Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 01/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 remain pending in the application. Claims 16-21 are withdrawn. New grounds of rejections necessitated by amendments are discussed below.
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 5 and 7-13 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.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “a region in which the surfactant is not adsorbed”. It is unclear if the region of claim 5 is the same or different from “a region in which the surfactant is not adsorbed on the defining surface of the base” established in claim 1. For examination purposes, the regions of claims 5 and 1 are interpreted as the same.
Regarding claims 7-9, claims 7-9 recite “according to claim 6”, wherein claim 6 is cancelled. Therefore, it is unclear upon which claim that claims 7-9 are dependent upon. For examination purposes, claims 7-9 are interpreted as dependent on claim 1. It is suggested to recite “according to claim 6” as “according to claim 1”. Claims 10-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites “a region in which the surfactant is not adsorbed”. It is unclear if the region of claim 13 is the same or different from “a region in which the surfactant is not adsorbed on the defining surface of the facing base” established in claim 1. For examination purposes, the regions of claims 13 and 1 are interpreted as the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (HUANG, Song-Bin et al., "Pneumatically driven micro-dispenser for sub-micro-liter pipetting", JOURNAL OF MICROMECHANICS AND MICROENGINEERING, INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING, BRISTOL, GB, vol. 19, no.3, March 1, 2009, page 35027, XP020153364; cited in the IDS filed 04/24/2024) in view of Saiki et al. (US 20100255589 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a microchannel device (abstract; Figs. 1-7 teaches a micro-dispenser comprising a microchannel) comprising:
a base (Fig. 2 and section 2.1 teaches PDMS layers including a pneumatic chamber layer and a sample flow microchannel layer) having a defining surface that defines a flow channel (Fig. 2 and section 2.1 teach the PDMS layers has a surface that defines a sample flow microchannel) and containing silicone (section 2.1, “PDMS layers” which contains silicone),
a facing base (Fig. 2, bottom glass) coming into contact with the base (Fig. 2 teaches the bottom glass contacts the PDMS layers), the facing base having a defining surface that defines the flow channel together with the defining surface of the base (Fig. 2 teaches the bottom glass has a surface that defines part of the flow microchannel with the defining surface of the PDMS layers),
wherein the defining surface of the base includes a region in which a surfactant is adsorbed (page 5, left column, first paragraph teaches a 3% Pluronic surfactant solution is loaded into the sample flow microchannel for 12 h to modify the PDMS surface to make it hydrophilic, therefore the surface of the PDMS layer, i.e. surface of the microchannel, includes a region in which the Pluronic surfactant is adsorbed),
wherein a ratio of an amount of secondary ions of the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the base to a total amount of ions detected by time of flight secondary ion mass spectrometry is 0.01 or more (interpreted as a product-by-process limitation, since “detected by time of flight secondary ion mass spectrometry” is a process limitation within the apparatus claim; even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself, see MPEP 2113; Huang, page 5, section 2.2 teaches a 3% Pluronic F68 surfactant solution is loaded into the sample flow microchannel for 12 h to modify the PDMS surface to make it hydrophilic; in the instant specification: paragraph [0027] discloses the surfactant includes Pluronic F68, paragraph [0135] discloses the surfactant is between 2%-8% by mass, and paragraph [0139] discloses flowing the surfactant for 0.5-120 minutes; therefore, since Huang teaches 3% Pluronic F68 surfactant solution loaded in the microchannel for 12 hours to make it hydrophilic, the adsorbed surfactant would inherently have the claimed ratio to be at least 0.01 in order for the microchannel to have hydrophilic properties).
Huang fails to teach: wherein a region in which the surfactant is not adsorbed on the defining surface of the facing base faces a region in which the surfactant is not adsorbed on the defining surface of the base.
Saiki teaches an analysis device to analyze liquid (abstract; paragraph [0001]), the device comprising a base substrate with one face on which is formed a microchannel structure, and a cover substrate for covering a surface of the base substrate (paragraph [0044]). Saiki teaches it is desirable for the materials of the base and cover substrates to be a synthetic resin with high optical transparency for optical measurement (paragraph [0202]). Saiki teaches a part of or all of the walls of the base and cover are subjected to hydrophilic treatment in order to reduce viscous resistance within the microchannel and promote fluid movement (paragraph [0260]). Saiki teaches while hydrophilic treatment must be performed in order to ensure capillary action in the first capillary cavity, hydrophilic treatment is desirably performed only on wall faces of the first capillary cavity (paragraph [0374]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a region of the defining surface of the facing base that faces the defining surface of the base of Huang to incorporate the teachings of incorporate the teachings of hydrophilic treatments to part or all of walls of a base or cover of Saiki (paragraph [0260]) and the teachings of hydrophilic treatment of desired parts of Saiki (paragraph [0374]) to provide: wherein a region in which the surfactant is not adsorbed on the defining surface of the facing base faces a region in which the surfactant is not adsorbed on the defining surface of the base. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving control of hydrophilicity of desired regions of the surfaces of the facing base and base, i.e. a region within the flow channel, thus improving fluid movement in desired portions of the device as taught by Saiki (paragraphs [0260],[0374]).
In an alternative interpretation, if it is determined that Huang fails to explicitly teach: a ratio of an amount of secondary ions of the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the base to a total amount of ions detected by time of flight secondary ion mass spectrometry is 0.01 or more, Huang teaches a 3% Pluronic F68 surfactant solution loaded in the microchannel for 12 hours to make it hydrophilic to prevent adsorbing liquids for practical applications (page 5, left column, first paragraph) and PDMS modified by Pluronic F68 solution kept the surface hydrophilic for days, thus the dispensing performance is less affected by the hydrophobic nature of PDMS and enables quick dispensing ability (page 7, left column, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surfactant on the defining surface of the base of Huang to incorporate the teachings of modifying the PDMS microchannel with a surfactant solution to ensure hydrophilicity of Huang (page 5, left column, first paragraph; page 7, left column, first paragraph) to provide: a ratio of an amount of secondary ions of the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the base to a total amount of ions detected by time of flight secondary ion mass spectrometry is 0.01 or more through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05(II)). Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully increasing and optimizing the amount of secondary ions of the surfactant in relation to the total amount of ions to enhance the hydrophilic properties of the microchannel as desired by Huang (page 5, left column, first paragraph; page 7, left column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, modified Huang fails to explicitly teach wherein on the defining surface of the base, a contact angle of water to the region in which the surfactant is adsorbed is 60° or less.
Saiki teaches an analysis device to analyze liquid (abstract; paragraph [0001]), the device comprising a base substrate with one face on which is formed a microchannel structure, and a cover substrate for covering a surface of the base substrate (paragraph [0044]). Saiki teaches it is desirable for the materials of the base and cover substrates to be a synthetic resin with high optical transparency for optical measurement (paragraph [0202]). Saiki teaches walls of the base and cover are subjected to hydrophilic treatment in order to reduce viscous resistance within the microchannel and promote fluid movement (paragraph [0260]), wherein the hydrophilic treatment favorably has a contact angle of less than 40 degrees with respect to water (paragraph [0261]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the region in which the surfactant is adsorbed of modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of hydrophilic treatments with a contact angle of less than 40 degrees of Saiki (paragraph [0261]) to provide: wherein on the defining surface of the base, a contact angle of water to the region in which the surfactant is adsorbed is 60° or less. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving hydrophilicity of the surface to promote improved fluid movement as discussed by Saiki (paragraph [0260]).
Regarding claim 3, Huang further teaches wherein the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the base is an alkylene oxide polymer (page 5, left column, first paragraph, teaches Pluronic F68 surfactant, which is alkylene oxide polymer).
Regarding claim 4, Huang further teaches wherein the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the base is an ethylene oxide-propylene oxide copolymer (page 5, left column, first paragraph, teaches Pluronic F68 surfactant, which is a copolymer of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide).
Regarding claim 5, modified Huang further teaches wherein the defining surface of the base further includes a region in which the surfactant is not adsorbed (see above claim 1; Huang in view of Saiki teaches “a region in which the surfactant is not adsorbed on the defining surface of the base” of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, while Huang teaches a PDMS microfluidic device and hydrophilic treatment of the PDMS surface, and the facing base is glass (section 2.2), modified Huang fails to teach: wherein the facing base contains silicone.
Saiki teaches an analysis device to analyze liquid (abstract; paragraph [0001]), the device comprising a base substrate with one face on which is formed a microchannel structure, and a cover substrate for covering a surface of the base substrate (paragraph [0044]). Saiki teaches it is desirable for the materials of the base and cover substrates to be a synthetic resin with high optical transparency for optical measurement (paragraph [0202]). Saiki teaches a part of or all of the walls of the base and cover are subjected to hydrophilic treatment in order to reduce viscous resistance within the microchannel and promote fluid movement (paragraph [0260]). Saiki teaches the use of a hydrophilic material such as glass as the base and cover substrate, or an alternative use of a surfactant added to the base substrate and cover to impart a material with hydrophilicity (paragraph [0294]). Saiki teaches embodiments where the material of the base and cover are plastic, which allows moldability, high productivity, and low costs (paragraph [0319]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the facing base of modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of the use of a glass substrate or hydrophilic treated material such as plastic/resins as the cover and base of a microfluidic device of Saiki (paragraphs [0202],[0260],[0294],[0319]) and the teachings of PDMS of Huang (section 2.2) to provide: wherein the facing base contains silicone. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving moldability, productivity, and low cost of the materials of the facing base as taught by Saiki.
Additionally, since Saiki teaches it is known for the material of a cover and base to be glass or plastic/resin (paragraph [0202],[0294],[0319]) and Huang teaches known resins such as PDMS (section 2.2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Huang’s facing base (i.e. glass) with a facing base containing silicone (e.g. PDMS), and the result of the substitution would have been predictable (e.g. providing improved moldability, high productivity, and low costs for the facing base of the device). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 8, Huang further teaches wherein the facing base contains at least one selected from the group consisting of glass and stainless steel (Fig. 2, bottom glass).
Regarding claim 9, while Huang teaches a PDMS microfluidic device and hydrophilic treatment of the PDMS surface, and the facing base is glass (section 2.2), modified Huang fails to teach: wherein the defining surface of the facing base includes a region in which the surfactant is adsorbed, and a ratio of an amount of secondary ions of the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the facing base to a total amount of ions detected by time of flight secondary ion mass spectrometry is 0.01 or more.
Huang teaches a 3% Pluronic F68 surfactant solution loaded in the microchannel for 12 hours to make it hydrophilic to prevent adsorbing liquids for practical applications (page 5, left column, first paragraph) and PDMS modified by Pluronic F68 solution kept the surface hydrophilic for days, thus the dispensing performance is less affected by the hydrophobic nature of PDMS and enables quick dispensing ability (page 7, left column, first paragraph).
Saiki teaches an analysis device to analyze liquid (abstract; paragraph [0001]), the device comprising a base substrate with one face on which is formed a microchannel structure, and a cover substrate for covering a surface of the base substrate (paragraph [0044]). Saiki teaches it is desirable for the materials of the base and cover substrates to be a synthetic resin with high optical transparency for optical measurement (paragraph [0202]). Saiki teaches a part of or all of the walls of the base and cover are subjected to hydrophilic treatment in order to reduce viscous resistance within the microchannel and promote fluid movement (paragraph [0260]). Saiki teaches alternatively, a hydrophilic material such as glass may be used for at least one of the base substrate and the cover substrate , or a hydrophilizing agent such as a surfactant, a hydrophilic polymer, and a hydrophilic powder such as a silica gel may be added when molding at least one of the base substrate and the cover substrate so as to impart a material surface with hydrophilicity (paragraph [0262]). Saiki teaches the use of a hydrophilic material such as glass as the base and cover substrate, or an alternative use of a surfactant added to the base substrate and cover to impart a material with hydrophilicity (paragraph [0294]). Saiki teaches embodiments where the material of the base and cover are plastic, which allows moldability, high productivity, and low costs (paragraph [0319]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the facing base of modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of the use of a glass substrate or hydrophilic treated material such as plastic/resins as the cover and base of a microfluidic device of Saiki (paragraphs [0202],[0260],[0294],[0319]) and the teachings of hydrophilic treatment of PDMS of Huang (section 2.2) to provide: wherein the defining surface of the facing base includes a region in which the surfactant is adsorbed, and a ratio of an amount of secondary ions of the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the facing base to a total amount of ions detected by time of flight secondary ion mass spectrometry is 0.01 or more. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of utilize known materials for the facing base as taught by Saiki and Huang to successfully increase and optimize the amount of secondary ions of the surfactant in relation to the total amount of ions to enhance the hydrophilic properties of the microchannel as desired by Huang (page 5, left column, first paragraph; page 7, left column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, modified Huang fails to teach wherein on the defining surface of the facing base, a contact angle of water to the region in which the surfactant is adsorbed is 60° or less.
Saiki teaches an analysis device to analyze liquid (abstract; paragraph [0001]), the device comprising a base substrate with one face on which is formed a microchannel structure, and a cover substrate for covering a surface of the base substrate (paragraph [0044]). Saiki teaches it is desirable for the materials of the base and cover substrates to be a synthetic resin with high optical transparency for optical measurement (paragraph [0202]). Saiki teaches walls of the base and cover are subjected to hydrophilic treatment in order to reduce viscous resistance within the microchannel and promote fluid movement (paragraph [0260]), wherein the hydrophilic treatment favorably has a contact angle of less than 40 degrees with respect to water (paragraph [0261]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the region in which the surfactant is adsorbed of modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of hydrophilic treatments with a contact angle of less than 40 degrees of Saiki (paragraph [0261]) to provide: wherein on the defining surface of the facing base, a contact angle of water to the region in which the surfactant is adsorbed is 60° or less. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving hydrophilicity of the surface to promote improved fluid movement as discussed by Saiki (paragraph [0260]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Huang fails to teach wherein the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the facing base is an alkylene oxide polymer.
Huang further teaches wherein the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the base is an alkylene oxide polymer (page 5, left column, first paragraph, teaches Pluronic F68 surfactant, which is alkylene oxide polymer). Huang teaches a 3% Pluronic F68 surfactant solution loaded in the microchannel for 12 hours to make it hydrophilic to prevent adsorbing liquids for practical applications (page 5, left column, first paragraph) and PDMS modified by Pluronic F68 solution kept the surface hydrophilic for days, thus the dispensing performance is less affected by the hydrophobic nature of PDMS and enables quick dispensing ability (page 7, left column, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the facing base of modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of a Pluronic surfactant of modified Huang (page 5, left column, first paragraph) to provide: wherein the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the facing base is an alkylene oxide polymer. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully enhancing the hydrophilic properties of the microchannel as desired by Huang (page 5, left column, first paragraph; page 7, left column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, modified Huang fails to teach wherein the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the facing base is an ethylene oxide-propylene oxide copolymer.
Huang further teaches wherein the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the base is an ethylene oxide-propylene oxide copolymer (page 5, left column, first paragraph, teaches Pluronic F68 surfactant, which is a copolymer of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide). Huang teaches a 3% Pluronic F68 surfactant solution loaded in the microchannel for 12 hours to make it hydrophilic to prevent adsorbing liquids for practical applications (page 5, left column, first paragraph) and PDMS modified by Pluronic F68 solution kept the surface hydrophilic for days, thus the dispensing performance is less affected by the hydrophobic nature of PDMS and enables quick dispensing ability (page 7, left column, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the facing base of modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of a Pluronic surfactant of modified Huang (page 5, left column, first paragraph) to provide: wherein the surfactant adsorbed on the defining surface of the facing base is an ethylene oxide-propylene oxide copolymer. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully enhancing the hydrophilic properties of the microchannel as desired by Huang (page 5, left column, first paragraph; page 7, left column, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, modified Huang further teaches wherein the defining surface of the facing base further includes a region in which the surfactant is not adsorbed (see above claim 1; Huang in view of Saiki teaches “a region in which the surfactant is not adsorbed on the defining surface of the facing base” of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Huang further teaches wherein the flow channel (Fig. 1, interpreted as the flow microchannels of the device) includes a first flow channel part (see below annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as a left side of the sample flow microchannel), a second flow channel part that joins the first flow channel part (see below annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the part of the channel that is coupled between the sample reservoir and sample flow microchannel), and a third flow channel part that is connected to a junction of the first flow channel part with the second flow channel part (see below annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the part of the sample flow microchannel towards the collection reservoir that is connected at a junction).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang: Arrows pointing to claimed first flow channel part, second flow channel part, and third flow channel part.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Saiki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McDermott (US 20190127731 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Huang further teaches wherein the flow channel (Fig. 1, interpreted as the flow microchannels of the device) includes a first flow channel part (see below annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as a left side of the sample flow microchannel), a second flow channel part that joins the first flow channel part (see below annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the part of the channel that is coupled between the sample reservoir and sample flow microchannel), and a third flow channel part that is connected to a junction of the first flow channel part with the second flow channel part (see below annotated Fig. 1; interpreted as the part of the sample flow microchannel towards the collection reservoir that is connected at a junction).
Modified Huang fails to teach: wherein the flow channel includes a fourth flow channel part that joins the third flow channel part, and a fifth flow channel part that is connected to a junction of the third flow channel part with the fourth flow channel part.
McDermott teaches microfluidic device comprising a microfluidic channel (Fig. 3). McDermott teaches dispensing droplets to form microcapsules that include biological particles (paragraph [0054]). McDermott teaches microdispensing of oligonucleotides into droplets within microfluidic systems (paragraph [0130]). McDermott teaches a flow channel (Fig. 3, element 300) comprising a first flow channel part (301), a second flow channel part that joins the first flow channel part (302), a third flow channel part (interpreted as the part of the channel 300 with the label 312) that is connected to a junction of the first flow channel part with the second flow channel part (first channel junction 309), a fourth flow channel part that joins the third flow channel part (304), and a fifth flow channel part (308) that is connected to a junction of the third flow channel part with the fourth flow channel part (second junction 310). McDermott teaches the microfluidic channel structure allows for co-partitioning biological particles and reagents (paragraph [0115]) and allows for incorporation of desired materials such as biological particles, reagents, and fluid for stabilization of droplets (paragraphs [0117]-[0119]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow channel of modified Huang to incorporate the teachings of various junctions and flow channel parts of McDermott (Fig. 3; paragraphs [0115]-[0119]) to provide: wherein the flow channel includes a fourth flow channel part that joins the third flow channel part, and a fifth flow channel part that is connected to a junction of the third flow channel part with the fourth flow channel part. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving versatility of the microfluidic device by allowing for additional junctions for introduction of desired materials to the microfluidic device along a flow channel as taught by McDermott (paragraphs [01117]-[0119]).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang: Arrows pointing to claimed first flow channel part, second flow channel part, and third flow channel part.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 01/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/103, specifically regarding amended claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Huang et al. (HUANG, Song-Bin et al., "Pneumatically driven micro-dispenser for sub-micro-liter pipetting", JOURNAL OF MICROMECHANICS AND MICROENGINEERING, INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING, BRISTOL, GB, vol. 19, no.3, March 1, 2009, page 35027, XP020153364; cited in the IDS filed 04/24/2024) in view of Saiki et al. (US 20100255589 A1).
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 HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758