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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/15/2026. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “hinged cap further comprises a chip” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 rejected are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothberg et al. (US 20230109581 A1; effectively filed 10/01/2021) in view of Courtney et al. (US 20150233828 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rothberg teaches a device (abstract; Fig. 1; [0002]) comprising:
a heat block defining the well (Fig. 7 and [0081] teaches a heater block 240 that defines a well for the reaction tube);
the well ([0020] teaches a device that houses a reaction tube, such as a chimney-shaped component, i.e. well; Fig. 7 and [0081], central well of heater 240) configured to receive a reaction tube containing an analyte (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; [0020] teaches the chimney-shaped component is designed to receive the reaction tube; Fig. 1 teaches reaction tube 10 comprises contents 13; [0018] teaches test tubes containing reagents and target nucleic acid sequences; note that “reaction tube containing an analyte” is not positively recited structurally);
the reaction tube comprising a cap (Fig. 1 teaches reaction tube 10 with a cap 11), wherein the cap further comprises a chip ([0038] teaches an RFID tag or NFC tag, i.e. chip, integrated or adhered to the cap of the reaction tube);
a receiver ([0038]-[0039], “receiving component of the visual result detection device”) electrically connected to the chip ([0038]-[0039] teaches the receiving component wirelessly receives transmitted information from a RFID tag or NFC tag of the cap of the reaction tube; therefore, the receiving component is electrically connected to the chip) and configured to receive wirelessly transmitted data from the chip (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; [0038]-[0039] teaches the receiving component wirelessly receives transmitted information from a RFID tag or NFC tag of the cap of the reaction tube), the wirelessly transmitted data including information for determining a parameter associated with a type of test to be performed on the analyte by the device (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; [0038]-[0040],[0055] teaches the information of the physical encoding includes test instructions to configure the visual result detection device to illuminate and/or image the reaction tube and/or other information of interest; therefore, the receiver is capable of receiving the claimed data);
a light emitting source (Fig. 1, illumination source 14) configured to emit an excitation light at a wavelength to illuminate the analyte in the reaction tube (Fig. 1; [0028]-[0028]);
an optical detector (Fig. 1, detector 16) configured to receive an emission light in response to the analyte being illuminated by the excitation light (Fig. 1; [0028],[0030]); and
a processor (Fig. 6, [0036], processor 610) operably coupled to the receiver and the light emitting source (Fig. 6; [0036],[0038]-[0039]), the processor configured to select the wavelength of the emission light based on the parameter ([0036] teaches the processor controls behavior of the visual result detection device, such as the illumination sources; [0029] teaches a programmable illumination source that provides wavelengths; [0044] teaches the visual result detection device configured to provide illumination at different wavelengths to detect the presence of different probes; [0038]-[0040],[0055] teaches the information of the physical encoding includes test instructions to configure the visual result detection device to illuminate and/or image the reaction tube and/or other information of interest; [0043] teaches test instructions are customized based on the fluorescent probes or dyes; [0055] teaches the test instructions including information on dye behaviors when subject to illumination, and illuminating for a test for a certain virus using a certain type of chemistry; therefore, it is implied that the processor is configured to select or provide the wavelength of emission light based on the test instructions in order to properly follow the test instructions based on the fluorescent probes or dyes related to a type of test to be performed).
Rothberg fails to teach: wherein the well comprises at least one opening; the reaction tube comprising a hinged cap, wherein the hinged cap further comprises the chip; and the light emitting source configured to emit the excitation light through the at least one opening at the wavelength to illuminate the analyte in the reaction tube.
Rothberg teaches the visual detection component is incorporated within the heater for visual reading of the reaction tube ([0082]).
Courtney teaches a device for optically measuring fluorescence (abstract; Figs. 1-4) including wells (32) for receiving a sample tube (16) made of a transparent material (abstract). Courtney teaches the device includes a heat block (Fig. 2 and [0047]-[0048], thermally conductive block 34) that includes a first opening (36) configured to create an optical path from the light emitting source to a transparent portion of the reaction tube (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heat block defining the well of Rothberg to incorporate Rothberg’s teachings of a visual detection component is incorporated within the heater for visual reading of the reaction tube ([0082]) and Courtney’s device including a heat block with an opening that provides an optical path for the light emitting source (Figs. 1-2; [0047]-[0048]) to provide: wherein the well comprises at least one opening; and the light emitting source configured to emit the excitation light through the at least one opening at the wavelength to illuminate the analyte in the reaction tube. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving transmission of desired excitation light from the light emitting source, through the heat block, and to the analyte inside of the reaction tube.
Modified Rothberg fails to teach: the reaction tube comprising a hinged cap, wherein the hinged cap further comprises the chip.
Rothberg teaches an RFID tag or NFC tag, i.e. chip, integrated with or adhered to a cap of a reaction tube ([0038]).
Courtney teaches a reaction tube (Figs. 1-2 and [0043], micro-centrifuge tube 16) provided with a hinged lid (18) which is kept closed during the measurement in order to prevent contamination ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the cap of modified Rothberg to incorporate Courtney’s teachings of hinged lids for closing reaction tubes (Figs. 1-2; [0043]) and Rothberg’s teachings of a cap comprising a chip ([0038]) to provide: the reaction tube comprising a hinged cap, wherein the hinged cap further comprises the chip. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully closing the tube during measurement and preventing contamination. I.e. It would have been obvious to have substituted one known element (Rothberg’s cap) for another (Courtney’s hinged cap), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (closing the tube during measurement and preventing contamination). See MPEP 2143(I)(B). (In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929), “…the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent”).
Regarding claim 2, Rothberg further teaches wherein the processor is operably coupled to the heat block and configured to control the temperature of the analyte ([0036] teaches the processor controls the heating mechanisms, therefore is coupled to the heat block and configured to control temperature of the analyte; [0082] teaches the reaction tube is heated).
Regarding claim 3, modified Rothberg fails to teach: wherein the heat block includes a second opening configured to create an optical path from the illuminated analyte to the optical detector.
Rothberg teaches the visual detection component is incorporated within the heater for visual reading of the reaction tube ([0082]).
Courtney teaches a device for optically measuring fluorescence (abstract; Figs. 1-4) including wells (32) for receiving a sample tube (16) made of a transparent material (abstract). Courtney teaches the device includes a heat block (Fig. 2 and [0047]-[0048], thermally conductive block 34) that includes a first opening (36) configured to create an optical path from the light emitting source to a transparent portion of the reaction tube (Fig. 2); and a second opening (64) configured to create an optical path from the illuminated analyte to an optical detector (28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heat block of modified Rothberg to incorporate Rothberg’s teachings of a visual detection component is incorporated within the heater for visual reading of the reaction tube ([0082]) and Courtney’s device including a heat block with openings for the light emitting source and optical detector (Figs. 1-2; [0047]-[0048]) to provide: wherein the heat block includes a second opening configured to create an optical path from the illuminated analyte to the optical detector. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving transmission of the illuminated analyte from the reaction tube, through the heat block, and to the optical detector.
Regarding claim 4, Rothberg further teaches wherein the light emitting source includes one or more light emitting diodes ([0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Rothberg further teaches wherein the light emitting source is configured to illuminate a bottom part of the reaction tube (Fig. 1 shows illumination source 14 illuminating a relative bottom part of tube 10).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothberg and Courtney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maracas et al. (US 5772966 A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Rothberg fails to teach: the device of claim 1, further comprising: a hinged cover configured to be movable to cover a top portion of the reaction tube, the receiver located within the hinged cover.
Rothberg teaches an RFID tag or NFC tag can be integrated with or adhered to the cap of the reaction tube ([0038]-[0039]).
Maracas teaches an assay dispensing apparatus (abstract). Maracas teaches the apparatus includes a cover, which selectively covers and uncovers a top face of a body and is pivotably-connected using a hinge (column 15, lines 37-42); and the cover is placed in an uncovered state for dispensing samples into ports and a covered state that seals the samples within the apparatus for storage and use of the device (column 15, lines 42-46). Maracas teaches a cover plate can include a transmitter for wirelessly transmitting a signal from a sensor, the transmitter including a radio frequency tag or transponder integrated with the cover plate (column 20, lines 15-22). Maracas teaches the device includes a wireless receiver to receive the signal from the transmitter (column 20, lines 23-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Rothberg to incorporate Rothberg’s teachings of an RFID tag or NFC tag can be integrated with or adhered to the cap of the reaction tube ([0038]-[0039]) and Maracas’ teachings of an assay device with a hinged cover and a wireless receiver to receive a signal from a cover plate (column 15, lines 37-46; column 20, lines 15-30) to provide: the device of claim 1, further comprising: a hinged cover configured to be movable to cover a top portion of the reaction tube, the receiver located within the hinged cover. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving sealing of the reaction tube for storage or during use and allowing for receiving transmitted data from the chip when the chip is on the top or cap of the reaction tube. Additionally, providing the receiver located within the hinged cover is an obvious matter of design choice that would have an expected result of aligning the receiver with the chip of the reaction tube when the chip is at the top of the reaction tube (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Regarding claim 7, Rothberg further teaches wherein the receiver is further configured to emit or receive a near-field communication signal (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; [0038]-[0039] teaches the receiving component wirelessly receives transmitted information from a NFC tag disposed on the cap of the reaction tube).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of 04/15/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2 and 4-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rothberg et al. (US 20230109581 A1; effectively filed 10/01/2021) in view of Courtney et al. (US 20150233828 A1).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding claims 6-7, specifically applicant’s arguments that Rothberg and Maracas fails to teach the claimed physical structure of the claims, and it is not evident how a lid could be added to Rothberg’s device, and therefore there is no motivation to combine the references (Remarks, page 9), the examiner disagrees.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Rothberg provides teachings of: an RFID tag or NFC tag can be integrated with or adhered to the cap of the reaction tube ([0038]-[0039]). Maracas provides teachings and suggestions of: an assay dispensing apparatus (abstract) including a cover, which selectively covers and uncovers a top face of a body and is pivotably-connected using a hinge (column 15, lines 37-42); and the cover is placed in an uncovered state for dispensing samples into ports and a covered state that seals the samples within the apparatus for storage and use of the device (column 15, lines 42-46). Maracas provides further teachings and motivation of: the cover plate can include a transmitter for wirelessly transmitting a signal from a sensor, the transmitter including a radio frequency tag or transponder integrated with the cover plate (column 20, lines 15-22); wherein the device includes a wireless receiver to receive the signal from the transmitter (column 20, lines 23-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Rothberg to incorporate Rothberg’s teachings of an RFID tag or NFC tag integrated with or adhered to the cap of the reaction tube ([0038]-[0039]) and Maracas’ teachings of an assay device with a hinged cover and a wireless receiver to receive a signal from a cover plate (column 15, lines 37-46; column 20, lines 15-30) to provide: the device of claim 1, further comprising: a hinged cover configured to be movable to cover a top portion of the reaction tube, the receiver located within the hinged cover. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving sealing of the reaction tube for storage or during use and allowing for receiving transmitted data from the chip when the chip is on the top or cap of the reaction tube. Additionally, providing the receiver located within the hinged cover is an obvious matter of design choice that would have an expected result of aligning the receiver with the chip of the reaction tube when the chip is at the top of the reaction tube (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the hinged cover with the receiver in view of Rothberg and Maracas in order to improve sealing of the reaction tube for storage or during use and allowing for receiving transmitted data from the chip when the chip is on the top or cap of the reaction tube.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument regarding Maracas that it is not clear how the RFID in the single lid would correspond to various samples run separately in their own lanes, while the RFID in the claimed device is coded to a specific tube, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Remarks, page 8, second paragraph, “RFID in the claimed device is coded to a specific tube”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 3, specifically applicant’s argument that Cortney fails to teach a heat block forming the well and containing at least one opening (Remarks, page 9), the examiner disagrees. Additionally, note that in view of amended claim 3, a new ground of rejection is made.
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above, Courtney teaches a device for optically measuring fluorescence (abstract; Figs. 1-4) including wells (32) for receiving a sample tube (16) made of a transparent material (abstract). Courtney teaches the device includes a heat block (Fig. 2 and [0047]-[0048], thermally conductive block 34) that includes a first opening (36) configured to create an optical path from the light emitting source to a transparent portion of the reaction tube (Fig. 2); and a second opening (64) configured to create an optical path from the illuminated analyte to an optical detector (28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the heat block of Rothberg to incorporate Rothberg’s teachings of a visual detection component is incorporated within the heater for visual reading of the reaction tube ([0082]) and Courtney’s device including a heat block with openings for the light emitting source and optical detector (Figs. 1-2; [0047]-[0048]) to provide: wherein the heat block includes a first opening configured to create an optical path from the light emitting source to a transparent portion of the reaction tube. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving transmission of desired excitation light from the light emitting source, through the heat block, and to the analyte inside of the reaction tube.
Therefore, there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed “second opening” of claim 3 in view of Rothberg and Courtney.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Remarks, page 9, last paragraph, “this specific structure allows for a more compact device than what is shown and described in Courtney”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dodgson (US 20120029832 A1) teaches systems for handling biological materials (abstract), the system comprising a hinged lid that covers a vial (Fig. 3c). Dodgson teaches a device (Fig. 3b-3c, element 504) including a hinged lid (Figs. 3b-3c) with a lid opening sensor (508). Dodgson teaches a tag is read by a terminal means ([0119]; Figs. 3a-3c).
Parnaby (US 20230101253 A1; effectively filed 09/01/2021) teaches a system for nucleic acid sequencing using a light source and detector (abstract). Parnaby teaches the computer system 106 may automatically determine which optical frequency should be output from the light source, e.g., by scanning labels and/or barcodes attached to a sample vial and determining the particular fluorophores to be used in a sequencing reaction based on the labels and/or barcodes, or by retrieving information stored in the memory relating to previous sequencing reactions, and then control the light source to select and output the desired optical frequency ([0033]). Parnaby teaches the computer system may automatically determine which wavelength or which range of wavelengths should be output from the light source, e.g., by scanning labels and/or barcodes attached to a sample vial and determining the particular fluorophores used in a sequencing reaction based on the labels and/or barcodes, or by retrieving information stored in the memory relating to previous sequencing reactions, and then control the light source to select and output the desired wavelength or range of wavelengths ([0040]).
Bonecker (US 20090155923 A1) teaches a mixing container for a photometric measuring device (abstract). Bonecker teaches an RFID chip which is readable in a contactless way is arranged on the mixing container for identifying the samples ([0024],[0049]). Bonecker teaches the RFID chip can contain the type, number and calibration data and expiration date of the tests, thus ensuring automation in the test recognition and increased security in making the findings ([0049]). Bonecker teaches the device automatically choosing the correct test software on the basis of the data stored on the RFID chip ([0055]).
Tidd et al. (US 20210155978 A1; effectively filed 08/10/2017) teaches systems for performing nucleic acid amplification assays in an automated analyzer (abstract). Tidd teaches a method including (a) inputting, into a computer system, user-defined assay parameters that at least partially define the nucleic acid amplification assay to be performed on a sample positioned in the analyzer; the inputting may include (i) selecting one or more detection parameters, where each detection parameter is indicative of a wavelength of fluorescence data that will be recorded by the analyzer during the nucleic acid amplification assay ([0046]). Tidd teaches containers may include an RFID transponder that wirelessly transmits information related to the container to an RFID reader ([0179]). Tidd teaches an RFID reader transmits information about a container to a controller, the information can include (1) a receptacle identifier that identifies each receptacle 1940 supported in container 1920; (2) a holder identifier that identifies container 1920; and (3) a process identifier that identifies the processes (e.g., assays) to be performed using reconstitution fluids ([0183]). Tidd teaches based on the information received from RFID reader, the controller may determine the process to be performed ([0184]).
Watari (US 20100288830 A1) teaches an automatic analyzer that has a structure capable of using reagent containers each having an ID, such as a barcode, attached to the top or bottom surface (abstract). Watari teaches a barcode reader arranged at the lid, said barcode reader reading information recorded in the recording section arranged at the top surface of each of the reagent containers (claim 1; Fig. 5 shows barcode reader 5 arranged in a lid 8 of the device to read IDs 2 of the containers 1).
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 HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights