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 .
Claim Status
Claims 12-13, 15-18, and 21-22 are pending and under examination.
Claims 1-11, 14, and 19-20 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
The claim amendments, received 04/13/2026, have overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection. Accordingly, the previous claim objections are withdrawn. However, based on the claim amendments, new claim objections are set forth.
Applicant’s claim amendments have overcome the 112(b) rejection(s) previously set forth. However, based on the claim amendments, new 112(b) rejections have been set forth.
Based on the amended claims and remarks, received 04/13/2026, the previous prior art rejection over Denninger has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection set forth (see below).
Claim Objections
Claim 12-13 and 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 line 6 recites “the conveyance block”. The examiner requests applicant use the same terminology/nomenclature when referring to the same feature in the claims, and to carry the terminology/nomenclature throughout the entire claim set. In this case, the examiner requests applicant amend line 6 to recite “the plurality of conveyance blocks”. A similar objection is also made over claim 13 with respect to “the conveyance block” and also “the light emitting body”.
Claim 12 lines 10, 14, and 17 recite “the specimen container”. Claim 1 line 3 refers to “a specimen tube”. The examiner requests applicant use the same terminology/nomenclature when referring to the same feature in the claims, and to carry the terminology/nomenclature throughout the entire claim set. In this case, the examiner requests applicant amend “container” to “tube” in each instance. A similar objection is also made over claim 21.
Claim 12 lines 18-19 recite “the light emitting devices”. Claim 1 line 3 refers to “a plurality of light emitting bodies”. The examiner requests applicant use the same terminology/nomenclature when referring to the same feature in the claims, and to carry the terminology/nomenclature throughout the entire claim set. In this case, the examiner requests applicant amend “devices” to “bodies” in each instance. A similar objection is also made over claim 21.
Claim 13 refers to “the conveyance surface”. Although the conveyance surface is an inherent property of the plurality of conveyance blocks, the examiner requests applicant use article “a” when introducing a new feature into the claims. In this case, the examiner requests applicant amend the claim to recite “a conveyance surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites “the control unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claims and it is unclear what applicant is referring to by this phrase. Claim 22 is also rejected by its dependency from claim 21.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denninger et al. (US 2014/0231217; already of record – hereinafter “Denninger”), in view of Tsai (US 2003/0139847; already of record – hereinafter “Tsai”) and Andrews et al. (US Patent No. 6,043,880; already of record – hereinafter “Andrews”).
Regarding claim 12, Denninger disclose a specimen conveyance device (Denninger; fig. 1, #100, [0063]) comprising:
a plurality of conveyance blocks (Denninger; fig. 1, #23, [0068]), each of which includes a plurality of light emitting bodies (Denninger disclose the transport plane may comprise one or more displays, for example, LEDs, indicating the status of the transport plane. LEDs may, for example, be arranged below translucent areas of the transport plane. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator, the position of a specific container carrier; [0040]. Denninger further disclose each conveyance block 23 comprise a plurality of electromagnetic actuators 5; fig. 2, [0081-0082]. Accordingly, each of the plurality of conveyance blocks 23 includes a plurality of light emitting bodies.) and conveys a specimen tube holder (Denninger; fig. 1, #1, [0065]) that holds a specimen tube storing a specimen (Denninger; fig. 1, #3, [0063-0064); and
a control unit (Denninger; figs. 1, 3 & 10, #38/39, [0042, 0065, 0077, 0083, 0108-0109]) configured to control the conveyance of the specimen tube holder by the conveyance block (Denninger; figs. 1 & 3; [0065, 0083]), wherein the control unit is configured to:
cause a light emitting body, among the plurality of light emitting bodies, of a conveyance block, among the conveyance blocks, in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing a processing specimen is present to emit light in a different state from the light emitting bodies of the other conveyance blocks (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The visualizing device may be an LCD monitor. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator, the position of a specific container carrier; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]), and
wherein the light emitting body of the conveyance block in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing the processing specimen is present emits light, while the light emitting bodies of the other conveyance blocks do not emit light, or the light emitting body of the conveyance block in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing the processing specimen is present do not emit light, while the light emitting devices of the other conveyance blocks emit light (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The visualizing device may be an LCD monitor. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator or the position of a specific container carrier; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]),
wherein the control unit is configured to cause the light emitting bodies in a first conveyance block, among the conveyance blocks, to emit light in a different light emitting state than light emitting bodies in other conveyance blocks (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of … the position of a specific container carrier, … and the like; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]. Each conveyance block 23 comprise a plurality of electro-magnetic actuators with a corresponding LED; fig. 2, [0040, 0081-0082]. Accordingly, the conveyance block is configured to change the light emitting state of each electromagnetic actuator having a carrier and/or sample container on the conveyance block).
Denninger does not explicitly disclose the specimen container stores a priority processing specimen, where the light emitting body in which the priority processing specimen is present emits light, or the alternative, where the light emitting body in which the priority processing specimen do not emit light.
However, Tsai teach the analogous art of a container (Tsai; fig. 1, #20, [0014]), a control unit (Tsai teach each a data card 30 mounted to each container 20; [0014]. The data card comprise a microcomputer 50 that includes a microprocessor. The data card is configured to communicate with the local processor when the container to which it is mounted is engaged with the corresponding processing station canopy; [0016]. The communication means may include pairs of optically coupled transmitters and receivers; fig. 3, #50, [0016]), and a plurality of light emitting bodies (Tsai; fig. 2, #37,#38, #39, [0017]), wherein the control unit is configured to cause a light emitting body, among the plurality of light emitting bodies, in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing a priority specimen is present to emit light in a different light emitting state from the light emitting bodies (Tsai teach the light emitting bodies emit light when the container is assigned high priority processing and do not emit light when the container is a low priority processing; [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit, conveyance blocks, and light emitting bodies of Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state when the container is a priority processing specimen, as taught by Tsai, because Tsai teach control unit and plurality of light emitting bodies configuration to emit light in a different light emitting state based on the assigned priority of a specimen container allows a conditional check to be performed by an operator through the visual state of the plurality of light emitting bodies (Tsai; [0018]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Tsai and Denninger both teach controlling the state of a light emitting body to provide an operator with information about a specimen tube holder.
Modified Denninger does not teach emitting light in a different state upon determining a specimen tube holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance is present in the first conveyance block.
However, Andrews teach the analogous art of a specimen conveyance device (Andrews; fig. 6A, #208, col. 9, lines 21-31), a control unit (Andrews; fig. 5, col. 9 lines 21-31), and one or more light emitting bodies (Andrews; fig. 5, #204, col. 9 lines 7-20), where upon determining a specimen holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance is present, the light emitting bodies change their state (Andrews; col. 15 line 60 through col. 16 line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit and light emitting bodies of modified Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state upon determining a specimen holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance, as taught by Andrews, because Andrews teach the control unit and light emitting body that change state when a sample holder is idle for more than a certain amount of time is indicative of an error and the change in light emitting state alerts an operator of the error in the conveyance mechanism (Andrews; col. 15 line 60 through col. 16 line 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Denninger and Andrews both teach light emitting bodies configured to change state to relay information to an operator.
Regarding claim 13, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to claim 12 above, wherein the conveyance surface of the conveyance block is made of a material that transmits light emitted by the light emitting body, and wherein the light emitting body is arranged vertically below the conveyance surface (Denninger; [0040]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to claim 12 above, wherein the light emitting bodies are configured to emit light of different wavelengths (The modification of the control unit, conveyance blocks, and light emitting bodies of Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state when the container is a priority processing specimen, as taught by Tsai, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Tsai further teach the light emitting body may be configured to emit light of different wavelengths; [0020]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to claim 12 above, wherein the light emitting bodies are configured emit light at different intensities (Denninger disclose the light emitting body can indicate the status by flashing; [0040]. Tsai additionally teach the light emitting body may be configured into a flashing state; [0019]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to claim 12 above, wherein the control unit is configured to cause the light emitting bodies to emit light in different light emitting states in the conveyance block on which a specimen having a coincident identification information with a specimen designated in advance is present and in the other conveyance blocks, or sets one of the light emitting bodies to at non-light emitting state (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The visualizing device may be an LCD monitor. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator or the position of a specific container carrier; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]. Further, the modification of the control unit, conveyance blocks, and light emitting bodies of Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state when the container is a priority processing specimen, as taught by Tsai, and the modification of the control unit and light emitting bodies of modified Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state upon determining a specimen holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance, as taught by Andrews, have previously been discussed in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to claim 12 above, wherein the control unit is configured to cause the light emitting bodies in a first conveyance block, among the conveyance blocks, to emit light in a different light emitting state than light emitting bodies in other conveyance blocks, upon determining a number of specimen tube holders greater than a certain number or more are present in the first conveyance block (Denninger disclose the transport plane may comprise one or more displays, for example, LEDs, indicating the status of the transport plane. LEDs may, for example, be arranged below translucent areas of the transport plane. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator, the position of a specific container carrier; [0040]. Denninger further disclose each conveyance block 23 comprise a plurality of electromagnetic actuators 5; fig. 2, [0081-0082]. Accordingly, the conveyance block is configured to change the light emitting state of each electromagnetic actuator having a carrier and/or sample container on the conveyance block).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denninger et al. (US 2014/0231217; already of record – hereinafter “Denninger”), in view of Tsai (US 2003/0139847; already of record – hereinafter “Tsai”) and Tatsutani et al. (US 2011/0244583 – hereinafter “Tatsutani”).
Regarding claim 21, Denninger disclose a method for conveying a specimen stored in a specimen tube held by a specimen tube holder (Denninger; figs. 1-3 & 10, #1, #3, [0006, 0063-0065]), comprising:
conveying the specimen tube holder by a plurality of conveyance blocks (Denninger; fig. 1, #23, [0068]), each of which includes a plurality of light emitting bodies (Denninger disclose the transport plane may comprise one or more displays, for example, LEDs, indicating the status of the transport plane. LEDs may, for example, be arranged below translucent areas of the transport plane. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator, the position of a specific container carrier; [0040]. Denninger further disclose each conveyance block 23 comprise a plurality of electromagnetic actuators 5; fig. 2, [0081-0082]. Accordingly, each of the plurality of conveyance blocks 23 includes a plurality of light emitting bodies.); and
causing a light emitting body, among the plurality of light emitting bodies, of a conveyance block, among the conveyance blocks, in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing a processing specimen is present to emit light in a different light emitting state from the light emitting bodies of the other conveyance blocks (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The visualizing device may be an LCD monitor. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator, the position of a specific container carrier; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]),
wherein the light emitting body of the conveyance block in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing the processing specimen is present emits light, while the light emitting bodies of the other conveyance blocks do not emit light, or the light emitting body of the conveyance block in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing the processing specimen is present do not emit light, while the light emitting devices of the other conveyance blocks emit light (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The visualizing device may be an LCD monitor. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator or the position of a specific container carrier; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]),
wherein the control unit is configured to cause the light emitting bodies in a first conveyance block, among the conveyance blocks, to emit light in a different light emitting state than light emitting bodies in other conveyance blocks (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of … the position of a specific container carrier, … and the like; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]. Each conveyance block 23 comprise a plurality of electro-magnetic actuators with a corresponding LED; fig. 2, [0040, 0081-0082]. Accordingly, the conveyance block is configured to change the light emitting state of each electromagnetic actuator having a carrier and/or sample container on the conveyance block).
Denninger does not explicitly disclose the specimen container stores a priority processing specimen, where the light emitting body in which the priority processing specimen is present emits light, or the alternative, where the light emitting body in which the priority processing specimen do not emit light.
However, Tsai teach the analogous art of a container (Tsai; fig. 1, #20, [0014]), a control unit (Tsai teach each a data card 30 mounted to each container 20; [0014]. The data card comprise a microcomputer 50 that includes a microprocessor. The data card is configured to communicate with the local processor when the container to which it is mounted is engaged with the corresponding processing station canopy; [0016]. The communication means may include pairs of optically coupled transmitters and receivers; fig. 3, #50, [0016]), and a plurality of light emitting bodies (Tsai; fig. 2, #37,#38, #39, [0017]), wherein the control unit is configured to cause a light emitting body, among the plurality of light emitting bodies, in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing a priority specimen is present to emit light in a different light emitting state from the light emitting bodies (Tsai teach the light emitting bodies emit light when the container is assigned high priority processing and do not emit light when the container is a low priority processing; [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit, conveyance blocks, and light emitting bodies of Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state when the container is a priority processing specimen, as taught by Tsai, because Tsai teach control unit and plurality of light emitting bodies configuration to emit light in a different light emitting state based on the assigned priority of a specimen container allows a conditional check to be performed by an operator through the visual state of the plurality of light emitting bodies (Tsai; [0018]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Tsai and Denninger both teach controlling the state of a light emitting body to provide an operator with information about a specimen tube holder.
Modified Denninger does not teach emitting light in a different state upon determining a specimen tube holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance is present in the first conveyance block.
However, Tatsutani teach the analogous art of a specimen conveyance device (Tatsutani; fig. 1, #3a, [0027]), a control unit (Tatsutani; fig. 1,#42, [0039]), and one or more light emitting bodies (Tatsutani; fig. 4, “LED1 … LED6”, [0061-0062]), where upon determining a specimen holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance is present, the light emitting bodies change their state (Tatsutani; [0100-0101, 0117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit and light emitting bodies of modified Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state upon determining a specimen holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance, as taught by Tatsutani, because Tatsutani teach the control unit and light emitting body that changes state upon determining a specimen holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance is present provides a user with an error alarm indicating the specimen tube holder is not being correctly transported (Tatsutani; [0100]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Denninger and Tatsutani both teach light emitting bodies configured to change state to relay information to an operator.
Regarding claim 22, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to 22 above, wherein the specimen tube holder moves on an upper surface of the conveyance block by rotation of wheels or by an electromagnetic actuator (Denninger; figs. 1-3, [0065-0067]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/13/2026, have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are towards the amended claims and do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. However, because the examiner is using the same prior art in the rejection, then the examiner will address applicant’s remarks in order to promote compact prosecution.
Applicant argues, see pages 9-11 of their remarks, that claim 12 provides, for example, a visualization of congestion levels through gradual brightness changes based on accumulated dwell time, rather than merely indicating position, enabling identification of system bottlenecks which is not realized based on the disclosure of the cited prior art references. Specifically, applicant argues the cited references do not disclose or suggest “wherein the control unit is configured to cause the light emitting bodies in a first conveyance block, among the conveyance blocks, to emit light in a different light emitting state than light emitting bodies in other conveyance blocks, upon determining a specimen tube holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance is present in the first conveyance block”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of … the position of a specific container carrier, … and the like; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]. Each conveyance block 23 comprise a plurality of electro-magnetic actuators with a corresponding LED; fig. 2, [0040, 0081-0082]. Accordingly, the conveyance block is configured to change the light emitting state of each electromagnetic actuator having a carrier and/or sample container on the conveyance block. Therefore, Denninger teach a control unit is configured to cause light emitting bodies in a first conveyance block, among a plurality of conveyance blocks, to emit light in a different light emitting state than light emitting bodies in other conveyance blocks. Although Denninger does not teach the specific limitation of emitting light in a different state “upon determining a specimen tube holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance is present in the first conveyance block”, Andrews teach the analogous art of a specimen conveyance device (Andrews; fig. 6A, #208, col. 9, lines 21-31), a control unit (Andrews; fig. 5, col. 9 lines 21-31), and one or more light emitting bodies (Andrews; fig. 5, #204, col. 9 lines 7-20), where the light emitting bodies change their state upon determining a specimen holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance is present (Andrews teach a microcontroller 310 determines the amount of time that has elapsed for a stepper motor to move a stage along rails, where upon determining that the amount of time that has elapsed exceeds a set time value, the microcontroller 310 will proceed to issue an error message to be displayed on using an LED; col. 15 line 60 through col. 16 line 4). Accordingly, the modification of the control unit and light emitting bodies of Denninger to change state based on the elapse of a set time value would result in the specimen conveyance system of Denninger being configured to emit light in a different light emitting state upon determining a specimen holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control unit and light emitting bodies of Denninger with the control configuration, as taught by Andrews, because Andrews teach the control unit and light emitting body that change state when a sample holder is idle for more than a certain amount of time is indicative of an error and the change in light emitting state alerts an operator of the error in the conveyance mechanism (Andrews; col. 15 line 60 through col. 16 line 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Denninger and Andrews both teach light emitting bodies configured to change state to relay information to an operator.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a visualization of congestion levels through gradual brightness changes based on accumulated dwell time”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
E-mail communication Authorization
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights