DETAILED ACTION
Please note that this application is now assigned to Art Unit 1799 and to Examiner Nathan G. Esperon.
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 .
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:
“liquid delivery mechanisms that move the sample solution” in claim 1 (and claim 4, see 112(b) rejection).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 (and possibly claim 4, see 112(b) rejection) are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification as filed shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structures, materials, or acts described in the specification as filed for the following 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) limitations:
“Examples of liquid delivery mechanisms … can include a microblower and a fan” (instant specification, pg. 11, line 20)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 4, the line should be indented to match the format of the remaining limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, in line 14, the phrase “a material of the substrate” should be “a material of the substrate of the PCR reaction container”.
Regarding claim 1, in line 15, the phrase “the substrate” should be “the substrate of the PCR reaction container”.
Regarding claim 7, in line 3, the phrase “the substrate” should be “the substrate of the PCR reaction container”.
Regarding claim 7, in line 4, the phrase “the substrate” should be “the substrate of the PCR reaction container”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding the previously stated 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections, these rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are 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 1 recites the limitation “the adhesive” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, in line 4, the term “a liquid delivery mechanism” is indefinite because it may or may not refer back to the “liquid delivery mechanisms” of claim 1. It is unclear as to if this is the same delivery mechanism of claim 1 or a different one. In addition, if it is the same delivery mechanism as in claim 1, the claim is indefinite because claim 1 recites “delivery mechanisms” (plural) but claim 4 recites “delivery mechanism” (singular).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the fixing portion formed by fusion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “a fixing portion formed by fusion” has not been defined before.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the portion of the PCR reaction container adjacent to the filter has melted” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding the dependent claims 3-7, these claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim upon which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 | 103
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.
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 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Fukuzawa (US 20180274019) (U.S. PGPub equivalent of Fukuzawa (WO 2017094674) cited in the Japanese Decision of Refusal filed as non-patent literature on 05/01/2026); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fukuzawa (US 20180274019) (U.S. PGPub equivalent of Fukuzawa (WO 2017094674) cited in the Japanese Decision of Refusal filed as non-patent literature on 05/01/2026); or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fukuzawa (US 20180274019) (U.S. PGPub equivalent of Fukuzawa (WO 2017094674) cited in the Japanese Decision of Refusal filed as non-patent literature on 05/01/2026) in view of Hinojosa (US 20200181555) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Fukuzawa discloses a nucleic acid amplification chip comprising:
a PCR reaction container (abstract, “PCR reaction vessel”) in which a micro-flow channel (paragraph [0053] “groove-like channel”) through which a sample solution flows (paragraph [0054] “sample solution”) is formed;
liquid delivery mechanisms (paragraph [0016]-[0018] “pump system” and paragraphs [0085] “first pump” and [0087] “second pump”) that move the sample solution in the micro-flow channel so as to reciprocate (paragraphs [0085]-[0089] sample reciprocates back-and-forth between two zones) between a denaturation temperature zone (paragraphs [0084] and [0087]-[0088] “high temperature part”) and an extension and annealing temperature zone (paragraph [0085]-[0086]); and
a filter provided on an inside of the PCR reaction container (paragraph [0098]; Fig. 14, element 228 “first filter”), with respect to the micro-flow channel,
wherein the filter is fixed to the PCR reaction container via a fixing portion (paragraph [0098] “formed so as to fit without any gap in a filter installation space formed in the substrate”; Fig. 14, element 228 “first filter” is attached to element 214 “substrate”); and
wherein the fixing portion is constituted by:
an adhesive layer interposed between the filter and a substrate of the PCR reaction container, and a portion of the filter impregnated with the adhesive (paragraph [0061] “sealing film” seals the filter to the substrate; Fig. 14, element 18 “first sealing film” may seal the air communication port and filter separately to element 14 “substrate”);
Fukuzawa does not disclose:
“selected from the group consisting of … and a filter provided on an outside of the PCR reaction container”
“any one of: … a press-fitted portion where the filter bites into a material of the substrate; or
a melt-solidified portion where at least one of the filter and the substrate is melted and integrated”
However, regarding features 1 and 2, the limitations are phrased in the alternative. Because at least one of the limitations is rejected above, no further rejections are required at this time.
Nevertheless, regarding feature 2, these limitations are obvious in light of integration of parts. Regarding the limitations, integration of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the adhesive bond of Fukuzawa with the press-fitted portion or melt-solidified portion as an alternative form of integration in order to eliminate the need for an adhesive that may or may not have biochemical effects on the sample, while still holding the parts of a filter and substrate together.
If it is deemed that a reference is necessary to maintain the rejection, regarding feature 2, Hinojosa discloses wherein the fixing portion is constituted by any one of:
a press-fitted portion where the filter bites into a material of the substrate (paragraph [0023] “clamped”); or
a melt-solidified portion where at least one of the filter and the substrate is melted and integrated (paragraph [0023] “laser welding”).
In the analogous art of microfluidic platforms for cells, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the adhesive bond of Fukuzawa with the press-fitted portion or melt-solidified portion of Hinojosa as an alternative form of integration in order to eliminate the need for an adhesive that may or may not have biochemical effects on the sample, while still holding the parts of a filter and substrate together.
Additionally, regarding feature 2, the limitation “the substrate is melted and integrated” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 4, Fukuzawa discloses wherein the filter (paragraph [0098]; Fig. 14, element 228 “first filter”) is fixed to an inside (Figs. 2 and 14) of the PCR reaction container (abstract, “PCR reaction vessel”) at a communication port (paragraphs [0097]-[0098]; Fig. 14, element 224 “first air communication port”) of the PCR reaction container (abstract, “PCR reaction vessel”), the communication port communicating with a liquid delivery mechanism (paragraph [0016]-[0018] “pump system” and paragraph [0074] “since a filter is provided between the air communication port and the channel, contamination into the channel can be prevented” and paragraphs [0085] “first pump” and [0087] “second pump”).
Regarding claim 5, Fukuzawa discloses the PCR reaction container (abstract, “PCR reaction vessel”) and a filter (paragraph [0098]; Fig. 14, element 228 “first filter”).
Fukuzawa does not disclose wherein the fixing portion formed by fusion (melt-solidified) comprises an interface formed by re-solidification after at least one of the filter and the portion of the PCR reaction container adjacent to the filter has melted.
However, regarding dependent claim 5, the limitations of a melt-solidified portion are presented in the alternative in parent claim 1; therefore, said limitations are not needed to satisfy the claim. A further limiting limitation of a melt-solidified portion in dependent claim 5 is similarly interpreted to be presented in the alternative as well and is not needed to satisfy the limitations of the claim. As such, dependent claim 5 does not provide a positive recitation of a patentable distinction over Fukuzawa, and is therefore met by said reference.
Nevertheless, these limitations are obvious in light of integration of parts. Regarding the limitations, integration of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the adhesive bond of Fukuzawa with the melt-solidified portion as an alternative form of integration in order to eliminate the need for an adhesive that may or may not have biochemical effects on the sample, while still holding the parts of a filter and substrate together.
If it is deemed that a reference is necessary to maintain the rejection, Hinojosa discloses wherein the fixing portion formed by fusion (melt-solidified) comprises an interface (paragraph [0023] “the filters and/or gasket may be fixed using … laser welding”) formed by re-solidification after at least one of the filter and the portion of the substrate adjacent to the filter has melted (paragraph [0023] “laser welding”).
In the analogous art of microfluidic platforms for cells, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the adhesive bond of Fukuzawa with the fixing portion formed by fusion of Hinojosa as an alternative form of integration in order to eliminate the need for an adhesive that may or may not have biochemical effects on the sample, while still holding the parts of a filter and substrate together.
Additionally, the limitations “formed by fusion” and “formed by re-solidification after at least one of the filter and the portion of the PCR container adjacent to the filter has melted” are product-by-process limitations. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 6, Fukuzawa discloses wherein the filter is made of polytetrafluoroethylene (paragraphs [0056] and [0098] “PTFE”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa (US 20180274019) (U.S. PGPub equivalent of Fukuzawa (WO 2017094674) cited in the Japanese Decision of Refusal filed as non-patent literature on 05/01/2026) as applied to claim 1; or, in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa (US 20180274019) (U.S. PGPub equivalent of Fukuzawa (WO 2017094674) cited in the Japanese Decision of Refusal filed as non-patent literature on 05/01/2026) in view of Hinojosa (US 20200181555) (newly cited) as applied to claim 1; or, in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa (US 20180274019) (U.S. PGPub equivalent of Fukuzawa (WO 2017094674) cited in the Japanese Decision of Refusal filed as non-patent literature on 05/01/2026) as applied to claim 1, in view of Kuhnemund (US 20220193662) (newly disclosed); or, in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa (US 20180274019) (U.S. PGPub equivalent of Fukuzawa (WO 2017094674) cited in the Japanese Decision of Refusal filed as non-patent literature on 05/01/2026) in view of Hinojosa (US 20200181555) (newly cited) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kuhnemund (US 20220193662) (newly disclosed).
Regarding claim 3, Fukuzawa does not disclose wherein a thickness of the filter is 1 mm or less.
However, the claim limitation is obvious under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions … [and the claimed device] would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the filter of Fukuzawa with the 1 mm or less thickness of the filter in order to allow air to cross the barrier, but keep the sample inside.
Additionally 0.2 μm filters are well-known in the art of air venting to prevent environmental contaminants from entering a space, for instance from Kuhnemund (see paragraph [0055]).
In the analogous art of sample analysis devices, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the filter thickness of Fukuzawa with the 1 mm or less thickness of the filter in order to allow air to cross the barrier, but keep the sample inside.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa (US 20180274019) (U.S. PGPub equivalent of Fukuzawa (WO 2017094674) cited in the Japanese Decision of Refusal filed as non-patent literature on 05/01/2026) as applied to claim 1; or, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuzawa (US 20180274019) (U.S. PGPub equivalent of Fukuzawa (WO 2017094674) cited in the Japanese Decision of Refusal filed as non-patent literature on 05/01/2026) as applied to claim 1, in view of Hinojosa (US 20200181555) (newly cited).
Regarding claim 7, Fukuzawa does not disclose wherein the fixing portion is constituted by any one of:
a press-fitted portion where the filter bites into a material of the substrate; or
a melt-solidified portion where at least one of the filter and the substrate is melted and integrated.
However, these limitations are obvious in light of integration of parts. Regarding the limitations, integration of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the adhesive bond of Fukuzawa with the press-fitted portion or melt-solidified portion as an alternative form of integration in order to eliminate the need for an adhesive that may or may not have biochemical effects on the sample, while still holding the parts of a filter and substrate together.
Nevertheless, Hinojosa discloses wherein the fixing portion is constituted by any one of:
a press-fitted portion where the filter bites into a material of the substrate (paragraph [0023] “clamped”); or
a melt-solidified portion where at least one of the filter and the substrate is melted and integrated (paragraph [0023] “laser welding”).
In the analogous art of microfluidic platforms for cells, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the adhesive bond of Fukuzawa with the press-fitted portion or melt-solidified portion of Hinojosa as an alternative form of integration in order to eliminate the need for an adhesive that may or may not have biochemical effects on the sample, while still holding the parts of a filter and substrate together.
The limitation “the substrate is melted and integrated” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP § 2113.
Additional Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Hara (JP 2016049064) (machine translation) (newly cited) – This invention is a bidirectional PCR chip with zones for heating to different temperatures.
Kawaguchi (US 20220023861) (newly cited) – This invention is a reaction processing vessel.
Takeuchi (US 20200384465) (newly cited) – This invention is a reaction processing vessel.
Yue (US 20070014695) (previously cited) – This invention discloses a film adhering a filter to a substrate (paragraph [0220]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in light of the arguments and the amendments.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 rejections, the amendments have forced a reinterpretation of the claims under Yue, and resulted in a different primary reference being applied, Fukuzawa. Previous arguments drawn to Yue are now moot.
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 NATHAN G ESPERON whose telephone number is 571-272-9807. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am - 6 pm every other Friday.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/N.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights