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 .
This is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on September 14, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 16, 20 and 24 have been amended. Claims 4, 6, 8, 9, 13 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 16-18 and 23-24 have been withdrawn. New claims 25-26 have been added. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 14-18 and 20-26 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 14-15, 20-22 and 25-26 are examined herein.
Response to Amendments
The Amendments to the Claims filed 09/14/2026 have been entered. The minor informalities have been addressed by amendments and objections to claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11 and 12 thereto are withdrawn accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments and Amendments to the Claims both filed 09/14/2026 have been fully considered.
It is noted that clam 1, an independent claim from which all of the claims ultimately depend, has been amended to recite that “the substrate includes a first board and a second board, the sample injection part includes a sample injection channel that is configured on the first board, and a longitudinal axis of the sample injection channel forms a 20°-60° angle with a horizontal axis of the first board” in the context of a particle detection device as claimed.
Applicant argues that claim 1 and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior art(s), Columbus et al. (EP 0 318 255 A2), since the cited reference(s) does not teach the amended features of, in the context of a particle detection device “the substrate includes a first board and a second board, the sample injection part includes a sample injection channel that is configured on the first board, and a longitudinal axis of the sample injection channel forms a 20°-60° angle with a horizontal axis of the first board” as claimed. Applicants argue that:
(a) Applicant argues that, in a First argument: Columbus does not teach the recitation of “the sample injection part being sealable with a liquid driving device”. Rather, Columbus provides various embodiments of applying pipette P (as shown in Figs. 10, 12 or 15) into the sample injection part of Fig. 4 to mate therewith, wherein that the term "mate" in this reference refers to a shape-fitting engagement, i.e., that a pipette P can be inserted into upper portion 62. Columbus never states that this engagement provides a seal. It can be seen that the "sealing off' in Figure 15 of Columbus refers to the valve isolating chamber 32d from the outside environment, but does not concern a seal between pipette P and upper portion 62. See Remarks, page 11-13.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding Applicants' First argument, set forth above, it is noted that the Applicants' argument is not commensurate with the limitation recited in claim 1 of claimed invention. This is because the Applicants' argument directs the "sealing off' in Figure 15 of Columbus refers to the valve isolating chamber 32d from the outside environment, but does not concern a seal between pipette P and upper portion 62, whereas claim 1 (and the examiner's arguments in regard to claim 1 presented in the Office action dated 06/24/2016) recites “a sample injection part communicating with the detection pool, the sample injection part being sealable with a liquid driving device”.
It is reasonably interpreted that the recitation “part being sealable with a liquid driving device” does encopasses the valve isolating chamber 32d from the outside environment, not necessarily limited to a seal between pipette P and upper portion 62. The teachings of the Columbus reference is interpreted its entirety and what it suggests to one skilled in the art.
Since Columbus discloses “a sample injection part (a combination of a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) communicating the detection pool, the sample injection part being sealable with a liquid driving device (a pipette P as shown in Figs. 10, 12 or 15 that shows various embodiments of applying pipette P into the sample injection part of Fig. 4 and sealing mechanisms), wherein the liquid driving device (a pipette P) and the sample injection part cooperate to enable the sample liquid to get in and out of the detection pool (32, Fig. 4) (see the description in col. 6, line 45 thru col. 9, line 7)” the recitation “the sample injection part being sealable with a liquid driving device” is being anticipated by Columbus.
(b) Applicant argues that, in a Second argument: Columbus does not teach the recitation of “wherein the liquid driving device and the sample injection part cooperate to enable the sample liquid to get in and out of the detection pool”. Rather, according to the disclosure of Columbus, col. 6, line 45 thru col. 9, line 7, Columbus merely describes the physical structure of the cuvette (walls, chamber, apertures, channels, coatings, and sealing closures) and does not describe how any pipette P cooperates with aperture 60 to cause liquid to move "in and out." Columbus does not describe expelling liquid from chamber 32 through pipette P and access aperture 60. In Columbus, liquid is removed from chamber 32 by other structures, such as rotatable portion 120, translatable portion 120d, and chamber 160, NOT by pipette P. See Remarks, page 14-15.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussions presented in the Office action dated 06/24/2026 (see pages 3-4), Columbus discloses: a sample injection part (a combination of a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) communicating the detection pool, the sample injection part being sealable with a liquid driving device (a pipette P as shown in Figs. 10, 12 or 15 that shows various embodiments of applying pipette P into the sample injection part of Fig. 4 and sealing mechanisms), wherein the liquid driving device (a pipette P) and the sample injection part cooperate to enable the sample liquid to get in and out of the detection pool (32, Fig. 4) (see the description in col. 6, line 45 thru col. 9, line 7).
In addition, Columbus discloses: (i) In Figures 11-14, end 42c of chamber 32c has both the liquid access aperture 60c and the air vent passageway 72c located adjacent to each other, within raised boss 80c, Figure 11. Upper portion 62c is conically shaped, as in previous embodiments, to allow a mating engagement of pipette P, Figure 12 (col. 11, lines 42-48); and (ii) To access the chamber, the user need only press down on portion 120d, such as by engaging access aperture 60d with a pipette P, and push against spring 150 (col. 12, lines 37-41). It is known in the art that “a pipette” is a laboratory instrument used to transport, measure, and deliver precise volumes of liquid in and out of vessels. Consequently, the recitation “wherein the liquid driving device and the sample injection part cooperate to enable the sample liquid to get in and out of the detection pool” is being anticipated by Columbus.
(c) Applicant argues that, in a Third argument: Columbus does not teach the recitation of “an axis of the sample injection channel forms a 20°-60° angle with the first board" in original claim 6 (substantively incorporated into amended claim 1)”. Columbus's access aperture 60 is formed perpendicular to wall 36 (as shown in Figure 4, the axis of the aperture is perpendicular to the board surface), and Columbus provides no description or suggestion of any inclination angle. In contrast, the 20°-60° inclined angle of amended claim 1 is rarely found in any flow chips. Its distinctiveness resides in the fact that, by arranging the sample injection channel (322) at an incline, the effective sealing length of the channel is significantly lengthened without increasing the thickness of the substrate (see paragraph [0050] and Fig. 5 of the specification), thereby enhancing the sealing effect with the liquid driving device. There is no motivation or need in Columbus to modify the vertical sample-injection structure to an inclined configuration. See Remarks, page 15-16.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussions presented in the Office action dated 06/24/2026 (see page 7), Columbus discloses an inner diameter of the sample injection channel gradually decreases along a direction from the sample injection port to the detection pool (col. 8, lines 10-16, “a liquid access aperture 60 is formed in wall 36 adjacent end 42. The aperture has an upper portion 62 and a lower portion 64 that connects the upper portion with chamber 32. Preferably at least portion 62 is conical in shape, the slope of which allows a large number of different conical pipette designs P, Figure 2, to mate therewith”). In light of teachings from Columbus, the claimed recitation “an axis of the sample injection channel forms a 20-60° angle with the first board” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize sample injection channel activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the sample injection operation, the geometry of the substrate bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the liquid being handled.
It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry. One of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has studied the general principles of chemistry, chemical engineering, and process design. One of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has studied and practiced specific aspects of chemistry and chemical engineering related to specific laboratory processes (e.g., cuvettes in which reactions are undertaken in liquids confined within the cuvette as disclosed in the Columbus reference). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts understands how to apply those general principles to specific apparatus/process design. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the chemical apparatus/process arts is considered to understand the value of a reference such as Columbus as well as its applicability to the problems related to “an axis of the sample injection channel forms a 20°-60° angle with the first board" in design a cuvette (30, Fig. 4 which meets “a particle detection device”) (Fig. 4; col. 6, line 45 thru col. 9, line 7), including a substrate (a substrate including a first board 36, Fig. 4 and a second board 34, Fig. 4) and at least one detection unit (30, Fig. 4) arranged on the substrate taught by Columbus.
Applicants’ amendment and/or addition of new claims 25-26 necessitated a modified/new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. It is noted that applicants’ arguments regarding dependent claims (Remarks, page 17-22) are properly responded to in the claim rejections set forth below.
Upon further consideration and search, a modified/new ground of rejections/objections to claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 14-15, 20-22 and 25-26 are presented, in view of the previously presented prior art(s), Columbus et al. (EP 0 318 255 A2), as presented in the instant Office action.
MODIFIED REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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(a) 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 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 14-15 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Columbus et al. (EP 0 318 255 A2).
In regard to claim 1, Columbus discloses a cuvette (30, Fig. 4 which meets “a particle detection device”) (Fig. 4; col. 6, line 45 thru col. 9, line 7), including a substrate (a substrate including a first board 36, Fig. 4 and a second board 34, Fig. 4) and at least one detection unit (30, Fig. 4) arranged on the substrate, wherein the at least one detection unit (30, Fig. 4) comprises:
(i) a detection pool (an internal space defined by a chamber 32, Fig. 4 to accommodate liquid), configured to accommodate a sample liquid;
(ii) a sample injection part (a combination of a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) communicating the detection pool, the sample injection part being sealable with a liquid driving device (a pipette P as shown in Figs. 10, 12 or 15 that shows various embodiments of applying pipette P into the sample injection part of Fig. 4 and sealing mechanisms), wherein the liquid driving device (a pipette P) and the sample injection part cooperate to enable the sample liquid to get in and out of the detection pool (32, Fig. 4) (see the description in col. 6, line 45 thru col. 9, line 7).
It is reasonably interpreted that the recitation “part being sealable with a liquid driving device” does encopasses the valve isolating chamber 32d from the outside environment as taught by Columbus. The teachings of the Columbus reference is interpreted its entirety and what it suggests to one skilled in the art. Since Columbus discloses “a sample injection part (a combination of a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) communicating the detection pool, the sample injection part being sealable with a liquid driving device (a pipette P as shown in Figs. 10, 12 or 15 that shows various embodiments of applying pipette P into the sample injection part of Fig. 4 and sealing mechanisms), wherein the liquid driving device (a pipette P) and the sample injection part cooperate to enable the sample liquid to get in and out of the detection pool (32, Fig. 4) (see the description in col. 6, line 45 thru col. 9, line 7)” the recitation “the sample injection part being sealable with a liquid driving device” is being anticipated by Columbus. It is known in the art that “a pipette” is a laboratory instrument used to transport, measure, and deliver precise volumes of liquid in and out of vessels. Consequently, the recitation “wherein the liquid driving device and the sample injection part cooperate to enable the sample liquid to get in and out of the detection pool” is being anticipated by Columbus.
Columbus discloses: the substrate includes a first board (36, Fig. 4) and a second board (34, Fig. 4); the sample injection port (a combination of a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) is configured on the first board (36, Fig. 4); and the sample injection channel is configured on the first board (36, Fig. 4) and the second board (34, Fig. 4).
But Columbus does not explicitly disclose the feature of “a longitudinal axis of the sample injection channel forms a 20°-60° angle with a horizontal axis of the first board".
However, Columbus discloses an inner diameter of the sample injection channel gradually decreases along a direction from the sample injection port to the detection pool (col. 8, lines 10-16, “a liquid access aperture 60 is formed in wall 36 adjacent end 42. The aperture has an upper portion 62 and a lower portion 64 that connects the upper portion with chamber 32. Preferably at least portion 62 is conical in shape, the slope of which allows a large number of different conical pipette designs P, Figure 2, to mate therewith”). In light of teachings from Columbus, the claimed recitation “an axis of the sample injection channel forms a 20-60° angle with the first board” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize sample injection channel activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the sample injection operation, the geometry of the substrate bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the liquid being handled.
It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry. One of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has studied the general principles of chemistry, chemical engineering, and process design. One of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has studied and practiced specific aspects of chemistry and chemical engineering related to specific laboratory processes (e.g., cuvettes in which reactions are undertaken in liquids confined within the cuvette as disclosed in the Columbus reference). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts understands how to apply those general principles to specific apparatus/process design. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the chemical apparatus/process arts is considered to understand the value of a reference such as Columbus as well as its applicability to the problems related to “an axis of the sample injection channel forms a 20°-60° angle with the first board" in design a cuvette (30, Fig. 4 which meets “a particle detection device”) (Fig. 4; col. 6, line 45 thru col. 9, line 7), including a substrate (a substrate including a first board 36, Fig. 4 and a second board 34, Fig. 4) and at least one detection unit (30, Fig. 4) arranged on the substrate, as taught by Columbus.
In regard to claim 2, Columbus discloses the sample injection part (80, Fig. 4) (a combination of a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) includes a sample injection channel and a sample injection port, the sample injection port communicating the detection pool through the sample injection channel (Fig. 4).
Regarding the “an elastomer sealing part”, in an embodiment shown Fig. 15, Columbus discloses the sample injection part (a combination of a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) further includes an elastomer sealing part, wherein the elastomer sealing part is provided with a through hole, and the elastomer sealing part is installed on the sample injection channel and/or the sample injection port (col. 12, lines 27-41, “A spring 150 biases portion 120d so that, normally, it is raised to misalign paths 130d and 132d with respect to chamber 32d and vent passageway 72d, respectively, thus sealing off chamber 32d from the outside environment. To access the chamber, the user need only press down on portion 120d, such as by engaging access aperture 60d with a pipette P, and push against spring 150”). The recitation “the elastomer sealing part being configured to elastically deform to seal the liquid driving device when the liquid driving device is inserted into the through hole” is considered a natural sequence of “the sample injection part (a combination of a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) further includes an elastomer sealing part, wherein the elastomer sealing part is provided with a through hole, and the elastomer sealing part is installed on the sample injection channel and/or the sample injection port” taught by Columbus (col. 12, lines 27-41) which is considered obvious functional feature(s).
In regard to claim 3, Columbus discloses an inner diameter of the sample injection channel gradually decreases along a direction from the sample injection port to the detection pool (col. 8, lines 10-16, “a liquid access aperture 60 is formed in wall 36 adjacent end 42. The aperture has an upper portion 62 and a lower portion 64 that connects the upper portion with chamber 32. Preferably at least portion 62 is conical in shape, the slope of which allows a large number of different conical pipette designs P, Figure 2, to mate therewith”).
In regard to claim 5, Columbus discloses:
the substrate includes a first board (36, Fig. 4) and a second board (34, Fig. 4);
the detection pool (an internal space defined by a chamber 32, Fig. 4 to accommodate liquid) is configured on the second board (34, Fig. 4) ;
the sample injection port (a combination of a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) is configured on the first board (36, Fig. 4); and
the sample injection channel is configured on the first board (36, Fig. 4) and the second board (34, Fig. 4).
In regard to claim 7, Columbus discloses:
the first board (36, Fig. 4) and the second board (34, Fig. 4) are sealed using adhesives (col. 8, lines 52-57),
the detection pool (an internal space defined by a chamber 32, Fig. 4 to accommodate liquid) is between the first board (36, Fig. 4) and the second board (34, Fig. 4),
the sample injection channel communicates with the detection pool and the sample injection port (the sample injection part (80, Fig. 4) (a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) includes a sample injection channel and a sample injection port, the sample injection port communicating the detection pool through the sample injection channel (Fig. 4)).
In regard to claim 10, Columbus discloses the sample injection part (80, Fig. 4) (a combination of a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) includes a sample injection channel and a sample injection port, the sample injection port communicating the detection pool through the sample injection channel (Fig. 4). Columbus discloses the sample injection port protrudes from a surface where the sample injection port is disposed (Fig. 4).
In regard to claims 11 and 12, Columbus discloses the sample injection part (80, Fig. 4) (a combination of a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) includes a sample injection channel and a sample injection port, the sample injection port communicating the detection pool through the sample injection channel (Fig. 4). Columbus discloses the sample injection port protrudes from a surface where the sample injection port is disposed (Fig. 4). In light of teachings from Columbus, the claimed recitation “the height of the sample injection port protruding from surface where the sample injection port is disposed is 0.5mm-3mm” or “the length of the sample injection channel is greater than 1 mm” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize sample injection channel activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the sample injection operation, the geometry of the substrate bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the liquid being handled.
In regard to claim 14, Columbus discloses the depth of the detection pool is 0.5 to 2.5 mm (col. 7, lines 1-7) which overlaps the recited distance of less than 2mm. This renders the recited. Since the claimed distance range of less than 2mm overlaps the depth of the detection pool 0.5 to 2.5 mm taught by Columbus, the range recited in claim 14 is considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regard to claim 15, Columbus discloses one or more reagent (i.e., a pre-embedded marker) layers (50, Fig. 4) can be applied to the interior surface of wall 36, Figure 4, in a form that will allow the one or more layers to enter into a reaction with liquid sample inserted into chamber 32. Thus "a reagent" is a substance that will interact physically or chemically with the liquid sample. Such reagent layer can be applied in conventional ways, such as by spraying and drying. Such reagents can include a polymerase enzyme, salts, buffers and stabilizers. A more effective dissolution occurs for those reagents when liquid is introduced (col. 7, line 46 thru col. 8, line 9). This renders the recitation of claim 15 prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 20, Columbus discloses:
the substrate includes a first board (36, Fig. 4) and a second board (34, Fig. 4);
the detection pool (an internal space defined by a chamber 32, Fig. 4 to accommodate liquid) is configured on the second board (34, Fig. 4) ;
the sample injection port (a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) is configured on the first board (36, Fig. 4); and
the sample injection channel is configured on the first board (36, Fig. 4) and the second board (34, Fig. 4).
But Columbus does not explicitly disclose the sample injection port is configured on the second board.
However, Columbus discloses various embodiments of sample injection port as shown in Figs. 8, 9. 12, 14 and 15. In light of teachings from Columbus, the claimed recitation “the sample injection port is configured on the second board” would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize sample injection channel activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the sample injection operation, the geometry of the substrate bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the liquid being handled.
In regard to claim 21, Columbus discloses a use of pipette in Fig. 12 and Fig. 15 which meets the recited “liquid driving device”. Since the pipette is used in conjunction with the cuvette (30, Fig. 4 that is a particle detection device) (Fig. 4; col. 6, line 45 thru col. 9, line 7) (i.e., a particle detection device” this meets the limitation “the liquid driving device is a portion of the particle detection device” as recited.
In regard to claim 22, Columbus discloses a movable valve is disposed to selectively open and close access to the chamber within the cuvette (col. 11, line 42 thru col. 12, line 1). Columbus discloses that: in Fig. 12, a valve is provided, comprising a rotatable portion 120 mounted within a mating conically shaped aperture 122, Figure 12. Rotatable portion 120 has an exterior, conically shaped surface 123. The valve has an axis of rotation 124, preferably concentrically disposed within aperture 60c. A handle 126 permits manual or automated rotation of the valve. Both the access aperture 60c, as well as air vent opening 74c, are located in the movable valve portion 120, Figures 11 and 13 (col. 11, line 42 thru col. 12, line 1). Upon introduction of a valve in the cuvette in the sample injection part (a cylindrical boss 80, Fig. 4 and a channel in fluid communication with the detection pool 32, Fig. 4) as taught by Columbus, one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that “a separation valve disposed in the cavity separates the cavity into a first cavity and a second cavity” as recited.
Claim Objections
Claims 25 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, such as incorporating dependent claims 21, 22 AND 25 (or claim 26) into an independent claim 1 as exemplified below.
Allowable Subject Matters
Claims 25-26 in the instant application are allowed if previously presented objection to claims 25-26 are resolved.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A thorough search for pertinent prior art did not locate any prior art that discloses or suggests the invention recited in claims 25-26. The concept of a particle detection device, including a substrate and at least one detection unit arranged on the substrate, wherein the at least one detection unit comprises:
a detection pool, configured to accommodate a sample liquid; and
a sample injection part communicating with the detection pool, the sample injection part being sealable with a liquid driving device, wherein
the liquid driving device and the sample injection part cooperate to enable the sample liquid to get in and out of the detection pool, and
the substrate includes a first board and a second board, the sample injection part includes a sample injection channel that is configured on the first board, and a longitudinal axis of the sample injection channel forms a 20°-60° angle with a horizontal axis of the first board,
wherein the liquid driving device is a portion of the particle detection device,
wherein the liquid driving device includes a cavity, wherein a separation valve disposed in the cavity separates the cavity into a first cavity and a second cavity, and
wherein the first cavity communicates with the detection pool through a hybrid channel, the liquid driving device further comprises a plunger movably disposed in the cavity, and the plunger is configured to stop introducing the sample liquid when a head of the plunger touches the separation valve (claim 25), is considered novel over the cited prior art(s).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
