DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
As to applicants amendments and remarks, filed on 11/4/25, the previous prior art rejection has been modified to address the clam amendments.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 37 (group II) directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed in claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-12, 14, 25-32, 35 (group I) for the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are directed to related apparatuses. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions of group newly presented group II presents distinct products from the invention of originally elected group I because the inventions as claimed have a materially different design, are mutually exclusive, and would require a different field of search. Specifically, newly presented group II requires a container comprising nanodroplets, an outlet for delivering encapsulated nanodroplets, and an energy source to provide energy to the nanodroplets to form microbubbles, none of which is required by originally elected group I; and originally elected group I requires a container for holding a solution of microbubbles or a solution that will formulate microbubbles, an outlet for delivering the solution of microbubbles, none of which is required by newly presented group II. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
3. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; and/or
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
The inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different class/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); and/or
The prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or
The inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 37 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Status of Claim/Remarks
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-12, 14, 25-32, 35, and 37 are pending with claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-12, 14, 25-32, 35 being examined and claim 37 deemed withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “microbubble forming apparatus for processing” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The instant specification on page 13 discusses the microbubble forming apparatus as #612 in Figure 6 which is either a device that adds sonic energy, a mechanical mixer or impeller, or a fluid system that forms gas. For purposes of examination, this is how the limitation “microbubble forming apparatus for processing” in claim 14 will be interpreted.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AIA 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, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 25, 26, 28, 30-32, 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cerny et al (US 4957656; hereinafter “Cerny”; already of record) in view of Greenleaf et al (US 20030078227; hereinafter “Greenleaf”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Cerny teaches a system for delivering microbubbles to a biological sample (Cerny teaches a system in Figures 1-2), the system comprising: a container for holding a solution of microbubbles or a solution that will formulate encapsulated microbubbles when processed; and at least one outlet for delivering the solution of microbubbles to the biological sample (Cerny teaches a container 19 for holding/creating microbubbles which has an outlet going to 20; Fig. 2-4, col. 4 line 3-col. 7 line 40-49. The examiner notes that what the container is for is a matter of intended use and that the solution, microbubbles, and sample are not positively recited and therefore do not further limit the system structure).
Note: The instant claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”, “for…”, etc…). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Cerny teaches where albumin microbubbles are formed and output for biological processing (Cerny teaches the formation of albumin microbubbles for biological processing; see above). Cerny does not specifically teach an energy source for providing thermal, sonic, or light activation energy to the microbubbles that causes the microbubbles to oscillate or burst and thereby process the sample. However, Greenleaf teaches the analogous art of albumin microbubbles, where the microbubbles are placed with a sample and then an activation energy is applied via an energy source for providing thermal, sonic, or light activation energy (Greenleaf teaches albumin-based albunex microbubbles with a sample in a well where the samples are sonicated via acoustic transduction; [29, 31, 41, 94], Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system for making and providing the albumin microbubbles in Cerny to have provided the albumin microbubbles directly with the sample for treatment via sonication as in Greenleaf because Greenleaf teaches that sonication in the presence of albumin microbubbles enhanced transfection (Greenleaf; [94, 100]) and because Greenleaf shows that albumin microbubbles are known to be produced and used for sample treatment, including transfection, by adding sonication energy to the microbubbles (Greenleaf; [94, 100]). Therefore, Greenleaf shows that albumin microbubbles are known to be produced and used for sample treatment, including transfection, by adding sonication energy to the microbubbles (Greenleaf; [94, 100]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have used the albumin microbubbles produced in Cerny to be coupled with sonication energy for sample treatment as in Greenleaf because Greenleaf teaches that sonication energy in the presence of albumin microbubbles can help treat samples (Greenleaf; [94, 100]).
As to claim 3, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the activation energy is ultrasound having a frequency in the range from 0.01 MHz to 10 MHz (The modification of the system of Cerny to further include an energy source as in Greenleaf has already been discussed above. Greenleaf teaches sonic energy, and also teaches the recited frequency range; [34, 41], claim 17).
As to claim 5, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the biological sample comprises DNA or DNA that has been cross-linked to protein and wherein processing the sample comprises shearing the DNA (The examiner notes that the sample is not positively recited, and therefore does not further limit the system structure as the components of the sample relate to intended use and function of the system. The modification of the system of Cerny to further include an energy source for sample treatment as in Greenleaf has already been discussed above, where Greenleaf teaches DNA; [46-48]).
As to claim 6, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the biological sample comprises cells and wherein processing the sample comprises effecting cell lysis, optionally wherein the cells comprise bacteria or yeast cells (The examiner notes that the sample is not positively recited, and therefore does not further limit the system structure as the components of the sample relate to intended use and function of the system).
As to claim 8, modified Cerny teaches the system of 1 wherein the sample comprises tissue and wherein processing the sample comprises performing tissue dispersion (The examiner notes that the sample is not positively recited, and therefore does not further limit the system structure as the components of the sample relate to intended use and function of the system).
As to claim 9, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the sample comprises at least one of fresh tissue, cryogenically preserved tissue, and fixed and paraffin embedded tissue (The examiner notes that the sample is not positively recited, and therefore does not further limit the system structure as the components of the sample relate to intended use and function of the system).
As to claim 11, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 1 wherein a majority of the microbubbles have a diameter in the range from 0.1 microns to 10 microns (Cerny; col. 5 line 10-19. The examiner notes that the microbubbles are not positively recited, and therefore does not further limit the system structure as the components of the microbubbles relate to intended use and function of the system).
As to claim 12, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 1 comprising a second container for holding dehydrated microbubbles, which are mixed with a solution and thus re-suspended, and that provides the solution of microbubbles to the container for holding the solution of microbubbles (Cerny teaches various containers in Figure 1 prior to container 19 that are then connected and fed to container 19, and are capable of holding any solution; Fig. 1-2. The examiner notes that what the containers are for is a matter of intended use).
As to claim 14, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 1 comprising a microbubble forming apparatus for processing the solution to form encapsulated microbubbles within the solution that will formulate encapsulated microbubbles when processed (Cerny teaches a sonicator probe; Fig. 2-4, col. 4 line 3-col. 7 line 40-49).
As to claim 25, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 1 where the solution that will formulate encapsulated microbubbles when processed includes surfactants, emulsifiers, polymers, or proteins (Cerny teaches various solutions; Fig. 2-4, col. 4 line 3-col. 7 line 40-49. The examiner notes that the solution is not positively recited, and therefore does not further limit the system structure as the components of the solution relate to intended use and function of the system).
As to claim 26, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 14 wherein the microbubble forming apparatus comprises a probe for adding sonic energy to the solution that will formulate encapsulated microbubbles when processed in the presence of gas to induce the formation of the microbubbles in the solution before it is added to the biological sample (Cerny teaches a sonicator probe; Fig. 2-4, col. 4 line 3-col. 7 line 40-49).
As to claim 28, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 14 wherein the microbubble forming apparatus comprises at least one fluid system that forces gas surrounded by liquid through an opening to result in microbubble production (Cerny teaches air into an opening surrounding by liquid; Fig. 2-3, col. 1 line 43-50, col. 6 line 27-35, col. 7 line 5-27).
As to claim 30, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 14 wherein the solution that will formulate encapsulated microbubbles when processed comprises encapsulated liquid droplets, optionally wherein a majority of the droplets have a diameter in the range from 100 nanometers to 750 nanometers (The examiner notes that the solution is not positively recited, and therefore does not further limit the system structure as the components of the solution relate to intended use and function of the system).
As to claim 31, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 30 wherein the droplets comprise a shell surrounding a liquid core that converts to a gas upon the addition of acoustic, thermal, or optical energy (The examiner notes that the droplets are not positively recited, and therefore does not further limit the system structure as the components of the droplets relate to intended use and function of the system).
As to claim 32, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 31 wherein the liquid core comprises a hydrocarbon or perfluorocarbon, optionally at least one of isopentane, perfluoropentane, perfluorohexane, perfluorobutane, and perfluoropropane (The examiner notes that the liquid core is not positively recited, and therefore does not further limit the system structure as the components of the liquid core relate to intended use and function of the system).
As to claim 35, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 30 comprising an energy source for converting the droplets into microbubbles, optionally wherein the energy source is configured to convert the droplets into microbubbles before or after the solution is delivered to the biological sample (Cerny teaches a sonicator probe which creates microbubbles; Fig. 2-4, col. 4 line 3-col. 7 line 40-49).
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cerny et al (US 4957656; hereinafter “Cerny”; already of record) in view of Greenleaf et al (US 20030078227; hereinafter “Greenleaf”; already of record) alone, or alternatively in view of Marquiss et al (US 20020009391; hereinafter “Marquiss”; already of record).
As to claim 10, modified Cerny teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the container includes an outlet for delivering the solution of microbubbles or the solution that will formulate encapsulated microbubbles when processed to wells of a multi-well plate (see above).
Modified Cerney discloses the claimed invention except for a plurality of outlets for delivering the solution to different wells of a multi-well plate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made more outlets for the advantage of simultaneously creating more samples to improve throughput since it has been held that the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP 2144.04 Section VI (B) and St. Regis Paper Co. v Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). However, Marquiss teaches the analogous art of fluid handling where there are singular containers connected to multiple fluid outlets for dispensing to different wells in a multi-well plate (Marquiss; Fig. 25-28, [166-187]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the dispensing outlet of modified Cerny to have included multiple outlets as in Marquiss because Marequiss teaches that using multiple dispensing outlets provides the advantage of dispensing multiple solutions to different containers (Marquiss; [166], Fig. 25-28), and one of ordinary skill in the art would also understand that multiple outlets would improve throughput and efficiency.
Claim 27 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cerny et al (US 4957656; hereinafter “Cerny”; already of record) in view of Greenleaf et al (US 20030078227; hereinafter “Greenleaf”; already of record) in view of Yamasaki et al (US 20100089133; hereinafter “Yamasaki”; already of record).
As to claim 27, Cerny teaches the system of claim 14 with the microbubble forming apparatus used to form microbubbles in the solution, before the solution is added to the biological sample (see claims 1 and 14 above).
Modified Cerny does not specifically teach the microbubble forming apparatus comprises a mechanical mixer or impeller to form the microbubbles. However, Yamasaki teaches the analogous art of microbubble formation using a mechanical mixer or impeller to form the microbubbles (Yamasaki teaches creating microbubbles using an impeller; [78-81, 124]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the microbubble forming apparatus of modified Cerny with the microbubble forming apparatus of Yamasaki because Yamasaki teaches that it is known in the art to create microbubbles using an impeller (Yamasaki; [78-81, 124]), and because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this substitution would be obvious to achieve the same result of microbubble formation.
Claim 29 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cerny et al (US 4957656; hereinafter “Cerny”; already of record) in view of Greenleaf et al (US 20030078227; hereinafter “Greenleaf”; already of record) in view of Kukizaki et al (Effect of surfactant type on microbubble formation behavior using Shirasu porous glass (SPG) membranes; Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochemical and Engineering Aspects 326 (2008) p. 129-137. hereinafter “Kukizaki”; already of record).
As to claim 29, Cerny teaches the system of claim 14 with the microbubble forming apparatus used to form microbubbles (see claim 14 above).
Modified Cerny does not specifically teach the microbubble forming apparatus comprises at least one fluid system that forces gas through a porous membrane to form the microbubbles. However, Kukizaki teaches the analogous art of microbubble formation using a at least one fluid system that forces gas through a porous membrane to form the microbubbles (Kukizaki teaches using gas flowing past a porous membrane; Fig. 3, p. 129-131. Kukizaki teaches that microbubbles have various applications including biotechnology; p. 129. Kukizaki teaches that it is known in the art to create microbubbles using a porous membrane; p. 130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the microbubble forming apparatus of modified Cerny with the microbubble forming apparatus of Kukizaki because Kukizaki teaches that it is known in the art to create microbubbles using a porous membrane (Kukizaki; p. 130), and because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this substitution would be obvious to achieve the same result of microbubble formation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on page 6-7 of their remarks that Greenleaf does not teach sonication in the presence of microbubbles enhances transfection, but rather that Albunex enhances transfection efficiency, and therefore Greenleaf fails to provide the necessary motivation for providing activation energy. Applicants also argue that one would not be motivated to combine Greenleaf with Cerny because Cerny is directed towards producing protein microbubbles, and that combining the teachings of Greenleaf to use energy to burst microbubbles with Cerny would frustrate the very purpose of Cerny. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Cerny teaches where albumin microbubbles are formed and output for biological processing (Cerny teaches the formation of albumin microbubbles for biological processing; see above). Cerny does not specifically teach an energy source for providing thermal, sonic, or light activation energy to the microbubbles that causes the microbubbles to oscillate or burst and thereby process the sample. However, Greenleaf teaches the analogous art of albumin microbubbles, where the microbubbles are placed with a sample and then an activation energy is applied via an energy source for providing thermal, sonic, or light activation energy (Greenleaf teaches albumin-based albunex microbubbles with a sample in a well where the samples are sonicated via acoustic transduction; [29, 31, 41, 94], Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system for making and providing the albumin microbubbles in Cerny to have provided the albumin microbubbles directly with the sample for treatment via sonication as in Greenleaf because Greenleaf teaches that sonication in the presence of albumin microbubbles enhanced transfection (Greenleaf; [94, 100]) and because Greenleaf shows that albumin microbubbles are known to be produced and used for sample treatment, including transfection, by adding sonication energy to the microbubbles (Greenleaf; [94, 100]). The examiner maintains that Greenleaf does not solely teach that albumin is the result of the increased sample treatment (transfection efficiency) as the albumin (albunex) alone would not treat the samples and the sonication energy of Greenleaf is required in combination with the albunex. Therefore, Greenleaf shows that albumin microbubbles are known to be produced and used for sample treatment, including transfection, by adding sonication energy to the microbubbles (Greenleaf; [94, 100]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have used the albumin microbubbles produced in Cerny to be coupled with sonication energy for sample treatment as in Greenleaf because Greenleaf teaches that sonication energy in the presence of albumin microbubbles can help treat samples (Greenleaf; [94, 100]). As to applicants arguments that the modification of Greenleaf to use energy to burst microbubbles with Cerny would frustrate the very purpose of Cerny, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Cerny is used to produce albumin microbubbles, and Greenleaf teaches the use of albumin microbubbles in the presence of sonication to treat samples. Taking the produced microbubbles of Cerny and using them in the technique of Greenleaf would not defeat the purpose of Cerny as Cerny is only used to form the microbubbles and what is done after the formation of the microbubbles does not render Cerny inoperable. The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to have used the albumin microbubbles produced in Cerny to be coupled with sonication energy for sample treatment as in Greenleaf because Greenleaf teaches that sonication energy in the presence of albumin microbubbles can help treat samples (Greenleaf; [94, 100]).
Applicants argue on page 7-9 of their remarks that the references in various dependent claims do not teach the previously argued features of claim 1. The examiner notes that the additional references are not used to teach the argued features, and refers applicants to the prior art rejection of the independent claim for an explanation of why the references teach the argued features.
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 R Whatley whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon- Fri 8am-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, Jill Warden can be reached on 5712721267. 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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798