DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103: Pawliszyn in view of Zaitsu et al. or Hiraoka
Page 9 of the remarks suggests that unexpected results is provided in paragraph [0051] of the instant specification. This has not been found persuasive, specifically paragraph [0051] describes a comparison of the results from the disclosed method and that of conventional PESI and notes “The peak area account of the analyte in the above-described method is about five hundred times more than the conventional PESI method. From this, it can be inferred that the above-described method further increases the measurement sensitivity than the conventional PESI method.”
This suggests the method results in improved sensitivity as compared to traditional PESI. However, it does not specifically suggest this is because of the step of adhering solvent to the extraction phase by immersing the probe into the solvent and removing the probe from the solvent. This, therefore is insufficient evidence that the modifying feature to Pawliszyn would have been unexpected.
At the top of page 10, the remarks take the position that by combining “enrichment by the extraction phase” and “efficient elution by immersion” and further repeating the immersion into the solvent” a high synergistic effect of about five hundred times that of conventional PESI is obtained. Paragraph [0051] has no suggestion that “by combining “enrichment by the extraction phase” and “efficient elution by immersion” and further repeating the immersion into the solvent” a high synergistic effect of about five hundred times that of conventional PESI is obtained”. Instead paragraph [0051] recites that the “peak area account of the analyte in the above-described method is about five hundred times more than the conventional PESI method. From this, it can be inferred that the above-described method further increases the measurement sensitivity than the conventional PESI method”.
Moreover, the mere statement at the top of page 10 is not evidence. MPEP 716.01(c) recites:
“II. ARGUMENTS BY APPLICANT CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF EVIDENCE
Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor”
Here, the statement at the top of page 10 is not evidence and has not been supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. In order for the statement to be given weight, it must be filed in an affidavit or declaration with evidence to support such statements.
In the same vein section “1-2” continues with unsubstantiated evidence filed in an affidavit or declaration. However, for the sake of completeness, the remarks are addressed herein below.
The remarks recite:
“It can be understood from the description in 1-1 above that the method of applying the solvent (spraying method or immersion method) has significant technical significance in a state where analytes are "concentrated" and extracted in the extraction phase, which is a porous body (solid phase microextraction ((SPME). That is, the physical role played by the immersion method is completely different between the supply of solvent to a probe without an extraction phase and the supply of solvent to a probe coated with an extraction phase, and in the latter case, a "synergistic effect" is exhibited.”
The instant specification has no illusion, suggestion or recitation of any synergistic effect. Without evidence to support this conclusion filed in an affidavit or declaration, these remarks are unpersuasive.
The remarks then argue that Zaitsu and Hiroak do not use an extraction phase and therefore is not evidence that the method would lead to a higher effect compared to the spraying method. This has not been found persuasive. The modification by Zaitsu and Hiroak was not to improve sensitivity, but instead to prevent coagulation of a blood sample. Specifically, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Here, the prior art recognized a different advantage to the modification, therefore does not render the modification nonobvious.
The remarks continue by reciting:
“In the case of SPME using an extraction phase, the following factors are cited as reasons why the immersion method produces such high effects as described above. First, if the application of the solvent to the extraction phase is via "spray or droplets," it only goes so far as to wet the surface of the extraction phase, which is a porous body, and the solvent does not penetrate into the deep part of the porous body; therefore, it is considered that many of the extracted and concentrated analytes of interest remain adsorbed. In contrast, in the immersion method of the present invention, the solvent penetrates completely and uniformly throughout the entire volume of the extraction phase, which is a porous body, and the rate at which the analytes of interest are desorbed is maximized. Through such complete and uniform contact extending10
even to the deep part of the extraction phase, more of the analytes of interest concentrated in the extraction phase are ionized by PESI.
Furthermore, such action is exhibited more reliably by "repeating the immersion into the solvent." That is, by "repeating the immersion into the solvent," it is possible to gradually promote capillary action and cause the total volume of the porous extraction phase to be completely saturated with the solvent. And thereby, the analytes of interest concentrated deep within the extraction phase come into contact with the solvent for the first time, and desorption becomes possible.
This is a state that cannot be achieved by the spraying method (wetting only the surface) or a single immersion. For example, even when using the immersion method, a single long-time immersion leads to the following fatal defect: if the probe continues to be immersed in a large- volume solvent reservoir for a long time, the analytes concentrated in the extraction phase will diffuse and flow out into the solvent on the reservoir side (bleeding). By "repeating" "short-time contact," the present invention cumulatively secures the "total amount" of solvent necessary for elution while maintaining a high concentration of analytes in the extraction phase. The solution for "allowing the solvent to penetrate into the interior of the extraction phase while maintaining a high concentration of analyte" in this manner is the "repetition of immersion into the solvent," and thereby the present invention has come to exhibit the above-mentioned unexpected synergistic effect.”
None of these remarks are supported by evidence in an affidavit or declaration and are therefore insufficient to demonstrate unexpected results. Moreover, the combination was for the purposes of substituting the drop method of solvent application in Pawliszyn for the immersion method Zaitsu or Hiraoka, not for substituting a spray for immersion method. Moreover, even if evidence was provided with sufficient in an affidavit or declaration, this would not be persuasive. Specifically, MPEP 2145 recites:
"Usually, a showing of unexpected results is sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. See, e.g., In re Albrecht, 514 F.2d 1389, 1396, 185 USPQ 585, 590 (CCPA 1975). However, where the claims are not limited to a particular use, and where the prior art provides other motivation to select a particular species or subgenus, a showing of a new use alone may not be sufficient to confer patentability. See Dillon, 919 F.2d at 692, 16 USPQ2d at 1900-01. Accordingly, each case should be evaluated individually based on the totality of the circumstances."
Here, the claims are not limited to a particular use. Specifically, Pawliszyn recognized most of the method of claim 1 with the exception of the solvent being applied via droplets ([0025]). Zaitsu recognized a number of problems with applying solvent in a dropwise manner. Specifically, Zaitsu teaches in paragraph [0010] teaches applying solvent in a dropwise manner results in a mixing of the solvent and blood forming a sort of contaminant which may make observation of the target component difficult. Paragraph [0011] further dropwise application has limits to the amount of solvent added resulting in sequential measurement over a long period of time being difficult and lastly [0012] by exposure to air the blood adheres the probe and coagulates making it difficult to ionize the sample. Therefore, taken together, as evidenced by Zaitsu, there is a strong prima facie case of why one of ordinary skill in the art would substitute an immersion method as suggested in the method Zaitsu or Hiraoka. Specifically, Zaitsu teaches these problems may be resolved by immersion as discussed in paragraph [0016] and [0020]-[0023]. That is, Zaitsu is evidence of a different reason to substitute the dropwise solvent with an immersion method so as to improve observation, measurement over a long period of time and avoid blood coagulation. Thus even if unexpected results are shown, this would not be enough to confer patentability. MPEP 2145 further recites:
“Evidence pertaining to secondary considerations must be taken into account whenever it has been properly presented; however, it does not necessarily control the obviousness conclusion. See, e.g., Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1372, 82 USPQ2d 1321, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("the record establish[ed] such a strong case of obviousness" that allegedly unexpectedly superior results were ultimately insufficient to overcome obviousness conclusion); Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1692 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("given the strength of the prima facie obviousness showing, the evidence on secondary considerations was inadequate to overcome a final conclusion" of obviousness); and Newell Cos., Inc. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1988).”
Here, the evidence is not properly presented in the form of an affidavit or declaration. Additionally, the strength of the evidence is an express suggestion of substitution of the dropwise solvent application of Pawliszyn for the immersion method of Zaitso, therefore even if unexpected results could be shown it would be inadequate to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness because Pawliszyn expressly teaches the dropwise solvent application, Zaitso recognized the deficiencies of such a dropwise method and suggested the use of an immersion method to overcome such deficiencies. Therefore, these remarks are unpersuasive.
Section 1-3 continues by pointing to a spraying method of Pawliszyn. Pawlizyn is not limited to the spraying method and also discloses a drop solvent application method in paragraph [0025]. Moreover, with respect to arguments concerning the results achieved from the claimed invention are not persuasive. Specifically, MPEP 2103 (c) recites “"[T]he name of the game is the claim."”. Here, as long as each limitation is taught and a prima facie case of obviousness is made, any disclosed results do not confer boundaries to the claimed subject matter. Therefore the remarks are unpersuasive.
Section 1-4 continues with statements that are not supported by evidence in an affidavit or declaration.
Section II of the remarks then continue by statements including that blood coagulation does not exist in Pawlisyn. This entire discussion is speculative without evidence to support such statements. As discussed above, such arguments cannot be viewed as persuasive because they are absent evidence and not submitted in an affidavit or declaration. Moreover, as discussed in the last office action Zaitsu is evidence that coagulation occurs when blood is exposed to air. Pawlizyn even teaches blade spray without rinsing ([0037]), therefore modifying Pawlizyn would still be obvious to prevent coagulation when rinsing is not performed. Indeed, the instants specification teaches rinsing is optional (see abstract). Moreover, coagulation is only one of the three reasons given for adopting the immersion method discussed in Zaitsu. Zaitsu also teaches that such a method would improve observation and length of measurement time as discussed above.
The remarks continue discussing the purposes of the claimed invention over that of the combination. However, the rationale to combine is not required to be that provided by the applicant’s disclosure only that the modification would have been obvious.
The remarks then contend the immersion was dismissed as commonplace. This has not been found persuasive. The last office action discussed the reason for the substitution as preventing coagulation. Moreover, additional reasons are provided in Zaitsu discussed above and in the rejection herein below.
Lastly, the remarks note that Pawliszyn does not present the hidden problems of “enrichment using an extraction phase” and “insufficient elution”. This point is immaterial to the obviousness rejection. There is no requirement with respect to how long the immersion occurs or any particular method step that would preclude the immersion techniques of Zaitsu or Hiraoka substituting the dropwise solvent application of Pawlizyn. Moreover, Zaitsu expressly teaches such a substitution would improve observation, duration of measurement and ionization.
It is noted that the remarks do not argue that the combination does not teach any element that would distinguish the claimed invention, but instead the combination would be nonobvious due to unexpected results. The request for reconsideration was absent an affidavit or declaration to support the conclusions with evidence. Therefore, the remarks are unpersuasive. It is noted, that even if an affidavit or declaration is submitted, the evidence will be need to be evaluated to determine if it is sufficient to establish unexpected results and whether those unexpected results are sufficient to overcome the strength of the prima facie case of obviousness discussed herein below and presented previously.
Therefore, the remarks are unpersuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
Additionally, it is noted, claim 29 has been amended to include the subject matter of previous claim 31 now cancelled. MPEP 706.07(b) recites: “For an application in which an RCE has been filed, claims may be finally rejected in the first action following the filing of the RCE (with a submission and fee under 37 CFR 1.114 ) when all the claims in the application after the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and any entered supplemental amendments (A) are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (in other words, restriction (including lack of unity of invention) would not have been proper if the new or amended claims had been entered prior to the filing of the RCE), and (B) would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to the filing of the RCE under 37 CFR 1.114. ”
Here, because claim 31 was presented and claim 29 has been amended so as to be patentably indistinct from the combination of claims 29 and 31 and making would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next office action, finality on first action is proper.
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, 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.
Claims 29, 32-33, 35-44, 47-49 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawliszyn et al. (WO 2015/188282) (submitted with IDS) in view of Hiraoka (WO2018/207903) (copy of publication submitted herewith) as evidenced by Zaitsu.
Regarding claim 29, Pawliszyn et al. teach a method for identifying a target component of interest in a specimen by probe electrospray ionization mass spectrometry ([0002] teaches MS is a tool to identify and quantitate molecules, figure 2 shows a coated SPME probe 22 where the sample undergoes MS, see paragraph [0060]. Paragraph [0044] teaches extraction coating adsorbs analytes of interest, thus the method of MS identifies molecules, wherein the molecules extracted by SPME for MS analysis are the target component of interest), the method comprising:
(1) adsorbing the target component of interest onto an extraction phase for adsorbing the target component of interest from the specimen ([0044] coating adsorbs analytes of interest) by immersing a probe into the specimen ([0060], preconditioned substrate is inserted into a vail containing the sample (i.e. coated substrate is immersed in the specimen)), wherein the probe is at least partially coated with the extraction phase ([0044] solid substrate is coated with an extraction polymer);
(2) removing the probe from the specimen ([0060], rapidly rinsed in a vial containing water at 16, thus removed from vial 12 to be rinsed);
(3) applying solvent to the extraction phase ([0060] solvent applied to wet solid coated substrate and extract or concentrate analytes adsorbed by coating);
(4) desorbing the target component of the interest into the solvent applied to the probe from the extraction phase ([0049] and [0060]);
(5) electrospraying the target component of interest desorbed in the solvent adhered to the probe on the ionization source at atmospheric pressure by applying a voltage to the probe to spray aerosolized ionized droplets out of the probe ([0060]); and,
(6) identifying the small molecule component of interest present in the aerosolized ionized droplets (identification by MS as discussed in paragraph [0002] and [0060], wherein since the analytes of interest are extracted by SPME, the identification is of the desorbed and ionized molecules of interest).
Pawliszyn fails to disclose the solvent is adhered and wherein the step of adhering solvent includes adhering the solvent to the extraction phase by immersing the probe into the solvent and removing the probe from the solvent, and eluting the target component into the solvent adhered to at least one of the extraction phase and the probe by repeating the immersing of the probe into the solvent.
Hiraoka teaches the solvent is adhered ([0034]-[0035] teaches bringing the probe 11 in contact with the solvent storage unit 31 (see figures 4 and 8) to allow the sample to repeatedly obtain the solvent and intermittently supplying the solvent to the sample. Since the probe is dipped into the solvent reservoir ([0034]) at least some solvent is adhered in order for it to be supplied to the sample on probe 11) and wherein the step of adhering solvent includes adhering the solvent to the probe by immersing the probe into the solvent and removing the probe from the solvent (see figures 4 and 8 and paragraphs [0034]-[0035] which teach dipping (i.e. immersing) the probe into the solvent storage or reservoir) and eluting the target component into the solvent adhered to at least one of the extraction phase and the probe by repeating the immersing of the probe into the solvent (paragraph [0034] note dipping into solvent at least once and paragraph [0035] intermittently supplying the solvent (i.e. repeatedly).).
Hiraoka modifies Pawliszyn by suggesting dipping the coated probe into the solvent (note Hiraoka envisioned a coated probe see figure 7 coating insulator 15).
Since both inventions are directed towards probe electrospray ionization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solvent application process of Pawliszyn to include an immersion of the probe in the solvent as suggested by Hiraoka because it would enable ionization of components in a sample that are relatively difficult to ionize ([0012]). Moreover, since Pawlizyn teaches ionization of blood and as evidenced by Zaitsu, blood is difficult to ionize, providing the immersion suggested by Hiraoka would enable ionization of such a difficult to ionize sample. Lastly, Zaitsu is evidence that immersion additionally resolves issues with observation and measurement duration ([0010]-[0011] teach these problems with droplet solvent application and paragraphs [0020]-[0023] teach these problems are resolved by an immersion method)
Regarding claim 55, Pawliszyn in view of Hiraoka teach the step of rinsing the extraction phase and the probe before the step of adhering (Pawliszyn teaches rinsing before application of solvent in paragraph [0060], adhering suggested in Hiraoka discussed above in claim 29).
Regarding claim 32, Pawliszyn further teaches wherein the step of rinsing includes rinsing at least one of the extraction phase and the probe with at least one selected from the group consisting aqueous, organic solvent and mixture thereof (rinsing with water (i.e. aqueous))..
Regarding claim 33, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the step of rinsing includes rinsing the probe with water to remove large molecular weight interferences ([0046] rinsing to remove artefacts adhered to the coating surface, paragraph [0015] teaches artefacts such as fibers, proteins, cells. Thus large molecular weight interferences).
Regarding claim 35, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the solvent further comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of aqueous, organic solvent and mixture thereof ([0060] teaches solvent included in desorption solution, paragraph [0058] teaches water, acetonitrile , isopropanol, methanol with 0.1% formic acid as the solvents).
Regarding claim 36, Pawliszyn in view of Hiraoka teaches wherein an abundance rate of aqueous based on the solvent is from 30 to 70% in weight (Pawliszyn teaches combinations of water and methanol [0058], however does not disclose the abundance. However, paragraph [0084] of Hiraoka teaches a 1:1 water: methanol mixed solvent, thus 50% abundance water or aqueous. The combination is obvious because it provides an appropriate combination of water and methanol to achieve the intended purpose).
Regarding claim 37, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the solvent comprises an organic solvent ([0058], isopropanol).
Regarding claim 38, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the organic solvent is alcohol ([0058], isopropanol).
Regarding claim 39, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the alcohol is isopropanol ([0058]).
Regarding claim 40, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the solvent further comprises acidic compound ([0058], formic acid).
Regarding claim 41, Pawliszyn in view of Hiraoka teaches dipping the probe into the solvent after the step of electrospraying, wherein the step of electrospraying and the step of dipping are repeated (Hiraoka see paragraph [0076]).
Regarding claim 42, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the extraction phase comprises a polymer having solid pores and particles that are sized to adsorb the target components ([0020] teaches polyacrylonitrile, which is one of the instant application’s disclosed extraction phases, thus interpreted to have solid pores and particles sized to adsorb the target components. Note there are other overlapping extraction phases between the instant invention and Pawliszyn).
Regarding claim 43, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the extraction phase comprises coating binder to prevent adsorption of non-target components onto the extraction phase ([0054] teaches a coating dissolved in solvent, specifically DMF and applied to substrate. As evidenced by the instant specification DMF is a coating binder [0105], thus results in the claimed prevention. MPEP 2112 (II) an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time. Here, as evidenced by the instant specification DMF is a binder to prevent adsorption of non-target components onto the extraction phase. Since Pawliszyn teaches DMF, the same result will inherently occur).
Regarding claim 44, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the extraction phase comprises substituted or unsubstituted poly (dimethylsiloxane), polyacrylate, poly (ethylene glycol), poly(divinylbenzene) or polypyrrole (polyethylene glycol polyroole ([0050]), wherein each is either substituted or unsubstituted).
Regarding claim 47, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the extraction phase comprises a bioaffinity agent selected from the group consisting of a selective cavity, a molecular recognition moiety, a molecularly imprinted polymer and an immobilized antibody ([0052] wherein the coating is formed with extractive particles including molecular imprinted polymer particles).
Regarding claim 48, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the specimen is a biological system ([0050] note tissue specifically organs. See also Hiroake [0084] salmon roe (i.e. biological system)).
Regarding claim 49, Pawliszyn teaches wherein the extraction phase comprising a component preventing adsorbing macromolecules ([0054] teaches a coating dissolved in solvent, specifically DMF and applied to substrate. As evidenced by the instant specification DMF is a coating binder [0105], thus results in the claimed prevention).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawliszyn in view of Hiraoka and further in view of Miao (CN208937594) (copy of translated abstract submitted herewith).
Regarding claim 34, the Pawliszyn teaches a vortex agitator to rinse the extraction phase and the probe ([0060]), however fails to disclose the rinsing is via spray.
However, Miao teaches rinsing a needle via a spray generated vortex (see translated abstract).
Miao modifies the combined device by suggesting a structure for the vortex agitator.
Since both inventions are directed towards vortex generators for the purpose of cleaning a probe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the spray generated vortex generator to the vortex agitator of Pawliszyn in view of Hiraoka because the washing effect is remarkably improved compared with a traditional needle cleaner (see translated abstract).
Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawliszyn in view of Hiraoka and further in view of Pawliszyn (US pgPub 2005/0276727)(herein P2).
Regarding claims 45-46, while Pawliszyn in view of Hiroaka teach several non-limiting suitable extraction phase elements, the combined device fails to expressly suggest substituted or unsubstituted poly(divinylbenzene or an extraction phase comprising a bioaffinity agent that has a selective cavity.
However, P2 teaches substituted or unsubstituted poly(divinylbenzene) ([0166], [0260]) or an extraction phase comprising a bioaffinity agent that has a selective cavity ([0084]).
P2 modifies the combined device by teaching other types of extraction phase coatings and bioaffinity agents that could be substituted for polypyrrole or polyethelyene glycol (Pawlyszyn [0051]) or the molecular imprint polymer disclosed in Pawliszyn ([0052]).
Since both inventions are directed towards extraction phase coated probes and P2 teaches the substituted elements of the extraction phase were known to be used as alternatives to the elements of the extraction phase disclosed by Pawliszyn, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the components of Pawliszyn for those of P2 because it would lead to the predictable results of extracting target molecules for desorption, ionization and mass analysis (MPEP 2143 (I)(B)).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MICHAEL J LOGIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/MICHAEL J LOGIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights