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 .
Remarks
This office action fully acknowledges Applicant’s response and amendments filed 06 November 2025.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 are pending.
Claims 2 and 8 are cancelled.
No claims are withdrawn.
No new claims are added.
Claim Interpretation
The test sheet of Claim 1 is being construed as a positive element of the body fluid tester of Claim 1 and not as a capability of the sheet insertion hole to receive a prospective test sheet.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2018/0057306 A), hereinafter “Kim” (as seen through the machine translation available on Google Patents), in view of Catt et al. (US PAT 6,235,241 B1), referred to hereinafter as “Catt”, and Naganuma et al. (US PAT 7,423,823 B2), hereinafter “Naganuma”, and as evidenced through Wilson (Wilson, Martin; "Eyepieces, Objectives and Optical Aberrations", Leica Microsystems Blog, August 28, 2017), hereinafter “Wilson”, and as further evidenced through Lachica (Edward Lachica, Keeping Life in Focus New Systems Prevent Z-axis Drift in Time Lapse Studies, Microscopy Today, Volume 14, Issue 4, 1 July 2006, Pages 42–46.), hereinafter “Lachica”.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a body fluid tester (“a body-fluid testing apparatus”) comprising:
a carrier 34 having a sheet insertion hole 12 into which a test sheet with body fluid received therein is inserted in a first direction; an outer case having a carrier hole formed in a front side thereof (“In the upper case 11a [the outer case], a seat seating portion 34 [the carrier] for inserting and supporting the sample portion 20 [the test sheet] is coupled to a case hole 14 [the carrier hole] for coupling the seat seating portion 34 [the carrier] is formed.” – Fig. 4 shows the case hole 14 extends more horizontally than vertically. – Additionally, the first horizontal direction of Kim is parallel to the long edge of the sample sheet 20 as seen through Fig. 5.),
the carrier hole which has a length in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction and into which the carrier is inserted (Fig. 5 shows the carrier hole 14 extends horizontally to form a rectangle to accommodate the carrier 34 The second horizontal direction extends perpendicular to the long dimension of sample unit 20 and parallel with the second longest dimension of sample unit 20, as seen through Fig. 4. Further, the claimed “intersection” of these directions appears to be drawn to an impossibility and is not afforded patentable weight: see the 35 USC 112b section above.),
the outer case having an opened side (Fig. 5 shows that the upper/outer case 11a has an open lower side to accommodate the inner frame 40 and lower case 11b.);
an inner case inserted through the opened of the outer case to be coupled thereto so as to be positioned at an inner surface of the outer case (Fig. 5 shows inner frame 40, the inner case, which is inserted into the outer case 11a. The inner case 40 is shown in Fig 5 as positioned at the inner surface of the outer case 11a; the inner case 40 is further shown in Fig. 4 as having complimentary shape to the outer case 11a such as to afford a tight fit when the elements are coupled as intended. Examiner further notes that the recitation “inserted upwards” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight.),
and having a case observation hole at a bottom side (Fig. 4 shows that lower case 11b has a case hole positioned next to a magnet 45.);
and a lens unit positioned on a side of an inner front end of the inner case while positioned between the carrier in which the test sheet is inserted and the case observation hole (Fig. 5 shows lens group 45 positioned between the carrier 34 and the observation hole of the lower case 11b.),
wherein the carrier is inserted into or separated from the carrier hole of the outer case (Fig. 5 shows carrier 34 is inserted through carrier hole 14. Fig. 4 shows the carrier 34 separated from the carrier hole 14. Examiner further notes that the recitation “is inserted into or separated from” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight.),
wherein the carrier 34 comprises:
a head part having a first thickness and exposed to a front of the outer case (Figs. 4 and 5 show the carrier 34 as having a head part exposed to the front of the outer case to prevent over-insertion of the carrier into the reader device.);
and a body part having a second thickness smaller than the first thickness, extending from the head part in the first direction (Figs. 4 and 5 show the carrier 34 as having a body part extending from the head part in the first direction, wherein the body part is of a smaller thickness than the head part.), as in Claim 1.
Further regarding Claim 1, Kim does not specifically teach the body fluid tester discussed above wherein the carrier comprises covering a part of the lens unit, and having a through hole opened in a third direction orthogonal to both the first and second directions so that the body fluid seated on the test sheet is exposed through the through hole, as in Claim 1.
However, Catt teaches a respective test strip-based body fluid testing apparatus wherein a porous lateral flow assay strip 704 is inserted into a carrier 700 (Fig. 7), and wherein the carrier 700 is inserted into a reader (Fig. 6 and col. 13, line 9). The carrier 700 comprises a through hole formed by apertures 710 and 711 positioned such that a beam of light from the light source 443 of the reader passes through the through hole, thereby passing through the test strip 704 positioned therebetween to obtain an absorbance/transmittance measurement that is detected by the optical sensing system 444 (col. 12, line 20). The carrier 700 is positioned as covering a lens group of the light source 443, thereby aligning the test strip with the focused radiation emitted from the light source 443 (col. 2, line 27).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the body fluid testing device of Kim to include a carrier element having a through hole for transmittance through a test strip positioned as covering a lens unit, such as suggested by Catt, so as to provide a sufficient protective structure for preventing damage to the test strip and reagents contained therein (col. 5, line 10) while providing a means for a reader to perform a measurement, and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Further regarding Claim 1, Kim does not specifically teach the body fluid tester discussed above wherein the lens unit comprises: an outer housing having a length in a vertical direction; and an inner housing positioned within the outer housing, having a length in the vertical direction, and having a plurality of lenses spaced apart from each other in the vertical direction, wherein the outer housing has a screw groove formed on an inner surface thereof, and the inner housing has a complementary screw groove formed on an outer surface thereof, the screw groove and the complementary screw groove being threadedly engaged such that rotation of the inner housing about a vertical axis causes axial translation of the inner housing relative to the outer housing, thereby adjusting a focal distance of the lens unit; and wherein the inner housing further includes an upwardly recessed adjustment groove formed in a lower cylindrical edge section of the inner housing, the adjustment groove being dimensioned to receive a pin or a needle to facilitate rotation of the inner housing for the focal distance adjustment, as in Claim 1.
However, Naganuma teaches a lens unit comprising: an outer housing 51 having a length in a vertical direction; and an inner housing 52/54 positioned within the outer housing 51, having a length in the vertical direction, and having a plurality of lenses spaced apart from each other in the vertical direction, wherein the outer housing 51 has a screw groove 51a formed on an inner surface thereof, and the inner housing has a complementary screw groove 52a formed on an outer surface thereof, the screw groove 51a and the complementary screw groove 52a being threadedly engaged such that rotation of the inner housing 52/54 about a vertical axis causes axial translation of the inner housing 52/54 relative to the outer housing 51 (Fig. 5 and col. 14, line 32: “A stationary cylinder 51 accommodates the entire lens barrel unit; a female helicoid 51 a formed on the stationary cylinder 51 is connected with a spur gear helicoid 52 a of a cam cylinder 52, whereby the cam cylinder 52 is held so as to be capable of advancing and retreating in the optical axis direction with respect to the stationary cylinder 51 while rotating around the optical axis.”), thereby adjusting a focal distance of the lens unit (col. 15, line 1); and wherein the inner housing 52/54 further includes an upwardly recessed adjustment groove 54b (“advancement groove”) formed in a lower cylindrical edge section of the inner housing 52/54 (Fig. 5), the adjustment groove 54b being dimensioned to receive a pin or a needle 56a to facilitate rotation of the inner housing 52/54 for the focal distance adjustment (col. 14, line 52). With respect to the advantages of this arrangement, while Kim states that the sample for analysis is placed “at the lens focal length of the lens group 35”, one skilled in the art would recognize that devices comprising lenses are always subject to focal drift over time due to factors such as thermal drift, wear on mechanical parts, and vibrations, as evidenced through Lachica (Page 42). Thus, one skilled in the art would, as a matter of foresight based on available knowledge in the art, to provide an adjustable arrangement such as in Naganuma so as to correct for such focal drift, in addition to the specific advantages of the specific arrangement of Naganuma discussed in the Summary of Invention section.
Further, it is noted that while Naganuma teaches only one focusing lens within the inner housing, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide a plurality of lenses within the inner housing so as to achieve greater magnification of the sample, or to improve image resolution wherein it is known in the art that using multiple low magnification lenses results in less image distortion that a single high magnification lens due to separation of light components which refract through the lens at different degrees, thereby converging at separate focal points when using a high powered lens, as evidenced through Wilson.
Additionally, the terms “vertical direction” and “vertical movement” are relative terms not specifically defined by the claim. As such, the relative movement of the inner housing 60/78/80 and the outer housing 76 of Naganuma is interpreted herein as being in a vertical direction.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the body fluid testing device of Kim wherein the lens unit comprises: an outer housing having a length in a vertical direction; and an inner housing positioned within the outer housing, having a length in the vertical direction, and having a plurality of lenses spaced apart from each other in the vertical direction, wherein the outer housing has a screw groove formed on an inner surface thereof, and the inner housing has a complementary screw groove formed on an outer surface thereof, the screw groove and the complementary screw groove being threadedly engaged such that rotation of the inner housing about a vertical axis causes axial translation of the inner housing relative to the outer housing, thereby adjusting a focal distance of the lens unit; and wherein the inner housing further includes an upwardly recessed adjustment groove formed in a lower cylindrical edge section of the inner housing, the adjustment groove being dimensioned to receive a pin or a needle to facilitate rotation of the inner housing for the focal distance adjustment, such as suggested by Naganuma, so as to provide an adjustable focal length allowing for calibration of the depth of field relative to the sample being measured, as advantageously evidenced through Lachica, thereby promoting measurements having higher accuracy and precision through focusing of the lenses to the sample to obtain a resolved image, spectrum, and/or optical measurement result; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 (wherein Claim 3 is interpreted as depending on Claim 1 for the purposes of examination herein, see the 35 USC 112 section above) as discussed above. Further, Kim teaches the body fluid tester discussed above wherein a maximum width of the head part in the second direction is greater than a minimum width of an opening hole of the outer case in the second direction (Fig. 3 shows the testing device 10 wherein the carrier 34 is installed; compare to Fig. 4 which shows the carrier 34 separated from the device’s upper case 11a. As fig. 3 shows the head part protruding from and laying flush with the device, the head part must be of greater width than the opening hole 14. A design choice that permits a handhold for removing the carrier after the testing process at hand is complete.), as in Claim 3.
Examiner further notes that the present recitation to “a second horizontal direction” is not particularly limiting herein as the claim does not clearly establish the relative geometry of the elements which are described by the horizontal direction so as to set forth the desired arrangement/orientation; wherein the present recitation broadly provides for various arrangements/orientations to meet this.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Kim teaches a main body fixing part separable from a bottom of the inner case and having a recessed groove (Fig. 6 shows coupling means 1, the main body fixing part, having a recessed groove 3.),
wherein a fixing part observation hole is provided in a surface in contact with a case observation hole of the inner case in a bottom of the recessed groove (Fig. 6 shows clip hole 5 which aligns with and contacts the observation hole of the lower case 11b as shown in Fig. 4.),
and a magnetic body is provided in at least a portion of the remaining part of the bottom of the recessed groove (Fig. 6 shows magnet 4 in the bottom of the recessed groove 3.), as in Claim 12.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Catt, as applied to Claims 1, 3, and 12 above, and in further view of Padmanabhan et al. (US 2007/0172388 A1), referred to herein as “Padmanabhan.”
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 (wherein Claim 4 is interpreted as depending on Claim 1 for the purposes of examination herein, see the 35 USC 112 section above) as discussed above. Further, Kim/Catt does not teach the body part [of the carrier] comprising: a pair of upper protrusions provided at an upper side of the body part, protruding from the head of the carrier in the first direction, spaced apart from each other at a first interval, and having a first width; and a pair of protrusions provided at a side of the body part, protruding from the head part of the carrier in the first direction, spaced apart from each other at a second interval, and having a second width.
However, Padmanabhan teaches a portable sample analyzer system for performing chemical and/or biological analysis of a sample fluid ([0008]), wherein a cartridge 1100 (the carrier) holds a liquid sample for analysis. Further, Fig. 24 of Padmanabhan shows the cartridge 1100 having groove 1106 to which male member 1108 (the protrusions) of instrument 1102 is complimentary; arrow 1104 shows the path of insertion. Padmanabhan teaches the benefit of male member 1108 as adapted to only extend into the groove 1106 when the cartridge 1100 is inserted in the proper orientation relative to the instrument 1102. If the cartridge 1100 is inserted upside down, or likewise if the end 1112 of cartridge 1100 is inserted into the instrument, the groove 1106 and the male member 1108 will not line up, and the cartridge 1100 will be prevented from being fully inserted into the slot of the instrument ([0175]). Thus, cartridge can only be inserted into the instrument in the correct orientation, preventing user error.
While the instant Claim 4 teaches an upper pair and a lower pair of protrusions (male members) and the prior art describes only one protrusion, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Further, changes to the relative shape and spacing of multiple protrusions represents mere design choice given that such changes would not impact the function of ensuring insertion of the carrier only in the proper orientation. Mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
While the instant Claim 4 teaches the protrusions (male member) as being formed by the carrier (the cartridge), and the prior art teaches the male member formed by the analysis instrument instead of the cartridge, the device having the claimed relative arrangement of parts would not perform differently than the prior art device, absent evidence of criticality, non-obviousness, or unexpected results associated with the position of said protrusions/male members – see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the body fluid analyzer carrier taught by Kim/Catt with the male member and groove of the commensurate cartridge taught by Padmanabhan, so that the cartridge can only be inserted into the instrument in the correct orientation, preventing user error.
Examiner further notes that the present recitation to “the first horizontal direction” is not particularly limiting herein as the claim does not clearly establish the relative geometry of the elements which are described by the horizontal direction so as to set forth the desired arrangement/orientation; wherein the present recitation broadly provides for various arrangements/orientations to meet this.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Kim/Catt does not describe the body fluid testing device discussed above wherein a coupling protrusion is provided in an inner surface of the outer case, the coupling protrusion protruding downward to be inserted between the pair of the upper protrusions, and a pair of inner coupling holes is provided at a front upper end of the inner case, the inner coupling holes into which the pair of protrusions are to be inserted.
However, Padmanabhan teaches a portable sample analyzer system for performing chemical and/or biological analysis of a sample fluid ([0008]), wherein a cartridge 1100 (the carrier) holds a liquid sample for analysis. Further, Fig. 24 of Padmanabhan shows the cartridge 1100 having groove 1106 (the coupling holes) to which male member 1108 (the protrusions) of instrument 1102 is complimentary; arrow 1104 shows the path of insertion. Padmanabhan teaches the benefit of male member 1108 as adapted to only extend into the groove 1106 when the cartridge 1100 is inserted in the proper orientation relative to the instrument 1102. If the cartridge 1100 is inserted upside down, or likewise if the end 1112 of cartridge 1100 is inserted into the instrument, the groove 1106 and the male member 1108 will not line up, and the cartridge 1100 will be prevented from being fully inserted into the slot of the instrument ([0175]). Thus, cartridge can only be inserted into the instrument in the correct orientation, preventing user error.
While the instant Claim 5 teaches an upper pair and a lower pair of protrusions (male members) when the prior art describes only one protrusion, and the instant Claim 5 teaches a pair of coupling holes when the prior art describes only one coupling hole, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Further, changes to the relative shape and spacing of the multiple protrusions and/or coupling holes represents mere design choice given that such changes would not impact the function of ensuring insertion of the carrier only in the proper orientation. Mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
While the instant Claim 5 teaches the protrusions (male member) as being formed by the carrier (the cartridge) and the coupling holes (the groove) as being formed by the instrument, and the prior art teaches the male member formed by the analysis instrument instead of the cartridge and the groove as formed by the cartridge instead of the instrument, the device of Kim/Padmanabhan having the claimed relative arrangement of parts would not perform differently than the prior art device, absent evidence of criticality, non-obviousness, or unexpected results associated with the position of said protrusions/male members and said groove/coupling holes – see MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the body fluid analyzer carrier taught by Kim/Catt with the male member and groove of the commensurate cartridge taught by Padmanabhan, so that the cartridge can only be inserted into the instrument in the correct orientation, preventing user error.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above. Further, the claimed height difference between the head part and the body part at an upper and lower side of the carrier represents an obvious matter of design choice so as to provide a body part having a head part with a profile that is asymmetrical and complementary to a corresponding profile of the testing device, such that the carrier is insertable into the testing device in only one orientation, reducing user error.
The body fluid testing device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device taught by Kim, thus the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device – see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc. and MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Further, such a modification is seen as an obvious design choice for the reasons discussed above absent a showing of a criticality or unexpected results arising otherwise.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above. Further the claimed different intervals between the pair of upper protrusions vs the pair of lower protrusions represents an obvious matter of design choice. Changes to the relative intervals between the protrusions would not impact the desired function of ensuring insertion of the carrier only in the proper orientation, and thus it would have been obvious to optimize the interval between the pair of upper and pair of lower protrusions so as to provide a stable/secure locking engagement. Mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Catt, as applied to Claims 1, 3, and 12 above, in view of Phifer (US 2002/0076355 A1), referred to herein as “Phifer.”.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, while Kim/Catt teaches “a light source provided above the carrier within the outer case” (Kim Fig. 4 shows light source 52 above the carrier 34.), Kim/Catt does not teach a diffusing lens provided above the light source to diffuse light emitted from the light source.
However, Phifer teaches a system for observing specimens obtained from a biopsy wherein a diffusing lens is incorporated in its illumination system so that “the light is evenly distributed within the specimen container,” thus giving an even field of light against which the sample is sharply outlined.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the body fluid testing device taught by Kim/Catt with the diffusing lens taught by Phifer to provide an even field of light to sharply outline the fluid sample and reduce error associated with poor lighting of the sample.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Catt and Phifer, as applied to Claim 9 above, and in further view of Kim (KR 2017/0071277 A), referred to herein as “Kim3,” as seen through the machine translation available at Google Patents.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 9 as discussed above. Further, Kim/Phifer does not teach the body fluid tester discussed above comprising an upper light hole provided at an upper side of the outer case, the upper light hole through which the light emitted from the light source passes.
However, Kim3 teaches light inlet pipe 12 which opens at light hole 15 and is subsequently reflected by reflectors 14a and 14b before reaching a sample sheet 27. This assembly allows the light source 52 to illuminate the sample sheet 27 without being positioned in-line with the sample sheet 27 among other focusing/columnating/monochromating means, reducing device size and complexity.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the body fluid testing device taught by Kim/Phifer with the light hole taught by Kim3 so as to reduce the size and complexity of the device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Catt, as applied to Claims 1, 3, and 12 above, and in further view of Kim (KR 2018/0057308 A), referred to herein as “Kim2,” as seen through the machine translation available at Google Patents.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Kim/Catt does not teach the body fluid tester discussed above wherein the test sheet comprises a body fluid receiver, and the body fluid receiver is provided in a shape of a groove recessed from an upper side of the test sheet, or the body fluid receiver is provided by forming a partition wall at the upper surface of the test sheet.
However, Kim2 teaches a commensurate body fluid testing device where the body fluid receiver is provided in a shape of a groove recessed from an upper side of the test sheet (Fig. 1: sheet 21 sits in a recessed space – “…the sheet 21, which is recessed relative to the surface of the base 23…”). Kim2 further teaches that the recessed space is beneficial for receiving and holding a volume of liquid (“Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the deformation that receives the liquid by the wall is based on the present invention It can be easily realized.”).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the body fluid testing device taught by Kim/Catt with the sample holder of Kim2 to provide a recessed well for securably holding a volume of sample to be assayed.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments are on the grounds that the reference of Ng (relied upon by the previous correspondences for curing the deficiencies in Kim relating to focal length adjustment) does not teach or suggest the adjustment groove comprising threads creating an arrangement where rotation of the inner housing respective to the outer housing causes actuation of the housings along a common axis resulting in a change of focal length, as in Claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments against Ng are persuasive, wherein the threads discussed by Ng are utilized to connect modules of the device unrelated to the focal length adjustment assembly. However, Applicant’s arguments are moot as Ng is not relied upon herein the instant office action to teach any aspect to the claims, wherein the reference of Naganuma is instead relied upon for teaching the claimed arrangement of housings, lenses, and threads as in Claim 1, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Further, the reference of Lachica is utilized as evidence to the advantages of focal length adjustment in microscopy and other lens-based devices, motivating one skilled in the art to provide the arrangement of Naganuma to the device of Kim, given universal focal drift effects seen in even highly machined, precise apparatuses, caused by environmental factors such as changes in temperature and disruption to the lens arrangement by vibrations or general wear and tear.
Thus, Examiner respectfully sets forth the rejection of Claim 1 and dependents thereof under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over at least Kim in view of Catt and Naganuma, as evidenced through Wilson and Lachica, as discussed above in the body of the action and as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments specifying the use of an interlocking threaded arrangement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN JOSEPH KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jill Warden, can be reached at telephone number (703)756-5501. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798