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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s “Remarks”, filed February 24, 2026. The amendments therein have been thoroughly reviewed and entered. Any previous objection/ rejection not repeated herein has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been thoroughly reviewed but are deemed moot in view of the amendments, withdrawn rejections, and new and/or modified grounds for rejection, necessitated by the amendments, discussed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “timer device” in claim 4, “humidity sensor device” in claim 7, “bubble sensor device” in claim 9, “filing level sensor device” in claim 10, “homogeneity sensor device” in claim 11, and “data reception device” in claim 15 must be shown (with reference numbers in the figures) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Note that applicant statement in the Remarks that “the data input device of the cover comprises a device” and the data input unit is illustrated in Fig.5 is not sufficient to show each claimed device in the Figures. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims (each individual device).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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:
a. “data input unit” in claim 1, has been interpreted by the examiner to correspond to a mechanical input facilities like e.g. pushbuttons, keys or rotary knobs, membrane keys or a touchscreen for manual entering of data or equivalents thereof (see para [0008] of applicant’s corresponding published application 2023/0417716, hereinafter ‘716) ;
b. “timer device” in claim 4;
c. “plate reception device” in claim 5 has been interpreted by the examiner as corresponding to a lifting mechanism that allows for lowering a small region 32 next to a lower edge 33 of the thin-layer chromatography plates 21 into the solvent 29 within the cup 28. After performing the development step, the thin-layer chromatography plates 21 can be lifted upwards with the plate reception device 30 which removes the lower edge 33 from the solvent bath and stops any further contact of the thin-layer chromatography plate 21 with the solvent bath (see ‘716 para [0048] et seq.);
d. “bubble sensor device” in claim 9, has been interpreted as corresponding to a device that can determine the existence and possibly also the number or size of bubbles by optical means, e.g. by irradiating the solvent bath with a laser light beam and by determining and evaluating the light that is scattered from the bubbles. It is also possible to detecting bubbles by making use of appropriate ultrasonic sensors or by any other sensor that is suitable for detecting bubbles in the solvent bath (see para [0020] et seq. of ‘716);
e. “filing level sensor” in claim 10 has been interpreted as corresponding to an optical sensor that detects the filling level e.g. by detecting light from a laser light beam that is reflected from the surface of the solvent that has been filled into a cup for the solvent bath. The filling level sensor can also be a sensor with which an electrical conductivity changed by the solvent can be detected at one preset optimum filling level or at different heights of the filling level (see para [0021] et seq. of ‘716);
f. “homogeneity sensor device” in claim 11, has been interpreted by the examiner as corresponding to an optical sensor (see para [0049] et seq. of ‘716);
g. “orientation measurement device” in claim 12, has been interpreted by the examiner to correspond to a spirit level with an air bubble within a tubular housing filled with a liquid, whereby the air bubble is visible from outside the cover. For such a spirit level the reference orientation is a horizontal plane that is also parallel to a surface of the solvent within the solvent bath. The orientation measurement device can also be a gyroscope that determines the orientation of the cover with respect to a preset reference orientation (see para [0023] et seq. of ‘716);
h. “data reception device” in claim 15 has been interpreted as “the data communication unit” for receiving data of equivalents thereof (see par [0026] et seq. of ‘716); and
i. “thin-layer chromatography evaluation device” in claims 16-18, has been interpreted by the examiner as a means for receiving data or transferring data entered or collected in a data storage device (memory) or equivalents thereof (see para [0031] et seq. of ‘716).
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.
The apparatus type claims 1-17 contain a large amount of functional/process language. Functional/process language does not add any further structure to an apparatus claim beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function or intended use, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g)).
In addition, apparatus claims 1-17 are only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus,"[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”, see MPEP 2115 (Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus). Also, recitations in the preamble of the claim(s) are generally not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02.
In the patentability analysis of instant claims, the examiner uses different typestyles, i.e., italics and bold font. An element interpreted as functional/process language is shown in italicized font whereas limitations interpreted as structural limitations are normally bolded. The examiner has applied this formatting for both the examiner’s and applicant’s convenience. The bold font and italics are shown when the structure and function/process limitations are initially introduced in the claim set, though not necessarily repeated, particularly in the dependent claims. However, absent the referenced typestyles, the patentability analysis will be clear regarding which limitation the examiner interprets as structural limitations versus functional/process limitations.
Claims 1-17 are directed to an apparatus, not a process of use. There is no requirement for the claimed apparatus device to be used in any process at all including using, for example, thin-layer chromatography plates, nor should it be interpreted to include other structures or materials that are not positively claimed as elements of the invention. Elements not part of the claimed device structure have not received patentable weight. See MPEP 2115. Generally, the elements that are bolded are considered positively recited whereas structural elements not positively recited are italicized.
Note: the functional/process recitations and/or structural elements not positively recited in the claims have not been ignored by the examiner, rather these elements have been considered and given the appropriate amount of patentable weight consistent with current US patent practice.
Note that all of the step/functional language in method claim 18 has been afforded patentable weight.
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.
Claims 1-18 remain 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 includes elements that are not positively recited (e.g., thin-layer chromatograph plate, the development chamber, opening of the development chamber). It is not clear which structural limitations these are intended to impose on the subject matter (the cover). The scope of the claim is therefore not clear.
Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 18 refer to a “development process”, “development process duration” or “development step”. This is confusing and indefinite since these claims are directed to an apparatus, not a method. In addition, it is unclear what applicant considers a development process, duration, or step.
Claim 1 now recites “a data communication unit” that enables a wireless data transmission of the data to a thin layer chromatography data storage device”. Claim 3 also recites the same element. It is not clear from claim 3 whether applicant is referring to the same data communication unit or an additional one. Since the specification does not support two data communication units, the examiner will interpret as the same data communication unit.
Claim 13 recites “at least one sensitive part”. It is not clear from the claim or specification what structure corresponds to “a sensitive part”. This is confusing and indefinite.
As discuss above, the claim limitation “data reception device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. It is not clear from the disclosure what structure corresponds to “a data reception device”. Claim 15 recites the data communication unit comprises a data reception device. This does not add any structural limitations or functions to the data reception device. The examiner will interpret “a data reception device” as corresponding to memory or equivalents thereof. The claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Note: page 8 of the Remarks includes the statement that applicant traverses the
interpretation under 35 USC 112 (f). This statement by applicant alone does not follow the instructions a-c that would be necessary to avoid invoking the claim interpretations as outlined above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 now recites all of the same recitations claim 3. Thus, claim 3 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., (CN 110470784; hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a cover (which includes attached elements 20-26, 211, 231, 232. 233, 261, see Fig. 1) for a thin-layer chromatography development chamber 10 for developing thin-layer chromatography plates 27 by introducing a liquid solvent onto a thin-layer chromatography plate 27, whereby the solvent and the thin-layer chromatography plate can be inserted into the development chamber, and whereby an opening of the development chamber can be closed with the cover,
wherein the cover comprises
a data input unit (a timer is started through the control module 22 which requires a means to input data to the control module; see claim 9) in the control for entering or collecting data related to a development process performed within the development chamber.
Xu inherently discloses some means of transmitting data entered with data input unit (keys, etc.) to a storage device (memory) and/or evaluation device (control module). Xu is silent regarding the use of a data communication unit that enables a wireless data transmission of the data. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims where effectively filed to have used a data communication unit that uses wireless transmission of data since is well known that wireless communication provides mobility and elimination of physical cables. At the time of applicant’s effective filing date wireless data transfer was a well-known alternative to wired transfer. These are considered obvious equivalents (wired vs wireless). The examiner has taken Official Notice. Same applies to claim 3.
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses the cover comprises an information display unit (LCD display screen) for displaying data that has been entered or collected with the data input unit.
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses the cover comprises a timer device that can be set to indicate the development process duration (Xu discloses a timer recording time, the controlling module 22 displayed on the display screen and to trigger the next operation, the display screen is an LCD display screen.)
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses the cover comprises a plate reception device (clamping mechanism 24 and/or lifting mechanism 23) that is suitable for moving a thin-layer chromatography plate between a storage position without contact to a solvent of a solvent bath within the development chamber, and a development position with a part of the thin-layer chromatography plate immersed in the solvent of the solvent bath.
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses the cover comprises a temperature sensor device (see claim 6) for sensing the temperature inside the development chamber during the development process.
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses the cover comprises a humidity sensor device (see claim 6) for sensing the humidity inside the development chamber during the development process.
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses the cover comprises a pressure sensor device (see claim 8) for sensing the pressure inside the development chamber during the development process.
Regarding claim 9, Xu discloses the cover comprises a bubble sensor device (interpreted as corresponding to an optical sensor 25, 26 such as an infrared sensor, laser sensor, or visible light sensor) for sensing bubbles within a solvent inside the development chamber during the development process.
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses the cover comprises a filling level sensor device (contact developing agent sensor 25, see claim 2) for sensing the filling level of a solvent 30 in a solvent bath within the development chamber 10.
Regarding claim 11, Xu discloses the cover comprises a solvent homogeneity sensor device (optical sensor such as a laser or visible light sensor) for sensing the homogeneity of a solvent before or during the development step.
Regarding claim 12, Xu discloses the cover comprises an orientation measurement device (reads on lift balancing plate 233) for measuring the orientation of the cover with respect to a reference orientation (see claim 4).
As to claim 13, Xu discloses a housing shown as element 22 (which correspond to a compartment) for at least one sensitive part, of the data input unit and of the data communication unit that is sealed from the inner side facing the development chamber with a sealing that is inert to the solvent.
Regarding claim 14, Xu discloses a sealing cover 21 comprises a glass plate and an annular seal surrounding the glass plate that allows for sealing a gap between the glass plate and an opening edge of the opening of the development chamber (see claim 9).
Regarding claim 15, Xu discloses a data reception device (interpreted as a memory which necessary in control module that records time) for receiving data related to the thin-layer chromatography plate that is developed during the development process.
Regarding claim 16, Xu discloses a system for developing and analyzing a thin-layer chromatography plate 27 with a development chamber 10 for developing the thin- layer chromatography plate and with a thin-layer chromatography evaluation device (control module 22) for collecting and analyzing results of chromatography on a thin-layer chromatography plate developed with the development chamber, characterized in that the development chamber 10 comprises the cover 20 according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Xu inherently discloses some means of transmitting data entered with data input unit (keys, etc.) to a storage device (memory) and/or evaluation device (control module). Xu is silent regarding the use of a data communication unit that enables a wireless data transmission of the data. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims where effectively filed to have used a data communication unit that uses wireless transmission of data since is well known that wireless communication provides mobility and elimination of physical cables.
Regarding claim 18, Xu discloses a method for developing and analyzing a thin-layer chromatography plate 27, whereby the thin-layer chromatography plate 27 is developed within a thin-layer chromatography development chamber 10 with the cover 20 according to claim 1 that during a data transmission step at least one data related to the development of the thin-layer chromatography plate 27 that is entered or collected by the data input unit (keys) of the cover is transmitted during or after the development step to a thin-layer chromatography evaluation device (control module 22) for collecting and analyzing the results of chromatography of the thin-layer chromatography plate.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the Xu reference fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., chamber) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With respect to claim 1, the claim is merely directed to a cover, not the chamber. Furthermore, it is clear that the cover 20 is attached to all of the mechanisms and therefore the cover of Xu comprises them. Clearly, the cover 20 Xu in fact does cover the chamber 10. With respect to applicant’s argument with respect to applicant’s invention being more “compact” than Xu, the claim does not recite any dimensions and the term “compact” is relative. Furthermore, it not clear from Xu that its device is “much bigger, heavier, and less compact” than the unclaimed dimensions purported by applicant invention.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am-7:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (571) 270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights