DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 7 and 12-13 are amended. Claims 4-6, 8-11, and 14-15 are as previously presented. Therefore, claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following:
Claim Objection
Drawing Objections
35 USC § 112(b) Rejections
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 as follows.
“An interface part” in line 8 of claim 1. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “part” coupled with functional language “configured to mechanically couple the assembly to the fraction collection unit” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A locking element” in line 2 of claim 5. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “configured to lock the nozzle assembly to the fraction collection unit” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A collector interface part” in line 2 of claim 6 and line 2 of claim 7. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “part” coupled with functional language “configured to be received by a recess of the fraction collection unit” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“A gripping element” in line 2 of claim 8. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “configured to provide a secure grip for a user handling the nozzle assembly” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“Attachment elements” in line 2 of claim 9. The limitation appears to include a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “to releasably attach the nozzle body to the conduit adapter” and the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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.
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.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “An interface part” in line 8 of claim 1, because lines 3-10 on page 9 of the applicant’s specification states “In one further embodiment, the interface part 222 comprises a selection of any of a grip part 227 and a collector interface part 229. The grip part 227 is typically configured to provide a safe and secure grip of the nozzle body 220, when being held/handled by a user. E.g. when the user is mounting the nozzle body 220 into the fraction collection unit 120. The collector interface part 229 is typically configured to mechanically couple to the fraction collection unit 120. E.g. provided with a shape corresponding to a receiving compartment/recess of the fraction collection unit 120, such as a cylinder having a particular outer diameter,” and further states in line 4 of pg. 8 that “In one example, the grip part 212 is shaped like a ribbed cylinder.” The interface part is further shown as item 222 on fig 2B. The examiner will interpret this limitation as a portion of the nozzle assembly comprising a first cylinder (collector interface part) and second ribbed cylinder (grip part), or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “A locking element” in line 2 of claim 5, because lines 12-15 on page 11 of the applicant’s specification states “In one embodiment, the locking element 510 is formed like a flap extending from the collector interface part 229 in a direction parallel to a centerline of the nozzle body, wherein the flap is provided with a locking lip at an end of the lip arranged furthest away from the collector interface part 229.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as a flap with a locking lip, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “A collector interface part” in line 2 of claim 6 and line 2 of claim 7 because lines 6-10 on page 9 of the applicant’s specification states, “The collector interface part 229 is typically configured to mechanically couple to the fraction collection unit 120. E.g. provided with a shape corresponding to a receiving compartment/recess of the fraction collection unit 120, such as a cylinder having a particular outer diameter.” The examiner will interpret this limitation a cylindrical shape, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “A gripping element” in line 2 of claim 8, because lines 30-31 on page 10 of the applicant’s specification states “In one embodiment, the interface part 222 further comprises a gripping element 227 configured to provide a secure grip for a user handling the nozzle assembly 200,” and Fig. 3A shows the gripping element as a flat surface. The examiner will interpret this limitation as a flat surface, or equivalent thereof.
A review of the specification appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation regarding “Attachment elements” in line 2 of claim 9 because lines 1-3 on page 1 of the applicant’s specification states, “In one embodiment, the nozzle body and conduit adapter comprise attachment elements 216, 226 that are used to releasably attach the nozzle body to the conduit adapter. In one example the attachment elements 216, 226 are UNF 10-32 2B threads.” The examiner will interpret this limitation as threads, or equivalent thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Webb (US 11,819,780).
Regarding claim 1, Webb discloses a nozzle assembly (Fig. {3a, 3b, 4, & 9-10}, All structural elements) for a fraction collection unit configured to collect one or more fluid samples (Col. 15: Ln. 51-54; The nozzle assembly is designed for use in chromatography systems, which can have fraction collection units.), said nozzle assembly comprising:
a conduit adapter (Fig. {3a, 3b, 4, & 9-10}, 30-33) configured to fluidly couple to a conduit (Fig. 9-10, 34), and
a nozzle body (Fig. 9-10, All structural elements except for 30-34), wherein the nozzle body comprises at least:
a nozzle part (Fig. 9-10, {17, 20-22, 40, & 42}) configured to form and release drops of the one or more collected fluid samples at a tip (Fig. 10; End of opening of 42 distal from 21) of the nozzle part (The nozzle part includes 42, an electrospray emitter, which creates/forms droplets and emits/releases them at the tip as described in Col. 17: Ln. 38-43; Item 21 is capillary tubing, which is capable of forming releasing drops of fluid samples at the tip.; ), and
an interface part (Annotated Fig. 9 per 112(f) interpretation above.) configured to mechanically couple the nozzle assembly to the fraction collection unit (The interface part is capable of mechanically coupling the nozzle assembly to the fraction collection unit because it meets all of the structural limitations per the 112(f) interpretation and thus can mechanically couple in the same way. Additionally, the fraction collection unit is not positively recited.),
wherein the nozzle assembly, when the conduit adapter is attached to the nozzle body, forms a fluid channel (Col. 22: Ln. 62 to Col. 23: Ln. 3) from an inlet (Fig. 9-10, Opening of 30 in which 34 is inserted) of the conduit adapter to the tip of the nozzle part (Fig. 10).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
1298
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the nozzle part comprises a cylindrical part and a conical part comprising the tip of the nozzle part (Annotated Fig. 10).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image2.png
854
1178
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the interface part further comprises a gripping element (Annotated Fig. 9 of claim 1; The gripping element is interpreted per 112(f) above.) configured to provide a secure grip for a user handling the nozzle assembly.
Regarding claim 9, Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the nozzle body and conduit adapter comprises attachment elements (Fig. 9, 33 & 111) that are used to releasably attach the nozzle body to the conduit adapter (Col. 22: Ln. 23-33).
Regarding claim 10, Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the nozzle assembly is made at least partially from plastic (Col. 8: Ln. 37-51).
Regarding claim 11 Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein at least one component thereof comprises polyetereterketon (PEEK) (Col. 8: Ln. 37-51).
Regarding claim 12, Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the nozzle has a total internal volume of less than 10 µl (Col. 12: Ln. 54-60 describes a dead volume with a connecting passage having a length of 1mm and having a diameter of 0.025 mm which is approximately 0.0005 µl.).
Regarding claim 14, Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the nozzle body is configured to be releasably attached to the conduit adapter (Col. 22: Ln. 23-33; The nozzle body and conduit are releasably attached via Fig. 9, 33 & 111).
Regarding claim 15, Webb discloses a nozzle assembly (Fig. {3a, 3b, 4, & 9-10}, All structural elements) comprising a nozzle body (Fig. 9-10, All structural elements except for 30-34) that is configured to be releasably attached (Col. 22: Ln. 23-33; The nozzle body and conduit are releasably attached via Fig. 9, 33 & 111) to a conduit adapter (Fig. {3a, 3b, 4, & 9-10}, 30-33).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb.
Regarding claim 2, Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, wherein an outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part exists (Fig. 10 shows an outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle).
Webb discloses the claimed invention except for the outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part is in the range of 0.2 to 2 millimeters in. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part is in the range of 0.2 to 2 millimeters in diameter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Pg. 1: Ln. 18-20; Pg. 10: Ln. 22-24, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the inner diameter of the tip of the nozzle part exists (Fig. 10 shows an inner diameter of the tip of the nozzle).
Webb discloses the claimed invention except for the inner diameter of the tip of the nozzle is preferably in the range of 0.1 to 1 millimeters in diameter. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the inner diameter of the tip of the nozzle is preferably in the range of 0.1 to 1 millimeters in diameter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Pg. 2: Ln. 21-23; Pg. 10: Ln. 25-27, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 12, and further discloses wherein the outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part exits (Fig. 10 shows an outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle) and a channel therein has an inner diameter (Fig. 10 shows a channel extending from 42 to the tip of the nozzle which has an inner diameter).
Webb discloses the claimed invention with the exception of specific dimensions for the nozzle part. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the outer diameter of the tip of the nozzle part is about 0.4 mm and a channel therein has an inner diameter of about 0.3 mm with a total volume of about 1µl for the nozzle part since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Please note that in the instant application, Pg. 5: Ln. 28 to Pg. 6: ln. 2, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb in view of Nolte (US 8,864,049)
Regarding claim 5, Webb discloses the nozzle assembly according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the interface part further comprises a locking element configured to lock the nozzle assembly to the fraction collection unit.
However, Nolte teaches a prior art comparable sprayer (100) comprising a part (Fig. 20A, 281) comprising a locking element (The locking element comprises a flap (Fig. 20A-B, 500) and a locking lip (Fig. 20B-D, 500’) per the 112(b) interpretation above.) configured to lock the nozzle assembly to the fraction collection unit (Col. 17: Ln. 31-60; The locking lip 500’ locks the part to a unit (400) as shown in Figs. 20C-D, and thus the locking element is capable of locking to the fraction collection unit, which is not positively recited).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of a locking element as taught by Nolte with a known function of locking to another unit into the nozzle assembly disclosed Webb with the known function of emitting a fluid by known the known method of molding or machining and that in combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, which yields the predictable result of emitting a fluid.
Regarding claim 6, Webb in view of Nolte teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 5.
Webb further discloses wherein the interface part further comprises a collector interface part (Annotated Fig. 9 of claim 1) configured to be received by a recess of the fraction collection unit.
Webb in view of Nolte does not explicitly disclose wherein the locking element is provided at one end of the collector interface part which is arranged adjacent to the nozzle part.
However, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts, such as relocating the locking element at one end of the collector interface part which is arranged adjacent to the nozzle part, requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the locking element at one end of the collector interface part which is arranged adjacent to the nozzle part (Pg. 11: Ln. 8-15; Pg. 3 13-16), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Webb in view of Nolte teaches the nozzle assembly according to claim 5.
Nolte further teaches wherein the locking element is a flap extending from in a direction parallel to a centerline of the nozzle body, wherein the flap is provided with a locking lip at an end of the lip.
Webb in view of Nolte teaches the nozzle assembly except for the flap extending from the collector interface part and the lip arranged furthest away from the collector interface part.
However, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts, such as relocating the locking element so that the flap extends from the collector interface part and the lip is arranged furthest away from the collector interface part, requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the locking element so that the flap extends from the collector interface part and the lip is arranged furthest away from the collector interface part (Pg. 11: Ln. 13-16; Pg. 3 13-16), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 for claims 1-15 on page 8, that “Webb is not directed to a nozzle assembly but rather is directed to a connecting system for providing a fluid connection between a capillary and a fluid conduit (Webb, Abstract). This connecting system, taken as a whole, is analogous to just the conduit adapter of Applicant's claims, rather than the entire nozzle assembly. The claimed nozzle assembly and the connecting system of Webb are provided for entirely different functions, and therefore necessarily have different structures,” the examiner respectfully disagrees because a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Additionally claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification (See MPEP § 2111), which has been applied to the current rejection of record, and further “apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. (See MPEP § 2114-II).
With regards to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 on pages 8 for claims 1-15, that “Webb does not disclose a nozzle part that forms and releases drops of fluid samples at the tip thereof as recited by Applicant's amended claims. The capillary tube 21 of Webb is necessary to delivery the liquid samples through the connecting system, with the drops of liquid being released from the tip of the capillary tube. This is not analogous to Applicant's claimed nozzle part, which does not have any tubes therein, which delivers fluid samples therethrough by forming a fluid channel directly with the connection of the conduit adapter and the nozzle part. In this way, the drop is formed and released directly at the tip of the nozzle part, and not by an intermediate capillary tubing as disclosed in Webb,” the examiner respectfully disagrees because as recited in the office action the nozzle part comprises items Fig. 9-10, 17, 20-22, 40, & 42 shown in Figs. 9-10, where item 42 is an electrospray emitter (Col. 22: Ln. 54-56) and the electrospray emitter which creates/forms droplets and emits/releases them at the tip as described in Col. 17: Ln. 38-43.
Additionally, with regards to the argument that the tip of the capillary tube and further the emitter does not have any tubes therein, 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., “Applicant's claimed nozzle part, which does not have any tubes therein, which delivers fluid samples therethrough by forming a fluid channel directly with the connection of the conduit adapter and the nozzle part”) 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 21, 2026
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights