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 12 March 2026.
Claims 1-7 and 12-18 are pending.
Claim 7 is withdrawn.
Claims 8-11 are cancelled.
Claims 12-18 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 2016/0327031 A1), hereinafter “Ito”, in view of Gelich (DE 2,211,096 C3 – as seen through the machine translation available on Google Patents and attached herein), hereinafter “Gleich”.
Regarding Claim 1, Ito teaches a micropump 1 for a microfluidic device (Fig. 3), the micropump 1 comprising:
a first layer 2; a second layer 3 adjacent the first layer 2; a resiliently flexible diaphragm 4 arranged at an interface between the first and second layers 2/3 (Figs. 2 and 3, and [0027]: “As illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3, the fluid control device 1 has a first plate 2, a second plate 3, and a film 4, which is sandwiched between the first plate 2 and the second plate 3.”),
the resiliently flexible diaphragm 4 having a peripheral edge extending perimetrically around the resiliently flexible diaphragm 4 (Fig. 3: dashed line shows the diaphragm 4 peripheral edge extending past the deformable part); and
a first pump chamber 5a formed on a first side of the resiliently flexible diaphragm 4 and a second pump chamber 5b formed on a second side of the resiliently flexible diaphragm 4 (Fig. 3 and [0031-0034]);
Further regarding Claim 1, Ito does not specifically teach the micropump discussed above further comprising a plurality of restraining tabs protruding radially inwards from the first layer into the first pump chamber; wherein the restraining tabs abuttingly engage the peripheral edge of the resiliently flexible diaphragm, as in Claim 1.
However, Gleich teaches a respective diaphragm pump wherein a bulge 4’ (the restraining tab) extends radially inward from a first layer so as to restrict movement of a flexible diaphragm 2 to prevent the diaphragm from obstructing a fluidic outlet 11 and to reduce the dead volume when the diaphragm is flexed toward the fluidic outlet 11 (“it has also been found that with vacuum pumps, in which the aforementioned annular bulge is avoided, no very high vacuum is to be generated. because in practical operation the harmful hardly ever Extension stroke is still too large...The inventive solution to this problem is that in a diaphragm pump of the initially mentioned type on the membrane facing wall of the pump chamber (pump chamber wall) in that Area in which the diaphragm finally approaches the pump chamber wall at top dead center, this has a bulge protruding slightly into the pump chamber.”). Therein, this arrangement is taught by Gleich as improving the pumping efficiency and reducing obstructions to the fluidic ports.
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 device of Ito to further include a restraining tab protruding radially inwards from the first layer into the first pump chamber; wherein the restraining tab abuttingly engages the peripheral edge of the resiliently deformable diaphragm, such as suggested by Gleich, so as to improve the pumping efficiency and reduce errors related to obstructed fluidic outlets.
Further, regarding the restraining tab being a plurality of restraining tabs, 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 duplicate the bulge/tab as many times as necessary to achieve the desired level of restraint to the diaphragm to keep it appropriately restrained for the expected result of increased efficiency as seen through Gleich.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Ito teaches the micropump discussed above further comprising an air inlet 7 fluidly coupled to the first chamber 5a, a fluid inlet 6b fluidly coupled to the second pump chamber 5b, and a fluid outlet 6a fluidly coupled to the second pump chamber 5b (Fig. 3 and [0033]), as in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Further, as discussed above regarding Claim 1, one skilled in the art would find it obvious to modify the diaphragm pump of Ito with the restraining tab of Gleich and duplicate said restraining tab as many times as necessary to achieve a desired level of restraint to the diaphragm. Therein, Ito/Gleich do not specifically teach the restraining tabs perimetrically spaced apart from each other around a perimeter of the first pump chamber, as in Claim 3.
However, mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the functionality of the restraining tab(s) of Ito/Gleich to function differently than the claimed arrangement of parametrically spaced tabs, given that both the prior art tabs and the claimed tabs serve the identical purpose of restraining the diaphragm. Further, given that the restraining tab of Gleich is spaced radially respective to the diaphragm, one skilled in the art would find it obvious to maintain the radial spacing to achieve the restraining tabs perimetrically spaced apart from each other around a perimeter of the first pump chamber.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Ito teaches the micropump discussed above further comprising a circumferential sealing channel 11 recessed into the first layer 2 around a perimeter of the first pump chamber 5a, the sealing channel 11 at least partially receiving the resiliently deformable diaphragm 4 therein (Figs. 2 and 3, and [0034]: “When the first plate 2 and second plate 3 are face-joined together, the outer circumferential part, of the film 4, that encloses the diaphragm part 4 a is sandwiched between the inner concave part 11 and the inner convex part 12.”), as in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Ito teaches the micropump discussed above further comprising a raised annular lip 12 arranged at an inner edge of the sealing channel 11, the annular lip 12 separating the sealing channel 11 from a main central recess of the first pump chamber 5a (Figs. 2 and 3, and [0034-0038]), as in Claim 5.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Gleich, as applied to Claims 1-5 above, and in further view of Cho (US 2008/0060515 A1), hereinafter “Cho”.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Ito/Gleich does not specifically teach the micropump discussed above further comprising a plurality of anti-stall grooves formed in the second pump chamber, as in Claim 6.
However, Cho teaches a respective diaphragm pump wherein a plurality of grooves between rings 12 of an upper layer 4 provide an anti-stall structure preventing the flexible diaphragm 10 from fully collapsing/deforming beyond being capable of returning to its original shape (Figs. 2 and 3a, and [0028]), thereby reducing errors due to stalling of the pump.
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 micropump of Ito/Gleich to further include a plurality of anti-stall grooves formed in the second pump chamber, such as suggested by Cho, so as to prevent the diaphragm pump from fully collapsing, thereby reducing errors related to stalling of the diaphragm pumping structure.
Claims 3 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Gleich, as applied to Claims 1-5 above, and in further view of Tracfey et al. US 2005/0095154 A1 hereinafter “Tracey”.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Further, Ito/Gelich does not specifically teach the micropump discussed above wherein the restraining tabs are perimetrically spaced apart from each other around a perimeter of the first pump chamber, as in Claim 3.
However, Tracey teaches a respective diaphragm pump comprising a plurality of ribs 636 (Figs. 6B-C) interpreted as “restraining tabs” each perimetrically spaced apart from each other around a perimeter of the first pump chamber and which abut against the diaphragm so as to limit its movement and provide a series of passages on a side of the diaphragm so as to enhance the flow efficiency by providing passages for fluid to flow when actuated by the collapsing diaphragm abutting thereagainst ([0013-0015 and 0078-0081]). Therein, such spacing of perimetric Tracey provides for the formation of flow channels therebetween, enhancing the flow efficiency of the pump by providing a defined flow path upon actuation of the diaphragm forcing fluid through the flow path.
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 pump of Ito/Gelich wherein the restraining tabs are perimetrically spaced apart from each other around a perimeter of the first pump chamber, such as suggested by Tracey, so as to enhance the flow efficiency of the pump by providing a defined flow path upon actuation of the diaphragm forcing fluid through the flow path.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above. Further, Ito/Gelich does not specifically teach the micropump discussed above wherein the plurality of restraining tabs are each spaced apart from the raised annular lip, as in Claim 12.
However, Tracey teaches a respective diaphragm pump comprising a plurality of ribs 636 (Figs. 6B-C) interpreted as “restraining tabs” each spaced apart from a raised annular lip 633 which abut against the diaphragm so as to limit its movement and provide a series of passages on a side of the diaphragm so as to enhance the flow efficiency by providing passages for fluid to flow when actuated by the collapsing diaphragm abutting thereagainst ([0013-0015 and 0078-0081]).
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 micropump of Ito/Gelich wherein the plurality of restraining tabs are each spaced apart from the raised annular lip, such as suggested by Tracey, so as to enhance the flow efficiency by providing passages for fluid to flow when actuated by the collapsing diaphragm abutting thereagainst.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, as discussed above regarding Claim 12, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify Ito/Gelich with the restraining tabs/ribs of Tracey so as to limit the movement of the diaphragm and enhance the flow efficiency. Further, Tracey provides the plurality of restraining tabs as formed integrally with the first layer ([0013]: “Ribs either integral to the block or coupled to the block extend up from the depression to form an elevated contour.”), as in Claim 13.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that, when providing the restraining tabs of Tracey to the pump of Ito/Gelich, to provide the tabs as formed integrally with the first layer, as provided by Tracey, so as to sufficiently provide the ribbed structure of Tracey from the first layer to achieve the benefits thereof.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Ito/Gelich does not specifically teach the micropump discussed above wherein the plurality of restraining tabs each comprise a flat inner surface between a first curved side surface, and a second curved side surface, the first curved side surface and the second curved side surface being connected to the first layer, the flat inner surfaces of each of the plurality of restraining tabs configured to abuttingly engage the peripheral edge of the resiliently flexible diaphragm, as in Claim 14.
However, Tracey teaches a respective diaphragm pump wherein a plurality of restraining tabs 636 each comprise a flat inner surface (The surface which abuts against the diaphragm as seen through Fig. 6B.) between a first curved side surface (The curved side surfaces protruding/extending from the flat abutting surface.), and a second curved side surface (The curved side surfaces protruding/extending from the flat abutting surface.), the first curved side surface and the second curved side surface being connected to the first layer ([0013]: “Ribs either integral to the block or coupled to the block extend up from the depression to form an elevated contour.”), the flat inner surfaces of each of the plurality of restraining tabs configured to abuttingly engage the peripheral edge of the resiliently flexible diaphragm (Abstract: “A gasket fits over the bezel so that positive pressure applied through the at least one cavity in the depression forces a gasket membrane to expand away from the pumping side and negative pressure applied through the at least one cavity in the depression pulls the gasket membrane against the elevated contour of the ribs.”). Therein, this arrangement provides for the benefits of the restraining tabs for limiting movement of the diaphragm and creating fluid passages for efficient flow.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that, when providing to the micropump of Ito/Gelich the restraining tabs of Tracey, to provide said restraining tabs wherein the plurality of restraining tabs each comprise a flat inner surface between a first curved side surface, and a second curved side surface, the first curved side surface and the second curved side surface being connected to the first layer, the flat inner surfaces of each of the plurality of restraining tabs configured to abuttingly engage the peripheral edge of the resiliently flexible diaphragm, as disclosed by Tracey, so as to achieve the sought benefits of Tracey for limiting movement of the diaphragm and creating fluid passages for efficient flow.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Ito/Gelich does not specifically teach the micropump discussed above wherein each of the plurality of restraining tabs extends inwardly towards the resiliently flexible diaphragm in a direction that is parallel to the interface between the first layer and the second layer, as in Claim 15.
However, Tracey teaches a respective diaphragm pump wherein a plurality of restraining tabs 636 extends inwardly towards the resiliently flexible diaphragm in a direction that is parallel to the interface between the first layer and the second layer (Fig. 6B shows each of the tabs 636 as extending parallel to the surface 633 in an inward direction so as to provide a thickness dimension across the dimension parallel to the surface 633.). Therein, this arrangement provides for the benefits of the restraining tabs for limiting movement of the diaphragm and creating fluid passages for efficient flow.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that, when providing to the micropump of Ito/Gelich the restraining tabs of Tracey, to provide said restraining tabs wherein each of the plurality of restraining tabs extends inwardly towards the resiliently flexible diaphragm in a direction that is parallel to the interface between the first layer and the second layer, as provided for by the disclosure of Tracey, so as to achieve the sought benefits of Tracey for limiting movement of the diaphragm and creating fluid passages for efficient flow.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Tracey. Ito and Tracey have been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 16, Ito teaches a micropump for a microfluidic device, the micropump comprising:
a first layer 2; a second layer 3 configured to be compressed against the first layer 2, a diaphragm 4 disposed at an interface between the first layer 2 and the second layer 3 (Figs. 2 and 3, and [0027]: “As illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3, the fluid control device 1 has a first plate 2, a second plate 3, and a film 4, which is sandwiched between the first plate 2 and the second plate 3.”);
the diaphragm 4 comprising a peripheral edge (Fig. 3: dashed line shows the diaphragm 4 peripheral edge extending past the deformable part.);
a sealing channel 5a recessed into the first layer, the sealing channel 5a configured to at least partially receive the diaphragm 4 therein (See Fig. 2 and [0031-0035]: “concave flow path 5 a”.);
as in Claim 16.
Further regarding Claim 16, Ito does not specifically teach the micropump discussed above further comprising a plurality of restraining tabs extending into the sealing channel; wherein the plurality of restraining tabs are configured to engage the peripheral edge of the diaphragm to restrain the diaphragm from migrating beyond the sealing channel when the second layer is compressed against the first layer, as in Claim 16.
However, Tracey teaches a respective diaphragm pump comprising a plurality of ribs 636 (Figs. 6B-C) interpreted as “restraining tabs” extending into a sealing channel formed in combination with the gasket 612 which abut against the diaphragm so as to limit its movement and provide a series of passages on a side of the diaphragm so as to enhance the flow efficiency by providing passages for fluid to flow when actuated by the collapsing diaphragm abutting thereagainst and restrict movement of the diaphragm beyond the sealing channels/passages between the tabs ([0013-0015 and 0078-0081]).
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 micropump of Ito further comprising a plurality of restraining tabs extending into the sealing channel; wherein the plurality of restraining tabs are configured to engage the peripheral edge of the diaphragm to restrain the diaphragm from migrating beyond the sealing channel when the second layer is compressed against the first layer, such as suggested by Tracey, so as to passages for fluid to flow when actuated by the collapsing diaphragm abutting thereagainst and restrict movement of the diaphragm beyond those sealing channels/passages between the tabs.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above. Further, Ito/Gelich does not specifically teach the micropump discussed above wherein each of the plurality of restraining extends inwardly towards the resiliently flexible diaphragm in a direction that is parallel to an interface that is formed between the first layer and the second layer when the second layer is compressed against the first layer, as in Claim 17.
However, Tracey teaches a respective diaphragm pump wherein a plurality of restraining tabs 636 extends inwardly towards the resiliently flexible diaphragm in a direction that is parallel to the interface between the first layer and the second layer (Fig. 6B shows each of the tabs 636 as extending parallel to the surface 633 in an inward direction so as to provide a thickness dimension across the dimension parallel to the surface 633.). Therein, this arrangement provides for the benefits of the restraining tabs for limiting movement of the diaphragm and creating fluid passages for efficient flow.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that, when providing to the micropump of Ito/Gelich the restraining tabs of Tracey, to provide said restraining tabs wherein each of the plurality of restraining extends inwardly towards the resiliently flexible diaphragm in a direction that is parallel to an interface that is formed between the first layer and the second layer when the second layer is compressed against the first layer, as provided for by the disclosure of Tracey, so as to achieve the sought benefits of Tracey for limiting movement of the diaphragm and creating fluid passages for efficient flow.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above. Further, Ito/Gelich does not specifically teach the micropump discussed above wherein the plurality of restraining tabs each comprise a flat inner surface between a first curved side surface and a second curved side surface, the first curved side surface and the second curved side surface connected to the first layer, the flat inner surfaces of each of the plurality of restraining tabs configured to engage the peripheral edge of the diaphragm, as in Claim 18.
However, Tracey teaches a respective diaphragm pump wherein a plurality of restraining tabs 636 each comprise a flat inner surface (The surface which abuts against the diaphragm as seen through Fig. 6B.) between a first curved side surface (The curved side surfaces protruding/extending from the flat abutting surface.), and a second curved side surface (The curved side surfaces protruding/extending from the flat abutting surface.), the first curved side surface and the second curved side surface being connected to the first layer ([0013]: “Ribs either integral to the block or coupled to the block extend up from the depression to form an elevated contour.”), the flat inner surfaces of each of the plurality of restraining tabs configured to abuttingly engage the peripheral edge of the resiliently flexible diaphragm (Abstract: “A gasket fits over the bezel so that positive pressure applied through the at least one cavity in the depression forces a gasket membrane to expand away from the pumping side and negative pressure applied through the at least one cavity in the depression pulls the gasket membrane against the elevated contour of the ribs.”). Therein, this arrangement provides for the benefits of the restraining tabs for limiting movement of the diaphragm and creating fluid passages for efficient flow.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that, when providing to the micropump of Ito/Gelich the restraining tabs of Tracey, to provide said restraining tabs wherein the plurality of restraining tabs each comprise a flat inner surface between a first curved side surface, and a second curved side surface, the first curved side surface and the second curved side surface being connected to the first layer, the flat inner surfaces of each of the plurality of restraining tabs configured to abuttingly engage the peripheral edge of the resiliently flexible diaphragm, as disclosed by Tracey, so as to achieve the sought benefits of Tracey for limiting movement of the diaphragm and creating fluid passages for efficient flow.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112
Applicant’s remarks and amendments sufficiently overcome the rejection of Claims 1-6 as indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth by the previous office action. As such, those rejections of Claims 1-6 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn herein.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that the prior art of Gleich does not sufficiently represent Applicant’s restraining tabs of Claim 1. Applicant argues that Gleich is drawn to a vacuum pump, and that the bulge 4’ of Gleich relied upon for providing the restraining tabs aspect is directed to the different purpose of reducing dead volume in the pump rather than restraining a peripheral edge of the Diaphragm.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because, while Gleich is drawn to a vacuum pump, this is a mere intended use of Gleigh wherein the overall structure is commensurately drawn to a diaphragm pump depending on actuation of a flexible membrane to achieve a pumping action. One skilled in the art would not turn away from Gleigh merely for its use for generating vacuum as such a commensurate structure would be fully capable of pumping a liquid in place of a gas. Further, while the bulge 4’ of Gleich may be drawn to reducing dead space, the bulge 4’ remains as abuttingly engaging a peripheral edge of the moving diaphragm when it is compressed against the bulge 4’, thereby restricting a movement of the diaphragm. The provision that this arrangement further adds the benefits of reducing dead space would not preclude its addition to the pump of Ito for restricting movement of the diaphragm, and further for the benefits of reduced dead space – see MPEP 2144(IV): “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.”.
Applicant further argues on the alleged grounds that modifying Ito with the restraining tab/bulge of Gleich would still not result in the claimed invention because the bulge/tab of Gleich would be placed in the second pump chamber and not the first given Examiner’s mapping in the prior office action.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Examiner updated the mapping of the first and second pump chambers in response to Applicant’s clarification of the identity of a single diaphragm by way of antecedent basis of the “a resiliently flexible diaphragm”. Further, Applicant points out that the bulge is located within the pump chamber of Gleich (the chamber with the ports 10 and 11). In Ito, the pump chamber having ports 6a and 6b is the first pump chamber 5a. As such, the modification of Ito in view of Gleigh would commensurately place the bulge within the first pump chamber as this is the chamber sought to reduce dead volume of by Gleich, and thus the bulge would extend from the first layer commensurately as claimed.
Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to duplicate the bulge of Gleich as doing so would not achieve the function of restraining movement of the diaphragm as claimed, but rather serves the purpose of reducing dead volume. However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the bulge 4’ of Gleich commensurately abuts against a diaphragm so as to restrict its movement, while also reducing dead space. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide additional bulges 4’ where further control over the diaphragm movement is desired and/or where further reduction of dead space is desired so as to tune the flow efficiency of the pump.
Applicant further argues that Claim 3 is separately patentable over Ito and Gleich by alleging that the placement of restraining tabs does not represent a mere rearrangement of parts as one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to provide plural bulges arranged spaced apart around a perimeter because there would be no motivation to do so.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that dead space is not unique to the outlet, but can exist anywhere along the diaphragm perimeter where the diaphragm does not sufficiently conform to the opposing chamber wall such as shown through Gleich. Thus, duplicating the bulge and placing those additional bulges along the chamber perimeter of Ito, such as commensurately at the inlet 10 and outlet 11 of Ito, would have been no more than the predictable use of a known structural feature for its known purpose of reducing unused/unnecessary chamber volume and controlling diaphragm displacement in selected regions (If bulges were placed both at the inlet 10 and outlet 11 of Ito, the bulges would be spaced perimetrically apart from each other around a perimeter of the first pump chamber given the ports’ symmetrical arrangement in Ito.). Further, the rejection need not show that the exact outlet bulge is physically copied without modification. Rather, the relevant teaching is that protruding/bulging structures adjacent to the diaphragm can locally influence diaphragm movement and reduce undesirable volume. Applying this teaching at additional perimeter locations, wherein the perimeter of a diaphragm is well known in the art to be a contributor to dead space such as shown through Gleich, would have been within the ordinary skill and creativity of the artisan as routine duplication and placement of a simple mechanical feature so as to optimize the chamber for minimized dead volume and appropriate control over the flexation of the diaphragm.
Further, Claim 3 is additionally rejected herein under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Ito in view of Gleich and in further view of Tracey in response to Applicant’s clarification of the identity of a single diaphragm by way of antecedent basis of the “a resiliently flexible diaphragm”.
New Claims
New Claims 12-15, depending from Claim 1, are rejected herein as unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over Ito in view of Gleich and in further view of Tracey.
New Claims 16-18 are rejected herein as unpatentable under 35 USC 103 over Ito in view of Tracey.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN JOSEPH KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jill Warden, can be reached at telephone number (703)756-5501. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center; and visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights