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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 16, and 48-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10043490 in view of Geschwender USPN 10330234.
Regarding Claim 1: DE 10043490 discloses the limitations: A tubing kit (the tubing kit is defined by the sum of its parts) for forming a mixture (e.g. mixture contained in element 19 in Figs 1-2) comprising:
a first portion of tubing (3 | 3’) configured to be fluidly connected to a container 1 containing a first composition (Line 142-165, Line 180-201);
a second portion of tubing (4 | 4’) configured to be fluidly connected to a container 2 containing a second composition (Line 142-165, Line 180-201);
a mixer 15 for mixing the first composition from the first portion of tubing and the second composition from the second portion of tubing (Line 147-165, Line 187-201);
a mixture container 19 for collecting the mixed first composition and second composition from the mixer (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2),
wherein the first portion of tubing is configured to be connected to a first peristaltic pump head (5 | 31) for pumping the first composition from the container containing the first composition to the mixture container (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2), and the second portion of tubing is configured to be connected to a second peristaltic pump head (6 | 32) for pumping the second composition from the container containing the second composition to the mixture container (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2). DE 10043490 is silent regarding the limitations: a tubing dampener fluidly connected to the first portion of tubing and fluidly connected to the second portion of tubing, such that the tubing dampener is fluidly connected to the first and the second peristaltic pump heads. The prior art of Geschwender USPN 10330234 which is directed to a peristaltic pump dampener for a peristaltic pumps like the first and second peristaltic pumps of DE 10043490, is noted.
However, Geschwender USPN 10330234 does disclose the limitations: a tubing dampener (100, Figs 1-7, Column 3 Line 63-Column 4 Line 31) fluidly connected to the first portion of tubing (the first portion of tubing = input line 100a) and fluidly connected to the second portion of tubing (the second portion of tubing = input line 100b), such that the tubing dampener 100 is fluidly connected to the first and the second peristaltic pump heads (it is disclosed that the two input flows feeding input line 100a and input line 100b may be received from more than one peristaltic pumps).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first portion of tubing (3 | 3’) and the second portion of tubing (4 | 4’) of DE 10043490 with the tubing dampener 100 of Geschwender USPN 10330234 in order to dampen the input flows to generate substantially even uniform output flows (Column 4 Line 1-4).
Regarding Claim 16: DE 10043490 discloses the limitations: A system (the system is defined by the sum of its parts) for forming a pharmaceutical composition or mixture of pharmaceutical compositions (--It should be noted that noted that the limitation "for forming a pharmaceutical composition or mixture of pharmaceutical compositions" is an intended use and therefor is given little patentable weight--), the system comprising:
a first container 1 containing a first pharmaceutical composition (it is noted that the container 1 taught by the art of DE ‘490 would be capable of containing a pharmaceutical composition as claimed);
a second container 2 containing a second pharmaceutical composition (it is noted that the container 2 taught by the art of DE ‘490 would be capable of containing a pharmaceutical composition as claimed);
a first portion of tubing (3 | 3’) fluidly connected to the first container (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2);
a second portion of tubing (4 | 4’) fluidly connected to the second container (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2);
a mixer 15 for mixing the first pharmaceutical composition from the first portion of tubing and the second pharmaceutical composition from the second portion of tubing (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2, Line 147-165, Line 187-201 – the mixer 15 would be capable of mixing the transported materials as claimed);
a mixture container 19 for collecting the mixed first pharmaceutical composition and second pharmaceutical composition from the mixer (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2);
a first peristaltic pump head (5 | 31) connected to the first portion of tubing for pumping the first composition from the container containing the first composition to the mixture container (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2); and
a second peristaltic pump head (6 | 32) connected to the second portion of tubing for pumping the second composition from the container containing the second composition to the mixture container (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2). DE 10043490 is silent regarding the limitations: a tubing dampener fluidly connected to the first portion of tubing and fluidly connected to the second portion of tubing, such that the tubing dampener is fluidly connected to the first and the second peristaltic pump heads. The prior art of Geschwender USPN 10330234 which is directed to a peristaltic pump dampener for peristaltic pumps like the first and second peristaltic pumps of DE 10043490, is noted.
However, Geschwender USPN 10330234 does disclose the limitations: a tubing dampener (100, Figs 1-7, Column 3 Line 63-Column 4 Line 31) fluidly connected to the first portion of tubing (the first portion of tubing = input line 100a) and fluidly connected to the second portion of tubing (the second portion of tubing = input line 100b), such that the tubing dampener 100 is fluidly connected to the first and the second peristaltic pump heads (it is disclosed that the two input flows feeding input line 100a and input line 100b may be received from more than one peristaltic pumps).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first portion of tubing (3 | 3’) and the second portion of tubing (4 | 4’) of DE 10043490 with the tubing dampener 100 of Geschwender USPN 10330234 in order to dampen the input flows to generate substantially even uniform output flows (Column 4 Line 1-4).
Regarding Claim 48: DE 10043490 discloses the limitations: A method for transferring pharmaceutical compositions using peristaltic pumps (elements 5,6 and 31,32 are peristaltic pumps – Line 104-107, Line 145-152, Line 175-189; additionally since Line 74-103 suggests that it is known in the art for peristaltic pumps to be used to move fluids in the field of medicine, it is clear that peristaltic pumps such as those taught by DE ‘490 could be used to transport medicine/pharmaceutical compositions as claimed) comprising:
pumping a first composition from a first container through a first portion of tubing (i.e. pumping material A from container 1 through first portion of tubing 3/3’ as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2) using a first peristaltic pump (i.e. using peristaltic pump 5/31 as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2);
pumping a second composition from a second container through a second portion of tubing (i.e. pumping material B from container 2 through second portion of tubing 4/4’ as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2) using a second peristaltic pump (i.e. using peristaltic pump 6/32 as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2). DE 10043490 is silent regarding the limitations: dampening pulse in a fluid flow of the first composition in the first portion of tubing and dampening pulses in a fluid flow of the second composition in the second portion of tubing using a tubing dampener fluidly connected to the first portion of tubing and fluidly connected to the second portion of tubing such that the tubing damper is fluidly connected to the first and second peristaltic pumps. The prior art of Geschwender USPN 10330234 which is directed to a peristaltic pump dampener for peristaltic pumps like the first and second peristaltic pumps of DE 10043490, is noted.
However, Geschwender USPN 10330234 does disclose the limitations: dampening pulse in a fluid flow of the first composition (i.e. dampening pulses in the fluid flow from 110a to 112a) in the first portion of tubing (the first portion of tubing = input line 100a) and dampening pulses in a fluid flow of the second composition (i.e. dampening pulses in the fluid flow from 110b to 112b) in the second portion of tubing (the second portion of tubing = input line 100b) using a tubing dampener (100, Figs 1-7, Column 3 Line 63-Column 4 Line 31) fluidly connected to the first portion of tubing and fluidly connected to the second portion of tubing (as seen in Figs 1-7) such that the tubing damper is fluidly connected to the first and second peristaltic pumps (it is disclosed that the two input flows feeding input line 100a and input line 100b may be received from more than one peristaltic pumps).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first portion of tubing (3 | 3’) and the second portion of tubing (4 | 4’) of DE 10043490 with the tubing dampener 100 of Geschwender USPN 10330234 in order to dampen the input flows to generate substantially even uniform output flows (Column 4 Line 1-4).
Regarding Claim 49: DE ‘490 discloses: further comprising mixing the first composition from the first portion of tubing and the second composition from the second portion of tubing in a mixer 15 fluidly connected to the first portion of tubing and the second portion of tubing (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 50: DE ‘490 discloses: further comprising depositing the mixture containing the first composition and the second composition into a mixture container 19 that is fluidly connected to the mixer (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10043490 in view of Muller USPN 4715216 and DelCastillo US 2009/0131859.
Regarding Claim 1: DE 10043490 discloses the limitations: A tubing kit (the tubing kit is defined by the sum of its parts) for forming a mixture (e.g. mixture contained in element 19 in Figs 1-2) comprising:
a first portion of tubing (3 | 3’) configured to be fluidly connected to a container 1 containing a first composition (Line 142-165, Line 180-201);
a second portion of tubing (4 | 4’) configured to be fluidly connected to a container 2 containing a second composition (Line 142-165, Line 180-201);
a mixer 15 for mixing the first composition from the first portion of tubing and the second composition from the second portion of tubing (Line 147-165, Line 187-201);
a mixture container 19 for collecting the mixed first composition and second composition from the mixer (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2),
wherein the first portion of tubing is configured to be connected to a first peristaltic pump head (5 | 31) for pumping the first composition from the container containing the first composition to the mixture container (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2), and the second portion of tubing is configured to be connected to a second peristaltic pump head (6 | 32) for pumping the second composition from the container containing the second composition to the mixture container (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2). DE 10043490 is silent regarding the limitations: a dampener fluidly connected to the first portion of tubing and fluidly connected to the second portion of tubing, such that the dampener is fluidly connected to the first and the second pump heads. The prior art of Muller USPN 4715216 which is directed to separately pumping two different fluids and then mixing them together (Figs 1-3) like DE 10043490, is noted.
However, Muller USPN 4715216 does disclose the limitations: a dampener (11, Column 3 Line 20-23, Column 5 Line 23-56) fluidly connected to the first portion of tubing (elements 9,4 in Fig 1 correspond to the first portion of tubing being claimed; as seen in Fig 1 the damper is fluidly connected as claimed) and fluidly connected to the second portion of tubing (elements 10,5 correspond to the second portion of tubing being claimed; as seen in Fig 1 the damper is fluidly connected as claimed), such that the dampener is fluidly connected to the first and the second pump heads (as seen in Fig 1 the damper 11 is fluidly connected to the first pump head 1 and is fluidly connected to the second pump head 2 as claimed).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the fluid damper 11 of Muller USPN 4715216 between the discharge conduits of the two pumps in the system of DE 10043490, in light of the teachings of Muller USPN 4715216, in order to provide a stable concentration of the mixture produced from the transported ingredients in the fluid system (Muller – Column 5 Line 44-68). DE 10043490 as modified by Muller USPN 4715216 is silent regarding the limitations: the dampener is a tubing dampener. The prior art of DelCastillo US 2009/0131859 which is directed to a fluid moved by a peristaltic pump (title, abstract, Fig 1, Fig 3) like DE 10043490, is noted.
However, DelCastillo US 2009/0131859 does disclose the limitations: a tubing dampener (112, Fig 3, ¶0035) fluidly connected to the tubing (i.e. fluidly connected to tubing 34 as seen in Fig 3, ¶0036).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the simple substitution of: the fluid dampener 11 of DE 10043490 as modified by Muller USPN 4715216; with the prior art elements of: the tubing dampener (112) of DelCastillo US 2009/0131859 – in order to obtain the predictable results of: transforming the generally non-continuous/pulsate flow of fluid flowing from the discharge of the peristaltic pumps into a smoother/less pulsate fluid flow (DelCastillo - ¶0036, abstract) and/or in order to reduce the cost of the system by simplifying the construction of the fluid dampener (e.g. since the tubing dampener 112 of DelCastillo only requires tee connectors and a piece of tubing filled with gas to suppress flow pulsations).
Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded no more than the predictable results of transforming the generally non-continuous/pulsate flow of fluid flowing from the discharge of the peristaltic pumps into a smoother/less pulsate fluid flow (DelCastillo - ¶0036, abstract) and/or in order to reduce the cost of the system by simplifying the construction of the fluid dampener (e.g. since the tubing dampener 112 of DelCastillo only requires tee connectors and a piece of tubing filled with gas to suppress flow pulsations).
Regarding Claim 2: DelCastillo discloses: wherein the dampener (112, Fig 3, ¶0035) comprises an enclosed volume of fluid (gas in space 128, ¶0036, Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 3: DelCastillo discloses: wherein the fluid is air (since ¶0040 describes the liquid air interface in dampers 12, thus air is located above the liquid in damper 112).
Regarding Claim 6: DE 10043490 as modified by Muller USPN 4715216 and DelCastillo discloses: further comprising a first tee connector that fluidly connects the dampener, the first portion of tubing, and a first mixer input portion of tubing, wherein the first mixer input portion of tubing fluidly connects to the mixer (in the combination of prior art the first mixer input portion of tubing corresponds to the discharge portion 11/11’ of the first tubing of DE ‘490; thus in the combination tee connector 120 (¶0036) of DelCastillo would fluidly connect the damper (located at port 126) to the first portion of tubing (via port 122) and the first mixer input portion of tubing (via port 124) as claimed – since the first tee connector of DelCastillo would replace the tee joint downstream of the first pump which communicates with the fluid dampener in the arrangement taught by Muller).
Regarding Claim 7: DE 10043490 as modified by Muller USPN 4715216 and DelCastillo discloses: further comprising a second tee connector that fluidly connects the dampener, the second portion of tubing, and a second mixer input portion of tubing, wherein the second mixer input portion of tubing fluidly connects to the mixer (in the combination of prior art the second mixer input portion of tubing corresponds to the discharge portion 12/12’ of the second tubing of DE ‘490; thus in the combination tee connector 120 (¶0036) of DelCastillo would fluidly connect the damper (located at port 126) to the second portion of tubing (via port 122) and the second mixer input portion (via port 124) of tubing as claimed – since the second tee connector of DelCastillo would replace the tee joint downstream of the second pump which communicates with the fluid dampener in the arrangement taught by Muller).
Regarding Claim 12: DE ‘490 discloses: wherein the mixer comprises an input 16 fluidly connected to the first portion of tubing (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2), an input 17 fluidly connected to the second portion of tubing (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2), and output 18 fluidly connected to the mixture container (as seen in Fig 1 & Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 13: DE ‘490 discloses: wherein the mixer comprises a static mixer (since the mixer 15 does not move relative to outlet 18, the mixer is a static mixer as claimed).
Regarding Claim 14: DE 10043490 as modified by Muller USPN 4715216 and DelCastillo discloses : further comprising a first dampener connector that fluidly connects the first portion of tubing to the dampener and to the mixer (in the combination of prior art the first mixer input portion of tubing corresponds to the discharge portion 11/11’ of the first tubing of DE ‘490; thus in the combination dampener connector/tee connector 120 (¶0036) of DelCastillo would fluidly connect the damper (located at port 126) to the first portion of tubing (via port 122) and the mixer/the first mixer input portion of tubing (via port 124) as claimed – since the first dampener connector/tee connector of DelCastillo would replace the tee joint downstream of the first pump which communicates with the fluid dampener in the arrangement taught by Muller) and a second dampener connector that fluidly connects the second portion of the tubing to the dampener and to the mixer (in the combination of prior art the second mixer input portion of tubing corresponds to the discharge portion 12/12’ of the second tubing of DE ‘490; thus in the combination dampener connector/tee connector 120 (¶0036) of DelCastillo would fluidly connect the damper (located at port 126) to the second portion of tubing (via port 122) and the mixer/second mixer input portion (via port 124) of tubing as claimed – since the second dampener connector/tee connector of DelCastillo would replace the tee joint downstream of the second pump which communicates with the fluid dampener in the arrangement taught by Muller).
Regarding Claim 15: DE ‘490 discloses: wherein the mixture container is a vessel (cuvette 19 is a vessel as claimed).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10043490 in view of Muller USPN 4715216 and DelCastillo US 2009/0131859 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gledhill US 2019/0234394.
Regarding Claim 8: DE 10043490 in view of Muller USPN 4715216 and DelCastillo US 2009/0131859 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. DE 10043490 does not disclose the limitations: wherein the first portion of tubing comprises a first segment of tubing and a second segment of tubing, wherein the first segment of tubing and the second segment of tubing are fluidly connected in parallel.
However Gledhill US 2019/0234394 does disclose the limitations: wherein the first portion of tubing (e.g. tubing 400 between 402,404 in Fig 15, ¶0093) comprises a first segment of tubing (e.g. left most lumen in tubing 400 in Fig 15) and a second segment of tubing (e.g. right most lumen in tubing 400 in Fig 15), wherein the first segment of tubing and the second segment of tubing are fluidly connected in parallel (see Fig 15).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the peristaltic pump head acting on the first portion of tubing and the first portion of tubing of DE 10043490 with the first portion of tubing (e.g. tubing 400 between 402,404 in Fig 15) and the corresponding peristaltic pump head (¶0093-¶0095, Figs 15-17) of Gledhill US 2019/0234394 in order to be able to pump the fluid at a higher flow rate (Gledhill - ¶0003, ¶0008, abstract).
Regarding Claim 10: DE 10043490 in view of Muller USPN 4715216 and DelCastillo US 2009/0131859 discloses in the above mentioned Figures and Specifications the limitations set forth in claim 1. DE 10043490 does not disclose the limitations: wherein the second portion of tubing comprises a third segment of tubing and a fourth segment of tubing, wherein the third portion of tubing and the fourth portion of tubing are fluidly connected in parallel.
However Gledhill US 2019/0234394 does disclose the limitations: wherein the second portion of tubing (e.g. tubing 400 between 402,404 in Fig 15, ¶0093) comprises a third segment of tubing (e.g. left most lumen in tubing 400 in Fig 15) and a fourth segment of tubing (e.g. right most lumen in tubing 400 in Fig 15), wherein the third segment of tubing and the fourth segment of tubing are fluidly connected in parallel (see Fig 15).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace the peristaltic pump head acting on the second portion of tubing and the second portion of tubing of DE 10043490 with the second portion of tubing (e.g. tubing 400 between 402,404 in Fig 15) and the corresponding peristaltic pump head (¶0093-¶0095, Figs 15-17) of Gledhill US 2019/0234394 in order to be able to pump the fluid at a higher flow rate (Gledhill - ¶0003, ¶0008, abstract).
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Response to Arguments
Additionally, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 and 48 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 7 ¶2-Page 9 ¶2: Applicant argues that the prior art of DE 10043490 in view of Mueller USPN 4715216, and the prior art of DE 10043490 in view of DelCastillo US 2009/0131859 does not make obvious the language of independent claim 1.
--Examiner disagrees. The amended claim language is now rejected based on DE 10043490 in view of Mueller USPN 4715216 and DelCastillo US 2009/0131859. Additionally, in response to Applicants assertion that Muller teaches away from a tubing dampener as it explicitly requires a membrane dampener. The examiner is not convinced by Applicants argument, since it does not consider the teachings of all the references being used in the current rejection. Furthermore, the combination is nothing more than the simple substitution of one type of fluid damper (i.e. a piece of tubing filled with gas and connected to the flow via T-shaped three way connectors) for another type of fluid damper (i.e. a membrane connected between two different flows via T-shaped connectors). And the substitution would have been done to achieve the predictable results of lowering the cost of the system and/or removing pulsations from the two fluid flows. Additionally, it would have been within the ordinary skill of a PHOSITA at the time the invention was filled.
Accordingly, Applicants arguments that the prior art does not teach the limitations recited in independent claim 1 are not persuasive.--.
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 JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights