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
The previous Non-Final Office action dated 03/26/2026 is withdrawn. The amendments to claims 1, 8, and 9 and the addition of claim 13-15 in the response filed on 01/27/2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application
Claims 13-15 are added.
Claims 1-15 are examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-6, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-15 has been withdrawn.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been received.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. -Publication No. 2019/0090723 to Tanaka et al. (hereinafter “Tanaka”) and in view of JP 2016187535 A to Yamabe et al. (hereinafter “Yamabe”) and U.S. Publication No. 2020/0069302 to Milbocker et al. (hereinafter “Milbocker”).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses an endoscope comprising: an insertion portion (2, Fig. 1, [0033]- The insertion part 2 has a distal end, a proximal end and a longitudinal axis, and is constituted of a flexible part 5, a bending part 6, and a distal end part 7) in which a cleaning liquid is ejected from a nozzle (28, Fig. 8, [0039]- The fluid jetting nozzle 28 has a jetting nozzle 29, which is an opening that jets a fluid, disposed toward the observation window 30 and jets a cleaning liquid or gas to a surface 30S of the observation window 30 and a peripheral part thereof); a convex observation optical system provided at a distal end of the insertion portion (30, 30S, Fig. 2, [0047]- The surface 30S of the observation window 30 can be, for example, a convex surface); and an unevenly-shaped distalmost end surface surrounding the observation optical system (distal end surface of 7, Fig. 2, [0044]- the distal end surface of the distal end part 7 is constituted of the first surface 20 substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the insertion part 2, and a second surface 23 formed in the projecting part 22 projecting from the first surface 20 to the front side), wherein: the distalmost end surface is an inclined surface extending from an edge of the insertion portion to an edge of the observation optical system (see inclined surface labeled in Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 which goes from an edge of 40 to an edge of 30), and a curve of the distal end extending from an edge of the insertion portion to a center of the convex observation optical system is an uninterrupted, continuous curve (see curve labeled in Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 below which goes from an edge of 40 to a center of 30; the examiner notes that a continuous curve has no breaks, jumps or holes).
[AltContent: textbox (curve)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (Inclined surface)]
PNG
media_image1.png
591
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tanaka fails to expressly teach a distalmost end surface having exposed randomly-formed elements thereon.
However Yamabe teaches an endoscope (Yamabe: 100, Fig. 1, [0017]) comprising: an insertion portion in which a cleaning liquid is ejected from a nozzle (Yamabe: 107, Fig. 2, [0073]); a observation optical system provided at a distal end of the insertion portion (Yamabe: 105); and an unevenly-shaped distalmost end surface surrounding the observation optical system (Yamabe: 10, Fig. 1, [0014]) and having exposed formed elements thereon (Yamabe: 90, Fig. 6, [0017], [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distalmost end surface of Tanaka to utilize exposed randomly-formed elements thereon, as taught by Yamabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of improving the hydrophilicity on the surface, improving the water repellency on the surface, improving the lipophilicity on the surface and for suppressing light reflection ([0021] of Yamabe).
Tanaka, in view of Yamabe, fails to expressly teach randomly-formed elements.
However, Milbocker teaches of an analogous device including a surface (Milbocker: 400, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0047]) having exposed randomly-formed elements thereon (Milbocker: 410, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0047]- a random arrangement of structures within a specific scale possesses a higher fractal dimension than one in which the structure is mathematically described at all points on a surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe, so that the elements are randomly formed, as taught by Milbocker. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing greater utility when interacting with a natural surface ([0047] of Milbocker).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, Tanaka in view of Yamabe and Milbocker fails to expressly teach wherein a plurality of recesses are provided on the distalmost end surface.
However, Yamabe further teaches wherein a plurality of recesses are provided on the distalmost end surface (Yamabe: 82, Fig. 6, [0020], [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tanaka in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, to utilize a plurality of recesses provided on the distalmost end surface, as taught by Yamabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of improving the hydrophilicity on the surface, improving the water repellency on the surface, improving the lipophilicity on the surface and for suppressing light reflection ([0021] of Yamabe).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, but Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, fails to expressly teach wherein a plurality of protrusions are provided on the distalmost end surface.
However, Yamabe further teaches wherein a plurality of protrusions are provided on the distalmost end surface (Yamabe: 81, Fig. 6, [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distalmost end surface of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, teaches to utilize a plurality of protrusions, as taught by Yamabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of improving the hydrophilicity on the surface, improving the water repellency on the surface, improving the lipophilicity on the surface and for suppressing light reflection ([0021] of Yamabe).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, teaches the endoscope according to claim 1.
Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, fails to expressly teach the wherein the uneven shape forms a groove.
However, Yamabe further teaches wherein the uneven shape forms a groove (Yamabe: 82, Fig. 6, [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, to utilize a groove, as taught by Yamabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of improving the hydrophilicity on the surface, improving the water repellency on the surface, improving the lipophilicity on the surface, and suppressing light reflection ([0021] of Yamabe).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, teaches the endoscope according to claim 4.
Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, fails to expressly teach wherein the groove extends radially from the observation optical system.
However, Yamabe further teaches wherein the groove extends radially from the observation optical system (Yamabe: 82, Fig. 6, [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, so that the groove extends radially from the observation optical system, as taught by Yamabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of improving the hydrophilicity on the surface, improving the water repellency on the surface, improving the lipophilicity on the surface, and suppressing light reflection ([0021] of Yamabe).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, teaches the endoscope according to claim 4, and Tanaka further discloses wherein a suction hole for sucking remaining liquid is formed on the distalmost end surface (Tanaka: 26, Fig. 1, [0038]).
Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, fails to expressly teach the groove extends from the observation optical system toward the suction hole.
However, Yamabe further teaches and the groove (82) extends from the observation optical system (105) toward the suction hole (120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, so that the groove extends from the observation optical system toward the suction hole, as taught by Yamabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of improving the hydrophilicity on the surface, improving the water repellency on the surface, improving the lipophilicity on the surface, and suppressing light reflection ([0021] of Yamabe).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, teaches the endoscope according to claim 3.
Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, fails to expressly wherein each of the protrusions has a dot shape.
However, Yamabe further teaches wherein each of the protrusions has a dot shape (Yamabe: 81, Fig. 5, [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, so that each of the protrusions has a dot shape, as taught by Yamabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of improving the hydrophilicity on the surface, improving the water repellency on the surface, improving the lipophilicity on the surface, and suppressing light reflection ([0021] of Yamabe).
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka discloses a method for manufacturing an endoscope that includes a convex observation optical system (30, 30S, Fig. 2, [0047]- The surface 30S of the observation window 30 can be, for example, a convex surface) provided at a distal end of an insertion portion (2, Fig. 1, [0033]- The insertion part 2 has a distal end, a proximal end and a longitudinal axis, and is constituted of a flexible part 5, a bending part 6, and a distal end part 7) and in which a cleaning liquid is ejected from a nozzle (28, Fig. 8, [0039]- The fluid jetting nozzle 28 has a jetting nozzle 29, which is an opening that jets a fluid, disposed toward the observation window 30 and jets a cleaning liquid or gas to a surface 30S of the observation window 30 and a peripheral part thereof, and providing an inclined surface extending from an edge of the insertion portion to an edge of the observation optical system (see inclined surface labeled in Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 which goes from an edge of 40 to an edge of 30), wherein a curve of the distal end extending from an edge of the insertion portion to a center of the convex observation optical system is an uninterrupted, continuous curve (see curve labeled in Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 below which goes from an edge of 40 to a center of 30; the examiner notes that a continuous curve has no breaks, jumps or holes).
Tanaka fails to expressly teach the method comprising performing unevenness processing on a distalmost end surface surrounding the observation optical system to randomly form exposed elements thereon.
However, Yamabe teaches of an analogous method including performing unevenness processing on a distalmost end surface (Yamabe: [0029]- [0039]) surrounding the observation optical system to form elements thereon (Yamabe: Fig. 4-Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe, to include performing unevenness processing on a distalmost end surface surrounding the observation optical system to form exposed elements thereon, as taught by Yamabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of improving the hydrophilicity on the surface, improving the water repellency on the surface, improving the lipophilicity on the surface, and suppressing light reflection ([0021] of Yamabe).
Tanaka, in view of Yamabe, fails to expressly teach randomly formed exposed elements.
However, Milbocker teaches of an analogous method including a surface (Milbocker: 400, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0047]) having exposed randomly-formed elements thereon (Milbocker: 410, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0047]- a random arrangement of structures within a specific scale possesses a higher fractal dimension than one in which the structure is mathematically described at all points on a surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe, so that the elements are randomly formed, as taught by Milbocker. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing greater utility when interacting with a natural surface ([0047] of Milbocker).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka discloses a method for manufacturing an endoscope that includes a convex observation optical system (30, 30S, Fig. 2, [0047]- The surface 30S of the observation window 30 can be, for example, a convex surface) provided at a distal end of an insertion portion (2, Fig. 1, [0033]- The insertion part 2 has a distal end, a proximal end and a longitudinal axis, and is constituted of a flexible part 5, a bending part 6, and a distal end part 7) and in which a cleaning liquid is ejected from a nozzle (28, Fig. 8, [0039]- The fluid jetting nozzle 28 has a jetting nozzle 29, which is an opening that jets a fluid, disposed toward the observation window 30 and jets a cleaning liquid or gas to a surface 30S of the observation window 30 and a peripheral part thereof), such that the distal end surface has an uneven shape (distal end surface of 7, Fig. 2, [0044]- the distal end surface of the distal end part 7 is constituted of the first surface 20 substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the insertion part 2, and a second surface 23 formed in the projecting part 22 projecting from the first surface 20 to the front side), and providing an inclined surface extending from an edge of the insertion portion to an edge of the observation optical system (see inclined surface labeled in Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 which goes from an edge of 40 to an edge of 30), wherein a curve of the distal end extending from an edge of the insertion portion to a center of the convex observation optical system is an uninterrupted, continuous curve (see curve labeled in Examiner’s annotated Fig. 4 below which goes from an edge of 40 to a center of 30; the examiner notes that a continuous curve has no breaks, jumps or holes).
Tanaka fails to expressly teach the method comprising randomly forming exposed elements on a distalmost end surface surrounding the observation optical system by using a mold.
However, Yamabe teaches of an analogous method (Yamabe:100, Fig. 1, [0035]- [0036]) comprising forming exposed elements on a distalmost end surface surrounding the observation optical system by using a mold (Yamabe: [0036]- [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe, to include randomly forming exposed elements on a distalmost end surface surrounding the observation optical system by using a mold, as taught by Yamabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of improving the hydrophilicity on the surface, improving the water repellency on the surface, improving the lipophilicity on the surface, and suppressing light reflection ([0021] of Yamabe).
Tanaka, in view of Yamabe, fails to expressly teach randomly forming exposed elements.
However, Milbocker teaches of an analogous method including (Milbocker: 400, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0047]) randomly forming exposed elements (Milbocker: 410, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0047]- a random arrangement of structures within a specific scale possesses a higher fractal dimension than one in which the structure is mathematically described at all points on a surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe, so that the elements are randomly formed, as taught by Milbocker. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing greater utility when interacting with a natural surface ([0047] of Milbocker).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, but Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, fails to expressly wherein the randomly-formed elements are recesses.
However, Yamabe further teaches wherein the formed elements are recesses (Yamabe: 82, Fig. 6, [0020], [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tanaka in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, so that the formed elements are recesses, as taught by Yamabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of improving the hydrophilicity on the surface, improving the water repellency on the surface, improving the lipophilicity on the surface and for suppressing light reflection ([0021] of Yamabe).
Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker fails to expressly teach randomly-formed elements.
However, Milbocker teaches of an analogous device including a surface (Milbocker: 400, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0047]) having randomly-formed elements (Milbocker: 410, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0047]- a random arrangement of structures within a specific scale possesses a higher fractal dimension than one in which the structure is mathematically described at all points on a surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe, and Milbocker, so that the elements are randomly formed, as taught by Milbocker. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing greater utility when interacting with a natural surface ([0047] of Milbocker).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker teaches the endoscope according to claim 8, but Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, fails to expressly wherein the randomly-formed elements are recesses.
However, Yamabe further teaches wherein the formed elements are recesses (Yamabe: 82, Fig. 6, [0020], [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tanaka in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, so that the formed elements are recesses, as taught by Yamabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of improving the hydrophilicity on the surface, improving the water repellency on the surface, improving the lipophilicity on the surface and for suppressing light reflection ([0021] of Yamabe).
Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker fails to expressly teach randomly-formed elements.
However, Milbocker teaches of an analogous device including a surface (Milbocker: 400, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0047]) having randomly-formed elements (Milbocker: 410, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0047]- a random arrangement of structures within a specific scale possesses a higher fractal dimension than one in which the structure is mathematically described at all points on a surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe, and Milbocker, so that the elements are randomly formed, as taught by Milbocker. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing greater utility when interacting with a natural surface ([0047] of Milbocker).
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker teaches the endoscope according to claim 9, but Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, fails to expressly wherein the randomly-formed elements are recesses.
However, Yamabe further teaches wherein the formed elements are recesses (Yamabe: 82, Fig. 6, [0020], [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tanaka in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, so that the formed elements are recesses, as taught by Yamabe. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of improving the hydrophilicity on the surface, improving the water repellency on the surface, improving the lipophilicity on the surface and for suppressing light reflection ([0021] of Yamabe).
Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker fails to expressly teach randomly-formed elements.
However, Milbocker teaches of an analogous device including a surface (Milbocker: 400, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0047]) having randomly-formed elements (Milbocker: 410, Fig. 4, [0046]-[0047]- a random arrangement of structures within a specific scale possesses a higher fractal dimension than one in which the structure is mathematically described at all points on a surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Tanaka, in view of Yamabe, and Milbocker, so that the elements are randomly formed, as taught by Milbocker. It would have been advantageous to make the combination for the purpose of providing greater utility when interacting with a natural surface ([0047] of Milbocker).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, teaches the endoscope according to claim 1, but Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, fails to expressly state wherein a distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements is 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm.
However, the Examiner is of the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements is 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm, as claimed, since Yamabe already teaches the premise that the distance between the elements can be adjusted/selected accordingly ([0025]-[0033]), for instance, a larger distance is needed to more favorably suppress the reflection of light , in comparison to a shorter distance, and since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements is 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm since applicant has not disclosed that having the distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements be 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of a distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements being 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, teaches the endoscope according to claim 8, but Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, fails to expressly state wherein a distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements is 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm.
However, the Examiner is of the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements is 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm, as claimed, since Yamabe already teaches the premise that the distance between the elements can be adjusted/selected accordingly ([0025]-[0033]), for instance, a larger distance is needed to more favorably suppress the reflection of light , in comparison to a shorter distance, and since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements is 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm since applicant has not disclosed that having the distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements be 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of a distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements being 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, teaches the endoscope according to claim 9, but Tanaka, in view of Yamabe and Milbocker, fails to expressly state wherein a distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements is 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm.
However, the Examiner is of the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements is 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm, as claimed, since Yamabe already teaches the premise that the distance between the elements can be adjusted/selected accordingly ([0025]-[0033]), for instance, a larger distance is needed to more favorably suppress the reflection of light , in comparison to a shorter distance, and since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements is 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm since applicant has not disclosed that having the distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements be 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to the criticality of a distance between the exposed randomly-formed elements being 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTEN A. SHARPLESS whose telephone number is (571)272-2387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday 6:00 AM - 2:00 PM, and Friday 6:00 AM - 10:00 AM.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/C.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights