DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Declaration under 37 CRF 1.130 (a)
The new declaration fails to provide a reasonable explanation of the presences of other others. Specifically, point 5 in declaration filed 16 March 2026, submits:
“While Hui Zhang, Wenyi Hua, Lucien Ghislain, Jianhua Liu, Lisa Aschenbrenner, Stephen Noell, Kenneth Dirico, Lorraine Lanyon, Clair Steppan, Don Arnold, Sammy Datwani and Mathew Troutman also collaborated on this article, none contributed to the relevant subject matter cited in the Office Action.”
The office action relies on:
Figure 1 on page 9
Figure s1 on page 22
Figure 2 on page 9
Paragraph bridging pages 16-18
Page 18 the section “sample analysis with QADE-OPI-MS”
Figures 1-2 and s1 are referred to on pages 3, 9, 10, 16-18, 22. Additionally, the author contributions on page 8 recites:
“H.Z., C.L., W.H., J.L. designed the studies and experiments. L.G, S.S.D. provided the ADE setup. C.L., T.R.C., D.W.A. provided the OPI setup. H.Z., C.L., W.H., J.L., L.G., L.A., S.N., K.D., L.F.L., C.M.S., D.W.A., T.R.C., S.S.D. acquired the data. H.Z., C.L. performed data analysis and interpretation. H.Z., C.L., L.G., S.S.D., M.D.T. wrote and revised the manuscript. H.Z., C.L., S.S.D., M.D.T. supervised the study.
The evidence shows that:
1) the number of pages to this document is 32
2) the number of pages that only have acknowledgements, citations, title page for supplementary data and captions is 19.
3) the number of pages that are text and images of the device is 13 (11 pages text and 2 pages photographs of the device).
4) of the pages of text and images 6 pages are relied upon in the rejection of the claims or reference the figures relied upon in the rejection of the claims.
5) In the acknowledgements, the designed studies and experiments, setup of OPI, data acquisitions, data analysis and interpretation, writing the manuscript and supervising the study are attributed to others than “C.L.” (i.e. the inventor) alone.
6) page 8 recites that C.L. are inventors on US 2019/0157060 jointly owned by Beckman Coulter and DH Technologies that relates to the ADE-OPI-MS platform as described in this study have competing interests
In summary, of the actual text and images of the device (i.e. the substantive discussion of the disclosure), 6 of the 13 pages are either directly referenced in the office action or refer to figures relied upon in the office action. The disclosure at page 8 readily explains the assignee of the instant application (DH technologies) has competing interests with a number of the authors. “C.L” (i.e. Chang Liu), one of the claimed inventors is not attributed alone for any of the items of work done in this reference. H.Z., the lead author is attributed with the same items of work as C.L.
Taken together, since nearly half of the text references figures 1-2 and S1 and the actual attribution of the items of work to be not only to “C.L.” but to H.Z. and others who are admitted to have had competing interests with the instant assignee D.H. technologies, the evidence shows that a mere statement that “none contributed to the relevant subject matter cited in the office action” is not sufficient to explain the presence of others. Specifically, several of the authors are specifically disclosed to have contributed to many items of work on page 8. Therefore, the evidence as a whole suggests that Chang Liu alone did not contribute to the relied upon figures 1, s1 and 2 and associated text. In other words, the statement provided in the declaration appears to contradict an express admission in the disclosure itself.
. Therefore, the applicant has failed to invoke an exception under 35 USC § 102(b)(1)(A) and Zhang is still available as prior art.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 112(a)
By amendment, the written description issues have been overcome.
Claim rejections under 35 USC § 102(a)(1): Zhang
Zhang is available as prior art, therefore the rejection stands as reiterated herein below.
Claim rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1): Datwani
As an initial note, the remarks reiterate nearly identical response as with the RCE filed 12/11/2025. These remarks are not persuasive for the same reasons as discussed in the Non-Final Rejection of 17 December 2025.
This response is reiterated here in below. The only addition to the response is that the remarks appear to suggest that a movable stage is not sufficient to suggest a “sample handler”. This has not been found persuasive as the claims do not clarify any structure to the claimed “sample handler”, since a stage moves a sample it is reasonably a sample handler. Indeed, the instant published specification teaches “sample handler is a movable plate stage” ([0015]). Therefore, in light of the instant disclosure a sample stage is sufficient to be a “sample handler”.
Additionally, the claimed sample source is not specifically claimed to be any specific device. Therefore any retrieval of samples is sufficient to meet the requirements of a sample source or even retrieving a sample loaded plate onto a stage from an area where it is mounted to the capture device is sufficient to meet the claim limitation. Paragraph [0144] teaches “fluid samples were loaded into wells of a…source plate and the source plate mounted to a motorized stage system to provide automated sampling from any well source”. That is, a mounted well plate to a stage is operable to collectively retrieve from a sample source a plurality of samples by movement of the motorized stage from the source region (i.e. position where samples are loaded) to the sample capture region. Since the sample source structure or any actual loading of samples is not required, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is movement by from a region from which the samples are loaded by some “sample source” to a “sample capture device”. As discussed in paragraph [0144] samples are loaded into a plate and mounted to a motorized stage for automated sampling. In other words, the region where the plate is mounted to the stage is the sample source of a plurality of samples (i.e. samples in the plate) and the delivery via the motorized stage is accomplished.
The remarks take the position that Datwani fails to disclose a sample handler and a controller operative to cause the sample handler to collectively retrieve from a sample source a plurality of samples of one or more substances and deliver the plurality of collected samples to the sample capture device.
Specifically, the remarks take the position that the movable stage of Datwani is simply provided to position a sample already housed in a reservoir relative to an ejector and is not configured to retrieve a plurality of samples from a sample source nor is it configured to deliver a plurality of samples from a sample source to a sample capture device.
This has not been found persuasive. Paragraph [0144] expressly teaches a 384-well plate and source plate mounted to motorized stage. Moreover, paragraph [0144] teaches fluid samples were loaded into wells. Thus the motorized stage collectively retrieve samples from the sample source (i.e. source of fluid samples that are loaded into wells). Paragraph [0114] teaches the controller is coupled to the acoustic droplet injector device and is configured to operate any aspect of the acoustic droplet injection device, including automation means for positioning one or more reservoirs into alignment with the acoustic radiation generator. Since the wells are mounted to a stage for loading the sample and the controller positions the reservoirs (i.e. wells see paragraph [0038]), the controller collectively retrieves the samples loaded from sample source via controlling the motorized stage ([0144] and [0114]) and the motorized stage delivers the collected samples to the sample capture device ([0114], i.e. positioning near the acoustic radiation generator 11 causes droplets 49 to be ejected to sample capture device or flow probe 51 see paragraph [0100] and figures 1a-1b).
Therefore, the remarks have been found unpersuasive and the rejection stands as discussed herein below
Rejections under 35 USC § 103: Sinclair
The remarks take a similar position with respect to Sinclair, this is also not persuasive and the rejection stands as reiterated herein below. Specifically, Sinclar teaches a plate handling robot for unattended batch analysis (right column on page 3791). Supplemental information at supplemental figure 5 shows an 5-axis robot arm and plate stacks, thus retrieval of plate stacks by robotic plate handling from a sample source (i.e. plate stack having samples) to the AMI system discussed in the second full paragraph of the left column on page 3791.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21-23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 is vague and indefinite for requiring an identifier interpretable by the controller and configured to enable the controller to generate signals configured for causing at least one component of the system for analyzing collections of pluralities of substance samples to perform at least one sample capture, sample transfer, dilution, dissolution, or mass analysis operation specific to the sample associated with the identifier. Specifically, claim 19 already requires an identifier, therefore it is not clear whether this is the same or different identifier of claim 19.
Claims 22-23 are vague and indefinite by virtue of their dependencies on rejected claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (“Acoustic Ejection Mass spectrometry for High-throughput analysis”, 01/29/2020) (submitted with the office action of 06/23/2025)
Regarding claim 19, Zhang et al. teaches a system for analyzing collections of substance samples (fig. 1 on page 9 and figure S1 on page 22), the system comprising at least one of each of:
a sample handler (source plate gripper in figure S1 on page 22);
a sample capture device (OPI and acoustic transducer in figures 1 and S1);
a mass analysis instrument (best seen in figure 2 on page 9, mass spectrometer inlet); and
a controller (paragraph bridging pages 17-18 teaches software for the breadboard system, the mass spectrometer and the OPI. Since software is executed on a computer, there is inherently a controller), the controller operative, in accordance with instructions received from at least one of an operator input device and machine-interpretable instructions stored in memory accessible by the controller, to generate signals (software is inherently saved to memory to execute control of the gripper, OPI and mass spectrometer) configured to:
cause the sample handler to collectively retrieve from a sample source a plurality of samples of one or more substances, and deliver the plurality of collected samples to the sample capture device (page 18 under “sample analysis with ADE-OPI-MS” note “loading the sample plate into the gripper of the x-y stage, stage translation to position selected source well above the acoustic transducer”, figure 1 shows a plurality of samples of one or more substances in wells. That is, the means for loading is the sample source, translating is retrieving the loaded plate from the source and translation to a position selected source well above the acoustic transducer is the delivering to the sample capture device (i.e. OPI));
cause the sample capture device to independently capture at least one of the collectively retrieved samples delivered by the sample handler, and transfer the at least one captured sample to the mass analysis instrument (see figure 1 and discussion above);
adjust operational at least one parameter of at least one of the sample handler, sample capture device, or mass analysis instrument based upon one or more analysis instructions associated with at least one identifier which is interpretable by the controller (page 18, same paragraph note dynamic fluid analysis (DFA) to determine acoustic ejection parameters of the OPI, page 16, first paragraph teaches DFA algorithms to determine droplet ejection parameters, thus requiring real-time feedback to be dynamic. That is, an identifier (desired droplet ejection parameters) interpretable by a controller to adjust a parameter of the OPI/acoustic transducer (capture device) to determined droplet ejection parameters); and
cause mass analysis instrument to ionize and detect one or more particles of the transferred sample (inherent to the apparatus of figure 1).
Claims 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Datwani et al. (US 2019/0157061)(submitted with IDS).
Regarding claim 19, Datwani teaches a system for analyzing collections of substance samples (fig. 1a-1b), the system comprising at least one of each of:
a sample handler ([0092], “ a positioning means is incorporated in order to move a substrate containing the reservoirs (which may be positioned on a movable stage, for instance) relative to the acoustic ejector)”);
a sample capture device (51);
a mass analysis instrument (as seen in figure 1B); and
a controller (180), the controller operative, in accordance with instructions received from at least one of an operator input device and machine-interpretable instructions stored in memory accessible by the controller, to generate signals (inherent in order to control the acoustic droplet injection device and generate mass spectra seen in figures 4-9) configured to:
cause the sample handler to collectively retrieve from a sample source a plurality of samples of one or more substances (paragraph [0144] expressly teaches a 384-well plate and source plate mounted to motorized stage. Moreover, paragraph [0144] teaches fluid samples were loaded into wells. Thus the motorized stage collectively retrieve samples from the sample source (i.e. source of fluid samples that are loaded into well). Paragraph [0114] teaches the controller is coupled to the acoustic droplet injector device and is configured to operate any aspect of the acoustic droplet injection device, including “automation means for positioning one or more reservoirs into alignment with the acoustic radiation generator. Since the wells are mounted to a stage for loading the sample and the controller positions the reservoirs (i.e. wells see paragraph [0038]), the controller collectively retrieves the samples loaded from sample source via controlling the motorized stage ([0144] and [0114]) delivers the collected samples to the sample capture device ([0114], i.e. positioning near acoustic radiation generator 11 causes droplets 49 to be ejected to sample capture device or flow probe 51 see paragraph [0100] and figures 1a-1b)),and
cause the sample capture device to independently capture at least one of the collectively retrieved samples delivered by the sample handler ([0114] and [0100], note figure 1A shows 49 ejected toward the flow sampling probe), and
transfer the at least one captured sample to a mass analysis instrument (inherent to figure 1b showing MS downstream of acoustic droplet ejection device 11);
adjust at least one operational parameter of at least one of the sample handler, sample capture device, or mass analysis instrument (Paragraph [0080] further teaches active flow control during use to maintain optimal terminal flow pattern. Paragraph [0107] teaches dynamic feedback and active flow control to obtain the desired supercritical shaped vortex from flow probe 51 (i.e. catcher or capture device). Thus adjust an operational parameter of the sample capture device 51 (see paragraph [0118] teaching active flow control of probe variables))) based upon one or more analysis instructions associated with at least one identifier which is interpretable by the controller ([0125] teaches ”active feedback mechanism maintains the configuration of the sampling tip in a preferred flow pattern configuration. The active feedback mechanism generally comprises monitoring the flow pattern at the sampling tip, determining whether the flow pattern deviates from the desired flow pattern, if the flow pattern deviates from the desired flow pattern by more than a predetermined amount, adjusting at least one parameter to conform the flow pattern to the desired flow pattern”. That is, based on one or more analysis instructions (i.e. has the flow pattern deviated from a desired flow pattern by more than a predetermined amount) associated with at least one identifier (desired flow pattern), interpretable by a controller (adjust parameter when greater than a predetermined amount). Note as discussed above Paragraph [0114] teaches the controller is coupled to the acoustic droplet injector device and is configured to operate any aspect of the acoustic droplet injection device. Paragraph [0115] teaches controller controls the flow rates, thus the active feedback control of paragraph [0125]) and
cause the mass analysis instrument to ionize and detect one or more particles of the transferred sample (inherent since the controller controls device 11 and 11 supplies sample to be ionized and analyzed by MS).
Regarding claim 20, Datwani teaches wherein the sample capture device is configured, in accordance with signals generated by the at least one controller, to add to the at least one independently captured sample at least one of a dilutant and a solvent (via solvent inlet 57), prior to transferring the at least one captured sample to the mass analysis instrument (as indicated by arrows from 57, see paragraph [0119]).
Regarding claim 21, Datwani teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of collected samples is associated with an identifier interpretable by the controller ([0098] teaches substrate positioning means acoustically couples the ejector to each of a series of fluid reservoirs in rapid succession, thereby allowing fast and controlled ejection of fluid sample droplets from different reservoirs. In order to acoustically couple each reservoir in rapid succession the controller of [0114] must inherently interpret where each reservoir is located, this is interpreted to be the identifiers of the series of reservoirs) and configured to enable the controller to generate signals configured for causing at least one component of the system for analyzing collections of pluralities of substance samples to perform at least one sample capture, sample transfer, dilution, dissolution, or mass analysis operation specific to the sample associated with the identifier (via acoustic coupling ([0098]) the process in figure 1B is accomplished).
Regarding claim 22, Datwani et al. teaches wherein the controller is operative to adjust at least one operational setting of the mass analysis instrument, based upon an analysis instruction associated with the at least one identifier (the operational setting is whether data is output from MS and mass spectra created depending on whether a location is acoustically coupled).
Regarding claim 23, Datwani et al. teach wherein the at least one identifier is associated with data representing a plurality of analysis instructions ([0098] via positioning to acoustically couple the process of sampling, ionization and mass spectrometry commences controlled by the controller), and wherein one of the plurality of analysis instructions is associated with a subset of the plurality of samples (after the completion of analysis of some of the wells, the remaining wells to be analyzed are a subset of the whole, the locations (i.e. identifiers inherent to acoustically couple) of the remaining wells are used to control the device of figure 1B to analyze the substrate), and wherein the controller is operative to perform at least one of the sample capture, sample transfer, dilution, dissolution, or mass analysis operation based on at least one of the plurality of analysis instructions while the sample capture probe is capturing one of the subset of the plurality of samples (controller 180 to perform the sample collection and analysis of figure 1B).
Regarding claim 24, Datwani et al. teach wherein the sample capture probe comprises a sample ejector (fig. 1a, 11).
Regarding claim 25, Datwani et al. teach wherein the sample capture probe comprises a sample ejector configured to independently eject a selected sample from the plurality of samples for capture by the sample capture probe ([0098]).
Regarding claim 26, Datwani et al. teach a sample staging device for positioning the selected sample for ejection by the sample ejector ([0098], substrate positioning means).
Regarding claim 27, Datwani et al. teach wherein the sample staging device is further operative to position a next selected sample for ejection by the sample ejector ([0098]) and optionally wherein the controller is further operative to coordinate the ejector to eject a plurality of selected samples before positioning a next sample relative to the sample ejector (optional is not required by the claim and thus not considered).
Claims 19, 21-22 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sinclair al. (Sinclair et al. “Acoustic mist ionization platform for direct and contactless ultrahigh-throughput mass spectrometry analysis of liquid samples”, Analytical chemistry, 2019) (copy of publication submitted with the non-final rejection of 23 June 2025) in view of Dawati.
Regarding claim 19, Sinclair teaches a system for analyzing collections of substance samples (fig. 1), the system comprising at least one of each of:
a sample handler (plate handling robot, page 3791, right column first full paragraph)
a sample capture device (fig. 1a, elements 1, 4-5);
a mass analysis instrument (fig. 1a, heated transfer tube 6 and “MS”); and
a controller (page 3793, left column, last full paragraph “a new mass spectrometer interface with robust custom built hardware and software to acquire and process data”), the controller operative, in accordance with instructions received from at least one of an operator input device and machine-interpretable instructions stored in memory accessible by the controller, to generate signals (inherent to cause operation) configured to:
cause the sample handler to collectively retrieve from a sample source a plurality of samples of one or more substances and deliver the plurality of collected samples to the sample capture device (page 3791 right column, first paragraph ), and
deliver the plurality of collected samples to the sample capture device (fig. 1a);
cause the sample capture device to independently capture at least one of the collectively retrieved samples delivered by the sample handler (screen shot provided below from movie shows independent capture of one of the collectively retrieved samples),
PNG
media_image1.png
841
1609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and
transfer the at least one captured sample to a mass analysis instrument (fig. 1a arrow to MS);
adjust at least one operational parameter of at least one of the mass analysis instrument (Sinclair teaches a real time recording of plate barcode and well location for every MS scan and saves a single mass spectrum per sample as a text file (page 3791, last paragraph). Thus each mass spectrum is associated with a particular well. Therefore, a parameter of the mass analysis instrument (i.e. mass spectrum of sample) is adjusted by designation of it’s sample location on which plate) and
cause the mass analysis instrument to ionize and detect one or more particles of the transferred sample (heated transfer tube results in improved ionization efficiency (page 3791, left column, last paragraph) thus provides ionization prior to mass analysis for detection).
Regarding claim 21, Sinclair teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of collected samples is associated with an identifier interpretable by the controller (page 3791, last paragraph teaches a real time recording of plate barcode and well location for every MS scan via a custom application called datasync) and configured to enable the controller to generate signals configured for causing at least one component of the system for analyzing collections of pluralities of substance samples to perform at least one sample capture, sample transfer, dilution, dissolution, or mass analysis operation specific to the sample associated with the identifier (real-time recording of plate barcode and well location for every MS scan, thus enabling MS scan with well location).
Regarding claim 22, Sinclair et al. teaches wherein the controller is operative to adjust at least one operational setting of the mass analysis instrument, based upon an analysis instruction associated with the at least one identifier (record mass spectra for the next well location).
Regarding claim 24, Sinclair et al. teach wherein the sample capture probe comprises a sample ejector (fig. 1a, 1).
Regarding claim 25, Sinclair et al. teach wherein the sample capture probe comprises a sample ejector configured to independently eject a selected sample from the plurality of samples for capture by the sample capture probe (as seen in figure from movie above).
Regarding claim 26, Sinclair et al. teach a sample staging device for positioning the selected sample for ejection by the sample ejector (plate handling robot, right column first paragraph of page 3791).
Regarding claim 27, Sinclair et al. teach wherein the sample staging device is further operative to position a next selected sample for ejection by the sample ejector (as seen in the movie figure above) and optionally wherein the controller is further operative to coordinate the ejector to eject a plurality of selected samples before positioning a next sample relative to the sample ejector (optional is not required by the claim and thus not considered).
Note to applicant:
During the updated NPL search, it was found the applicants Chang Liu and Thomas Covey presented or were listed on a number of posters during the 67th ASMS and 66Th ASMS conferences on mass spectrometry. The subject matter appears particularly relevant to the claimed invention and not part of the file wrapper.
The examiner was unable to obtain them to for the purposes of examination. In order to provide a more complete record, it is noted that these posters exist and may be available as prior art. Making these posters or any presented content part of the record would make the record more complete. The list of titles are provided below:
“Acoustic-OPP-MS: The Next Generation BioAnalytical Platform for Drug Discovery with Ultra-High Throughput”
Acoustic-Open Port-Mass Spectrometry (AOMS) Enabled HTS: Assay Development for Choline Transporter (CHT) Uptake Function Assessment
A High-Throughput Mass Spectrometry Plate-Reader: Acoustic Droplet Ejection to an Open-Port Probe Sampling Interface
Acoustic-Open Port-Mass Spectrometry (AOMS): A New Platform for Ultrafast, Direct Human PK Analysis without Sample Preparation
Development and Optimization of a High-Throughput Open-Port Sampling Interface for Drug Discovery LC MS/MS Analysis;
A New Platform for High-Throughput Mass Spectrometry: Acoustic Droplet Ejection with an Open Port Probe Sampling Interface
Development and Optimization of a High-Throughput Open-Port Sampling Interface for Drug Discovery LC MS/MS Analysis
Acoustic-Droplet-Ejection to the Open-Port Probe Sampling Interface of MS (ADE-OPP-MS) - the Automated High-Throughput Bioanalysis Platform for Drug Discovery
Next Generation Sample Introduction for High Throughput Mass Spectrometry: Acoustic Droplet Ejection with an Open Port Probe
Drug Discovery Applications of ADE-OPP-MS (Acoustic-Droplet-Ejection coupled Open-Port-Probe Mass Spectrometry) Platform;
High-Throughput Analysis of Synthetic Samples from High-Density Microplates with ESI-MS Enabled by the Acoustic-Droplet-Ejection to the Open-Port Probe sampling interface
High-Throughput Analysis of Synthetic Samples from High-Density Microplates with ESI-MS Enabled by the Acoustic-Droplet-Ejection to the Open-Port Probe sampling interface
Relevant art of interest to the applicant:
US pgPub 2004/0026615 teaches an acoustic mist ionization mass spectrometry device.
Mason (US pgPub 2022/0170895) teaches a similar acoustic mist ionization mass spectrometry device as discussed above with respect to Sinclair.
Sinclair references a 2016 publication that teaches similar subject matter, see reference 19.
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 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