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 remarks and amendments filed on 29 May 2026.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are pending.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
No claims are withdrawn.
No claims are newly added.
Claims 1 and 6 are amended.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claim 1 recites the amended recitation requiring the probe tip end at the first height position be “even with a bottom surface of the cleaning nozzle” wherein this language regarding the particular referencing of the first height position is not supported by and lacks antecedence in the specification.
Claim 1 further recites the amended recitation requiring the probe tip end at the second height position be “below the upper surface of the cleaning nozzle” wherein, similarly as above regarding the first height position, this language regarding the particular referencing of the second height position is not supported by and lacks antecedence in the specification.
Claim 1 further recites the amended recitation “wherein the flow of the cleaning water is configured to be outputted from the cleaning nozzle in a central portion of the cleaning nozzle inside of an upper surface and the bottom surface of the cleaning nozzle” wherein this particular language regarding the flow is not supported by and lacks antecedence in the specification.
Applicant is requested to cancel the above discussed unsupported language in the next official response.
The amendment filed 05/29/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “wherein the flow of the cleaning water is configured to be outputted from the cleaning nozzle in a central portion of the cleaning nozzle inside of an upper surface and the bottom surface of the cleaning nozzle”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
See further the 35 USC 112 section below.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a sample dispensing mechanism configured to move the probe” as in Claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Those structures provided as seen through pars.[0016,0017,0049,0060] and figs. 1,5A-B, 6 of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US2023/009785, and equivalents thereof.
Further, the recited “sample dispensing mechanism that includes the probe and is configured to move the probe” is construed as those structure found in the cited disclosure above, wherein it is also seen that the probe itself provides the inferred “dispensing” functionality as such probe is recited as “performs suction and discharge…” and wherein the “sample dispensing mechanism…configured to move the probe” is the movable element that affords the probe to perform suction/discharge at different locations.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “…which is even with a bottom surface of the cleaning nozzle” and “wherein the flow of the cleaning water is configured to be outputted from the cleaning nozzle in a central portion of the cleaning nozzle inside of an upper surface and the bottom surface of the cleaning nozzle” wherein this recitation is not supported by and lacks antecedence in the specification (See the Specification section above.), and further lacks particular support in the drawings given that the drawings are idealized and merely representative depictions of a prospective flow, and further because the recitation does not actually require that the centralized flow leave top and bottom gaps as represented through Fig. 3, nor that the alignment of an inset opening of the nozzle with respect to the probe tip is defined, further defining the respective first/second positions based more on respective flow than structural alignment supported by the disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the next official response.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Further regarding Claim 1, the claim requires the controller to discharge the first and second discharges of cleaning water only when the probe is at the first and second height positions. However, it remains unclear how the controller determines the probe to be in the proper height positions. Applicant has claimed two height positions which trigger respective processes, but Applicant has not provided a condition for the controller to recognize the first/second respective height position has been reached so as to start each respective process (first/second discharge of cleaning water) such as a detection event by a sensor detecting the probe at the first/second height position, or a step of the controller commanding the sample dispensing probe to move the probe to the first/second height position before starting the first/second discharge of cleaning water.
Does Applicant intend that the controller command to move to the first and second height positions respectively via the portion of the sample dispensing mechanism configured to move the probe with respect to sensor(s) that inform these particular places of interest? Does Applicant intend another means be present to confirm the height positions have been reached?
Therein, the “a first height position” and the “a second height position” are indefinitely defined given that the controller is not provided with a means for identifying/sensing and/or confirming that the particular first/second height has been met such that the selective action of starting the flow of cleaning water may be controllably initiated therewith.
The terms “top”, “bottom”, “upper”, “lower”, “above”, and “below” in Claim 1 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “top”, “bottom”, “upper”, “lower”, “above”, and “below” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant must provide sufficient structural relationships among elements in their different positions such that one of ordinary skill could unambiguously determine their positions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugimura et al. (US 2011/0293474 A1), referred to hereinafter as “Sugimura”.
Regarding Claim 1, Sugimura teaches an automatic analysis device 18 comprising:
a probe 16 that performs suction and discharge of a sample or a reagent (Fig. 2 and [0054]: “The sample probe 16 dispenses the sample in each dispensing cycle.”),
a cleaning nozzle 311c/d that discharges cleaning water toward the outside of the probe 16 (Figs. 7 and 8 show two nozzles 311c and 311d which direct washing/cleaning water toward the outside of the probe 16. -- [0075]: “Water supply holes 311 c, detergent supply holes 311 d, upper waste liquid holes 311 e, and a lower waste liquid hole 311 f are formed in the main body 311.”),
a sample dispensing mechanism 41a that includes the probe and is configured to move the probe (Fig. 3 and [0059]: “The sample probe 16 changes in its horizontal position when the sample arm 10 is rotated by the arm driving mechanism 41a. The sample probe 16 changes in its vertical position when the sample arm 10 is vertically moved by the arm driving mechanism 41a.”); and
a controller 80 configured with the probe, the cleaning nozzle, and the sample dispensing mechanism ([0036]) to:
start a first discharge of the cleaning water from the cleaning nozzle when a tip end of the probe is at a first height position, which is even with a bottom surface of the cleaning nozzle and below a bottom edge of the flow of the cleaning water from the cleaning nozzle (See Fig. 5 Sa2 and Sa5 showing the steps of lowering and washing the probe, and Fig. 7 showing the probe at the first height position receiving cleaning water through ports 311d. – Further, as the flow of water from the cleaning nozzle, as seen through Fig. 7, flows downward over the probe 16 and to the waste liquid port 311f, the tip end of the probe is thereby arranged within the flow of the cleaning water from the cleaning nozzle. – Further, as the probe 16 of Sugimura is positioned below a lower edge of the washing water supply ports in the first height position (Fig. 7), this first height position satisfies the tip end of the probe as being below a bottom edge of the flow of the cleaning water from the cleaning nozzle despite the “flow” flowing downwards to the waste port 311f given that Applicant’s instant invention must necessarily comprise such a flow given that the instant drawings Fig. 3 shows cleaning water contacting the side of the probe, wherein such water must necessarily flow downward along the probe ant to the waste tank 208 commensurately as in the prior art. – Further, regarding the first position being where the tip end is “even with a bottom surface of the cleaning nozzle”, the tip end portion of the needle is even with the bottom of the water supply nozzles 311c/d which supply washing water, given that the “tip end” of the probe is not particularly defined. Applicant may wish to recite other particulars thereto such as that the tip comprises a suction/ejection opening parallel with (or in the same plane as) the bottom surface of the cleaning nozzle.),
wherein the flow of the cleaning water is configured to be outputted from the cleaning nozzle in a central portion of the cleaning nozzle inside of an upper surface and the bottom surface of the cleaning nozzle (See Fig. 7 showing the flow (supply of detergent/water – see [0097] discussing the detergent nozzles 311d also being used for washing water.) as passing through the central portion of the cleaning nozzle, inside of an upper surface and the bottom surface of the cleaning nozzle.), and
start a second discharge of the cleaning water from the cleaning nozzle when the tip end of the probe is at a second height position above the first height position and below the upper surface of the cleaning nozzle, such that only the tip end of the probe is arranged within the flow of the cleaning water from the cleaning nozzle at the second position (See Fig. 5 Sa7 and Sa8 showing the steps of raising the probe and washing with cleaning water, and Fig. 8 showing the probe at the second height position receiving cleaning water through ports 311c. -- Further, as the flow of water from the cleaning nozzle, as seen through Fig. 8, flows downward over the probe 16 and to the waste liquid port 311f, the tip end of the probe is thereby arranged within the flow of the cleaning water from the cleaning nozzle. -- Further, regarding the second position being where the tip end is “above the first height position and below the upper surface of the cleaning nozzle, such that only the tip end of the probe is arranged within the flow of the cleaning water”, the tip end portion of the needle commensurately positioned wherein which supply washing water, given that the “tip end” of the probe is not particularly defined. Applicant may wish to recite or other particulars thereto such as that the tip comprises a suction/ejection opening parallel with (or in the same plane as) the bottom surface of the cleaning nozzle.),
wherein the first discharge of the cleaning water is stopped before the second discharge of the cleaning water begins (See Fig. 5 Sa6 – “stop detergent supply”.),
as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Sugimura teaches the automatic analysis device discussed above wherein the first height position is below a lower end of a flow of the cleaning water (Fig. 6 shows a distal end length of the sample probe (interpreted as the tip of the probe) as below the height of the detergent supply ports 311d supplying a flow of cleaning water.), as in Claim 3.
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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura in view of Fürst et al. (US PAT 6,422,248 B1), hereinafter “Fürst”.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Sugimura does not specifically teach the automatic analysis device discussed above further comprising one or more additional discharges of the cleaning water when the tip end of the probe is higher than the first height position and lower than the second height position, as in Claim 4.
However, Fürst teaches a respective automated probe washing system wherein the probe is washed with additional discharge of cleaning water as it is raised from a cleaning cavity (thereby having a height between an upper and a lower height position) so as to ensure further decontamination of the probe (col. 3, line 13: “It is advantageous for the spraying to take place while the item to be washed is lifted out of the cavity.”).
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 automatic analysis device of Sugimura such that one or more additional discharges of the cleaning water occur when the tip of the probe is higher than the first height position and lower than the second height position, such as suggested by Fürst, so as to ensure further decontamination of the probe; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Sugimura does not specifically teach the automatic analysis device discussed above wherein the cleaning of the probe with the cleaning water is ended by moving the probe upward during the second discharge of the cleaning water from the cleaning nozzle, as in Claim 6.
However, Fürst teaches a respective automated probe washing system wherein the probe is washed with additional discharge of cleaning water as it is raised from a cleaning cavity (thereby having a height between an upper and a lower height position) so as to ensure further decontamination of the probe (col. 3, line 13: “It is advantageous for the spraying to take place while the item to be washed is lifted out of the cavity.”).
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 automatic analysis device of Sugimura wherein the cleaning of the probe with the cleaning water is ended by moving the probe upward during the second discharge of the cleaning water from the cleaning nozzle, such as suggested by Fürst, so as to ensure further decontamination of the probe.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura in view of Ravalico et al. (US 2014/0290706 A1), hereinafter “Ravalico”.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Sugimura does not specifically teach the automatic analysis device discussed above wherein the second discharge of the cleaning water has a shorter duration than the first discharge of the cleaning water, as in Claim 5.
However, Ravalico teaches a respective automated analyzer probe washing system (Fig. 3) wherein supplemental probe washes are performed to minimize sample carryover between suction and dispensing operations ([0024]). Ravalico further states “Unfortunately, supplemental washes require additional instrument cycles that can degrade system specimen throughput.” ([0024]), wherein one skilled in the art would thus find it obvious to minimize the time spent performing a supplemental wash so as to maintain throughput. Further note that the system of Ravalico “is not limited to a specific timing duration or over-lap time between the termination of internal and external washes.” ([0022]).
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 automated analysis system of Sugimura wherein the second discharge of the cleaning water has a shorter duration than the first discharge of the cleaning water, such as suggested by Ravalico, so as to reduce sample carryover between pipetting operations while maintaining high sample throughput; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura in view of Wikholm et al. (US PAT 11,590,491 B2), hereinafter “Wikholm”.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Sugimura does not specifically teach the automatic analysis device discussed above a first acceleration when the tip end of the probe rises from the second height position is higher than a second acceleration when the tip end of the probe rises during suction and discharge, as in Claim 7.
However, as the throughput capability of the device is a property that can be modified by adjusting the speed of probe movement during pipetting operations, as evidenced through Wikholm (“additional control parameters can be derived from the time constant in a manner similar to those described above, such as speed of pipette tip 3 removal from the liquid 61 after the steady state response has been reached.” – “methods described herein comprise confirming in a timely manner that an equilibrium state has be achieved, so that the execution of the pipetting operation can proceed efficiently.”), the precise acceleration and speed value would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed first and second probe speed/acceleration cannot be considered critical. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized through routine experimentation the acceleration of probe movement so as to obtain a maximized throughput (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Further, Wikholm discusses optimizing the device to prevent cavitation and tunneling, both of these issues being explored in the prior art relating to the speed at which a probe ascends and descends to/from a liquid solution. Thus, one skilled in the art would find it obvious to provide a slower speed (of the max throughput speed) during insertion/removal operations so as to prevent tunneling, cavitation, splashing, etc.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimura in view of Shimase et al. (EP 1,391,734 B1), hereinafter “Shimase”.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Sugimura does not specifically teach the automatic analysis device discussed above further comprising: a flow sensor, including at least one of a liquid contact detection sensor and a pressure sensor; wherein the controller is configured to confirm a range of a flow of the cleaning water based on a signal from the flow sensor, as in Claim 8.
However, Shimase teaches a respective automated analysis device comprising a supply tank 10 for washing water 11, a fluidic line for coupling the washing water 11 to the probe 1, and a pressure sensor 13 configured to confirm the flow of washing water 11 to the probe 1 and detect a clog in the probe and/or fluidic lines for supplying washing water (See para. [0025] and Fig. 1.). Therein, this assembly provides ana arrangement capable of detecting clogs, thereby reducing error due to clogged fluidic lines and/or probes.
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 automatic analysis device of Sugimura further comprising: a flow sensor, including at least one of a liquid contact detection sensor and a pressure sensor; wherein the controller is configured to confirm a range of a flow of the cleaning water based on a signal from the flow sensor, such as suggested by Shimase, so as to reduce error due to clogged or deteriorated fluidic lines supplying washing water to the outside of the probe; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 8 as discussed above. Further, Sugimura does not specifically teach the automatic analysis device discussed above wherein positions of both ends in a horizontal direction of the flow are confirmed by detecting a presence or absence of the cleaning water while moving the probe in the horizontal direction, and an upper end position of the flow is confirmed by detecting the presence or absence of the cleaning water while moving the probe in a vertical direction, as in Claim 9.
However, the recitation “positions of both ends in a horizontal direction of the flow are confirmed by detecting a presence or absence of the cleaning water while moving the probe in the horizontal direction, and an upper end position of the flow is confirmed by detecting the presence or absence of the cleaning water while moving the probe in a vertical direction” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight when the prior art device is capable of performing the claimed process. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). Applicant may wish to amend the Claim to recite “wherein the controller is further configured to...”.
Further, mere duplication of the pressure sensor to confirm a flow at multiple points within the flow conduit of Sugimura, as in the instant Claim 9, is seen as a mere obviouys matter of design choice given that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Herein, one skilled in the art would find it obvious to provide additional pressure sensors of Shimase to Sugimura so as to provide further redundancy in clog detection, thereby further reducing error related to clogging of fluidic lines, and wherein this arrangement would further allow the device of modified Sugimura to detect a specific location of a clog based on its proximity to members of an array of sensors.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112
Applicant’s amendments sufficiently overcome the rejection of Claim 6 as indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth by the previous office action. As such, the rejection of Claim 6 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
However, regarding Claim 1, the claim remains lacking a means for the controller to identify the probe is at the first/second height position, such as if a user were manually manipulating the probe. Applicant is suggested to amend the claim to include the controller commanding the probe to the first/second height positions via the portion of the sample dispensing mechanism configured to move the probe discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above.
35 USC 102/103
Applicant argues on the alleged grounds that Sugimura fails to teach the controller starting the first and second discharges of washing water only at the first and height positions respectively, specifically wherein the first height position is where the probe tip end is “even with a bottom surface of the cleaning nozzle” and wherein the second height position is “above the first height position and below the upper surface of the cleaning nozzle” as in the amended Claim 1.
However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the claimed probe “tip end” is interpreted broadly herein to include a lower region of the probe tip which is commensurately arranged at the first and second height positions commensurately as claimed (See Sugimura Figs. 7 and 8 regarding the first and second height positions respectively, and [0097] discussing the detergent nozzles 311d also being used for washing water.). Further therein, the first and second height positions remain indefinitely provided as it is unclear how the controller determines when the first and second height positions are reached, given that said first and second height positions are provided through capabilities of the controller. Applicant is suggested to provide the particular portion of the tip receiving water as through the opening of the pipette tip which is at the most terminal portion of the tip, and its relative position to the nozzle at the respective first and second positions. Therein, this interpretation and grounds of rejection was necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugimura, as discussed above in the body of the action.
Applicant further argues that Claims 3-9 depending from Claim 1 are allegedly allowable by virtue of their dependence on the allegedly allowable Claim 1. However, as discussed above, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugimura, as discussed above in the body of the action. Thus, Claims 3-9 are not patentable merely by virtue of dependence on Claim 1.
Applicant’s position appears to be that the novelty of the present invention is drawn to the first discharge of cleaning water cleaning above the tip of the probe, followed by cleansing of only the tip of the probe; however, Applicant’s disclosure through the specification filed 06/02/2022 para. [0025] provides that washing the tip of the probe only requires applying washing water within a vicinity of the probe, rather than the “strict sense” Applicant is attempting to claim: “The expression "only the tip of the sample probe 22 is hit by the water flow" allows the water flow to hit a vicinity of the tip of the sample probe 22 rather than a strict sense.”. Thus, Applicant’s disclosure provides sufficient breadth regarding the vicinity in which the washing water is applied to the tip as being “only the tip” so as to be fully satisfied and anticipated by the applied prior art of Sugimura.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. 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
Prosecution Insights