) so as to partially overlap the receptacle (4) and a notch (5b) in the lip (5a) arranged so as to prevent removal of the stopcock (A) placed in the receptacle (4)”
See examiner's rejection as necessitated by the amendment, below, which provides an improved interpretation of the prior art of record delineating what aspects of the prior art of record are considered to read on the newly amended aspects of the independent claims.
Examiner notes that the present amendments appear to be directed toward the structures which contribute to the claimed stopcock being retained in the claimed receptacle. Examiner further notes that certain disclosed structural and functional relationships pertaining to the bore E and protrusion 4B, particularly the disposal of the bore E within both the handle B and the valve casing F of the stopcock and protrusion 4b performing such functions as guiding/centering the stopcock during insertion, and prohibiting a tilting movement of the stopcock in the receptacle in conjunction with the form-locking engagement of the handle with the lip 5a, as well as fully immobilizing the handle when the stopcock is received in the receptacle in conjunction with the lip which are disclosed in page 8 line 22 to page 9 line 2 of applicant’s disclosure, could distinguish the independent claims from the prior art of record if the claims incorporated the subject matter of claim 19 and were refined to comprise a critical amount of the disclosed structural and functional features referenced above. Examiner does note that such amendments incorporating subject matter which is not presently claimed would likely require further search and consideration before a determination of allowable subject matter can be made.
Regarding applicant’s argument regarding dependent claims on page 9-10:
Applicant argues that their preceding arguments render the independent claims allowable, and consequently likewise the dependent claims are allowable.
See examiner's rejection as necessitated by the amendment, below, detailing the prior art which discloses/teaches the limitations of the dependent claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more exchangeable elements” referred to in claim 21 & page 6 line 23-27, as well as the “ring element” referred to in claim 22, page 8 line 15-20, & page 10 line 10-23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
Group I, claim(s) 1 & 3-20, drawn to a holding device for automated stopcock actuation comprising a cylindrical base body, a driver, a receptacle, and a first fixation member comprising a lip and notch.
Group II, claim(s) 21, drawn to a holding device for automated stopcock actuation comprising a base body, a driver coupled to one or more exchangeable elements each having a receptacle, and a first fixation member comprising a lip and notch.
Group III, claim(s) 22, drawn to a holding device for automated stopcock actuation comprising a base body, a driver, a receptacle, a first fixation member comprising a lip and notch, and a second fixation member comprising one or mor slots and a rotatable ring element having one or more notches.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
There is lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a holding device for automated stopcock actuation comprising a base body, a driver, a receptacle, and a first fixation member comprising a lip and notch, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 5584671 A, referred to as Schweitzer.
Regarding the shared technical feature disclosed by Schweitzer,
A holding device for automated stopcock actuation, comprising:
(valve actuation unit 14; fig 1-2)
a base body ;
(fig 2+4 of Schweitzer demonstrates that the disc-shaped valve interface 45, the claimed base body;)
and a driver rotatably received at the base body;
(chuck 33 rotates relative to interface 45 and is biased so as to rest against surface 46 of interface 45; fig 1-2; Schweitzer's figure 2, in view of examiner's fig 1, see examiner’s rejection below for examiner’s figure 1, demonstrates chuck 33's receival at the proximal end of interface 45)
a receptacle for removably receiving at least a part of a stopcock and configured such that the driver can engage with and actuate a handle of the stopcock received in the receptacle upon rotation of the driver ,
(col 4 line 66 to col 5 line 19; the claimed receptacle is considered the opening delineated in examiner's figure 1, valve opening 30, cylindrical recess 64, stubs 65, and chuck face 38 as handle 22 is received through via the delineated opening toward opening 30 and into recess 64 to mate with stubs 65 and become fixed in chuck face 38; fig 4+6)
and a first fixation member that is configured to allow selective fixation of the stopcock in the receptacle, wherein the first fixation member is configured to allow placement of the stopcock into the receptacle in a defined rotation position of the driver and prevent removal of the stopcock from the receptacle upon a relative movement between the driver and the base body, and wherein the first fixation member comprises a lip so as to partially overlap the receptacle and a notch in the lip arranged so as to prevent removal of the stopcock placed in the receptacle over a defined rotation range of the driver and allow removal/placement of the stopcock at a defined rotation position where the notch is aligned with the receptacle .
(the claimed first fixation member is considered to comprise the lip and notch delineated in examiner's figure 1, as well as the structures considered to comprise the receptacle -noted above- as these structures of Schweitzer cooperate to prevent attachment/removal of valve 19 only when it is its closed position, see col 4 line 22-54 of Schweitzer, thus preventing removal over the range of rotation of valve handle 22 when it is not in the closed position)
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Newly submitted claims 21-22 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Examiner notes above that there is a lack of unity a posteriori between the claim groups I, II, and III in view of the prior art of Schweitzer because even though the inventions of these groups require the same technical feature noted above, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Schweitzer.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits.
Accordingly, claims 21-22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-12, 14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5584671 A, henceforth written as Schweitzer.
Regarding claim 1, Schweitzer discloses:
A holding device for automated stopcock actuation, comprising:
(valve actuation unit 14; fig 1-2)
a cylindrical base body having a proximal end, an opposite distal end, and a sidewall spanning between the proximal and opposite ends that defines an opening;
(fig 2+4 of Schweitzer demonstrates that the disc-shaped valve interface 45, the claimed base body, is cylindrical in shape; see examiner's figure 1 which annotates Schweitzer's fig 4-6 and delineates the claimed proximal end, opposite distal end, and sidewall spanning the opposing ends which define an opening;)
and a driver rotatably received at proximal end of the base body ,
(chuck 33 rotates relative to interface 45 and is biased so as to rest against surface 46 of interface 45; fig 1-2; Schweitzer's figure 2, in view of examiner's fig 1, demonstrates chuck 33's receival at the proximal end of interface 45)
wherein the holding device has a receptacle for removably receiving at least a part of a stopcock
(col 4 line 66 to col 5 line 19; the claimed receptacle is considered the opening delineated in examiner's figure 1, valve opening 30, cylindrical recess 64, stubs 65, and chuck face 38 as handle 22 is received through via the delineated opening toward opening 30 and into recess 64 to mate with stubs 65 and become fixed in chuck face 38; fig 4+6)
and configured such that the driver can engage with and actuate a handle of the stopcock received in the receptacle upon rotation of the driver ,
(the delineated opening receives valve handle 22, such that handle 22 may translate through opening 30 and engage with handle positioning stubs 65 and thus indirectly engage with chuck 33 to actuate rotation of handle 22; fig 2; col 4 line 22 to col 5 line 19)
and a first fixation member that is configured to allow selective fixation of the stopcock in the receptacle, wherein the first fixation member is configured to allow placement of the stopcock into the receptacle in a defined rotation position of the driver and prevent removal of the stopcock from the receptacle upon a relative movement between the driver and the base body, and wherein the first fixation member comprises a lip disposed within the base body proximate to the proximal end of the base body and extending inwardly from the sidewall of the base body toward a central axis of the opening and around a periphery of the opening so as to partially overlap the receptacle and a notch in the lip arranged so as to prevent removal of the stopcock placed in the receptacle over a defined rotation range of the driver and allow removal/placement of the stopcock at a defined rotation position where the notch is aligned with the receptacle
(the claimed first fixation member is considered to comprise the lip and notch delineated in examiner's figure 1, as well as the structures considered to comprise the receptacle -noted above- as these structures of Schweitzer cooperate to prevent attachment/removal of valve 19 only when it is its closed position, see col 4 line 22-54 of Schweitzer, thus preventing removal over the range of rotation of valve handle 22 when it is not in the closed position)
PNG
media_image1.png
695
1156
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's figure 1 aligning and annotating the perspectives of interface 45 provided in Schweitzer's figures 4-6. Examiner has provided dotted lines across the figures to assist in the viewing the disposition/orientation of certain structural elements relative to eachother. Schweitzer’s figure 5, placed on the left side of examiner’s figure 1, is described as a side view of Schweitzer’s figure 4 and is understood as examiner as illustrating the left side of Schweitzer’s interface 45 as illustrated in Schweitzer’s figure 4. Schweitzer’s figure 6, placed on the right side of examiner’s figure 1, is described as a cross-sectional view of interface 45 taken along the line V—V in figure 4, however Schweitzer’s published reference appears silent regarding the exact position/orientation of this line V—V , it is examiner’s interpretation of Schweitzer’s figures that this cross section is taken at a mid-point between the left and right sides of interface 45 as illustrated in figure 4.
Regarding claim 4, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 1, wherein the receptacle has a protrusion configured to engage with a part of the stopcock.
(col 5 line 5-20; handle positioning stubs 65 engage the sides of handle 22 to force handle 22 to rotate in response to rotation of chuck 33; fig 2)
Regarding claim 5, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 1, wherein the holding device has one or more second fixation members respectively configured to releasably hold a tubing section leading to a port of the stopcock .
(Examiner's figure 2, annotating Schweitzer's figure 4 delineates the claimed one or more second fixation members and the manner that they configured in the claimed manner)
PNG
media_image2.png
681
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s figure 2, annotating Schweitzer’s figure 4.
Regarding claim 6, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 5, wherein plural second fixation members are distributed about a circumference of the holding device .
(see examiner's figure 2 which demonstrates the distribution of the second fixation members about a circumference of the holding device)
Regarding claim 7, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 5, wherein at least one of the second fixation members is configured to allow a releasable form-locking engagement with the tubing section .
(col 4 line 22-54; the second fixation members, the noted slot and recess 29, has walls and a shape compatible to hold outlet tube 21 and inlet tubes 17 & 18 respectively, therein form locking engagement, such that tubes 17 18 & 21 may be detached, or released, for cleaning; examiner's figure 2)
Regarding claim 8, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 7, wherein the at least one of the second fixation members is respectively formed by a slot formed in the base body and configured to hold the tubing section leading to the port of the stopcock .
(col 4 line 22-54; the recess 29 and the noted slot of Schweitzer, can both be considered a slot formed in valve interface 45 which hold tubes 17 18 & 21, all of which are demonstrated in Schweitzer's figure 1 as leading to a port of valve 19; examiner's figure 2)
Regarding claim 9, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 1, further comprising a biasing element configured to bias the stopcock placed in the receptacle into engagement with the first fixation member .
(the claimed biasing element is considered spring 37 which is considered configured in the claimed manner in the way that upon valve 19 being received in chuck 33 the spring 37 biases valve handle 22 into the proximal end of structures of the claimed first fixation member; see col 6 line 65-67 and fig 2a-c)
Regarding claim 10, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 1, wherein the driver is configured to be coupled to an external rotary actuator .
(col 5 line 5-19; stepper motor 36 is coupled to chuck 33 in the manner by which actuation of motor 36 results in rotation of chuck 33; fig 2 demonstrates the how motor 36 is considered external to chuck 33 in the manner by which motor 36 is not disposed within chuck 33)
Regarding claim 11, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 1 comprising a sensor device for detecting a rotation position and/or presence of the stopcock in the receptacle of the holding device .
(col 9 line 56 to col 11 line 14; as each switch 41 48 49 send a signal in response to a position of control flange 39, and thus a position/presence of valve handle 22, a rotation position/presence of handle 22 may be determined by the microprocessor of pump 12)
Regarding claim 12, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 1, wherein the base body is configured to be removably attached to an adjacent base body of another holding device to form an array.
(the claimed adjacent base body can be considered the recess in the pumping unit housing 15 which secures the outlet end of tube 20, see col 3 line 62 to col 4 line 7, and the claimed another holding device may be considered the pump unit housing 15 as it holds other elements such as tube 20; col 4 line 26-29 notes that the base body of claim 1, interface 45 is detachable from housing 28, which is attached to housing 15, thus interface 45 is indirectly attached to the recess of housing 15 for holding tube 20, and can be considered to form an array)
Regarding claim 14, Schweitzer discloses:
An apparatus for automated stopcock actuation, comprising:
(system 10; fig 1)
one or more holding device/devices as defined in claim 1,
(actuation unit 14; fig 1)
and one or more rotary actuators for engaging with the driver of each of the one or more the holding devices and configured to drive the driver of each of the one or more the holding device for rotation.
(stepper motor 36 is coupled to chuck 33 for rotating chuck 33; fig 2)
Regarding claim 16, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 1, wherein the relative movement is rotation.
(col 4 line 22-65; handle 22 is prohibited from removal when it is in any rotational position except its closed position)
Regarding claim 17, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 1, wherein lip is disposed on the base body.
(see examiner's figure 1 demonstrate the disposal of the delineated lip on interface 45)
Regarding claim 18, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 1, wherein the lip at least partially overlaps a part of the receptacle where the handle of the stopcock is placed.
(see examiner's figure 1 and Schweitzer's fig 2 demonstrate the overlap of the claimed lip with the recess 64)
Regarding claim 19, Schweitzer discloses:
The holding device according to claim 4, wherein the protrusion is a pin configured to be inserted into a bore concentric with a rotational axis of the handle of the stopcock.
(each stub 65 may be considered a pin, and are demonstrated in fig 2 as being inserted into cylindrical recess 64, therein the claimed bore, which is concentric with a rotation axis of the handle 22 of valve 19)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweitzer as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15,
Schweitzer discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above, including the following limitations of the present claim:
The apparatus for automated stopcock actuation according to claim 14, wherein the apparatus is configured to allow -- attachment of the holding device/devices.
However, Schweitzer is silent regarding:
the apparatus is configured to allow releasable attachment of the holding device/devices
However, MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) provides that a modification of the invention involving making two elements separable, where it is considered desirable for any reason to disconnect the elements, would only require routine skill in the art and merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. Examiner notes that the valve actuation unit 14 is at some point attachable to the housing 15 of the pumping unit 13, see col 1 line 61-66 of Schweitzer.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to allow the actuation unit 14 to be released from the housing 15 of pump unit 13, after being initially attached, in order to advantageously arrive at an invention which enables re-use/replacement of either the unit 14 or unit 13 relative to one another, improving the longevity of use of a component of the invention, see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweitzer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2010039662 A2, henceforth written as Fago.
Regarding Claim 13,
Schweitzer discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above. However, Schweitzer is silent regarding:
The holding device according to claim 1, wherein the base body comprises plural receptacles and associated independent drivers arranged in an array.
However, Fago teaches a medical tube coupler:
wherein the base body comprises plural receptacles and associated independent drivers arranged in an array.
(Paragraph 85; each stopcock actuator 132 on manifold 100 is associated with a different stopcock 122a-c on valve cassette 102 for independent actuation to control the delivery of a multitude of fluids; fig 5-7)
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement Fago’s teachings of controlling each valve on a multi-valve cassette with independently actuatable rotators to the Schweitzer’s disclosure of a singular valve actuated by a singular rotator, such that Schweitzer’s interface 45 may receive multiple valves 19 such that a same number of chucks may independently rotate each valve thus resembling the teachings of Fago, in order to advantageously arrive at an invention which can control the distribution a multitude of fluids critical for life saving therapeutic treatment to be administered.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweitzer as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 7614123 B2, henceforth written as Schweikert.
Regarding Claim 20,
Schweitzer discloses all of the elements of the current invention which the present claim is dependent upon, as described above. However, Schweitzer is silent regarding:
The holding device according to claim 7, wherein the releasable form-locking engagement is a snap fit engagement.
However, Schweikert teaches a medical tube coupler:
wherein the releasable form-locking engagement is a snap fit engagement.
(col 5 line 5-33 and 53-63; openings 140 170 have flexible members, tangs 126 136 and sides 154 164, which may be biased laterally for entry/removal, and consequent stabilizing, of a line 230, therein snap fit engagement; fig 1-6)
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the snap fit engagement of a holder and medical tube teachings of Schweikert to the second fixation member disclosed by Schweitzer, in order to arrive at another art recognized equivalent means for securing a medical tube relative to a valve, see MPEP 2144.06 and col 5 line 5-33 and 53-63 of Schweikert.
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 FORREST DIPERT whose telephone number is (703)756-1704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm eastern.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/FORREST B DIPERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights