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 .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 2 April 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-20 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of amendments.
The rejection of claim 16 under under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn in view of amendment.
The rejections of claims 1 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) are maintained.
The rejections of claims 2-5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) in view of Shen, et. al. (US 20090051901 A1) are maintained.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) in view of Kim (US 20170205042 A1) is maintained.
The rejections of claims 7 and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) in view of Yun, et. al. (US 20200319389 A1) are maintained.
The rejections of claims 8-11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) and Yun, et. al. (US 20200319389 A1) in further view of Matin, et. al. (Multifunctional multilayer optical coatings) are maintained.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1), Yun, et. al. (US 20200319389 A1), and Matin, et. al. (Multifunctional multilayer optical coatings), in further view of Kelly, et. al. (APPLICATION OF GEIIANIUM CARBIDE IN durable multilayer IR COATINGS) is maintained.
The rejections of claims 1 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) in view of Girling (GB 2231951 A) are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues for the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Monk fails to teach, disclose, or suggest the following limitation recited in claim 1: “for the at least the first wavelength, the one or more walls have an optical reflectance of greater than about 50% for incident angles of up to at least 40 degrees.” Specifically stating, “the claim is directed to a wall property; the cited discussion in Monk is directed to input-light geometry. Those are not the same thing, and the latter cannot substitute for the former” (Remarks, pg. 7, par. 02-03).
First, Examiner wants to distinguish the difference between the different incident angles of light of the instant application. In the instant application, three incident angles are present, α’, ϴ, and α. These can be seen in reproduced Figure 4 of the instant application below. The portion of claim 1 recited above by Applicant specifically relates to the incident angle ϴ. This is confirmed by page 8, lines 13-22 of the specification of the instant application which states, “the one or more walls 30, 40 may have an optical reflectance of greater than about 50%... for incident angles ϴ of up to at least 40 degrees.” This is distinctly different than the “at least one of the one or more light openings has an optical transmittance of greater than about 50%... for at least one incident angle α,α’.” Therefore, the angle being discussed will correspond to the angle ϴ of the instant application and any angle of reflection of light from an internal wall of the devices of the prior art. Examiner additionally wants to draw attention to col. 5, lines 16-16 of Monk which directly teaches “Flow cell 10 internally reflects or pipes at least about 80% of the light directed into the flow passage 16, and preferably at least about 90% or more of the light transmitted into the flow cell” (the one or more walls have an optical reflectance of greater than about 50%).
PNG
media_image1.png
577
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first argument provided by Applicant relates to the incident angle of the source light of Monk, stating “that the angle of light directed into the first transparent window is selected to maximize the light entering the flow cell and being reflected from the inner wall” and further, “Monk's own teachings further underscore the absence of the claimed limitation. Monk explains that prior-art narrow-bore flow cells required light to enter "almost parallel to the flow passage, at an incident half angle of 0.5° or less," whereas Monk's flow cell "may accept incident half angles of light ϴ0 of at least about 10°, and preferably of at least about 15°." Monk, col. 5, line 57 - col. 6, line 17. Thus, Monk identifies its improvement in terms of acceptance of incident half-angles on the order of about 10° to 15°, not anything approaching the claimed "up to at least 40 degrees" wall-reflectance range. The examiner's attempt to map the claimed 40° requirement from a hand-drawn ray depiction in Figure 3 is therefore unsupported by Monk's actual disclosure.” (Remarks, pg. 7, par. 03, 04).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner again reminds Applicant the incident angle in question is the internal reflection. Applicant points out the incident half-angles, ϴ, of Monk are only 10° to 15°. However, the recited limitation corresponds to the internal reflected incident angle, seen circled in reproduced Figure 3 of Monk below. Monk, like the instant application, show the incident angle from the reflectance of the wall, is directly impacted by the incident angle of the source light as it passes through the transparent window 26 of Monk (see ϴ, Monk, Fig. 3 below) and the light opening 61 of the instant application (see α’, instant application, Fig. 4 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
400
653
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant uses the above reasoning to argue that “the Office Action's resort to "result-effective variable" or routine optimization principles does not cure this deficiency.” (Remarks, pg. 8, par. 02).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is clear in prior art that the incident angle of the reflection is influenced by a plurality of factors, the primary factor being the incident angle ϴ of the light source as it enters the flow path (Monk, Fig. 3, col. 5, line 57 – col. 6, line 17), and other factors being the material of the inner wall 30 (Monk, mislabeled 38 in provided Fig. 3 above; col. 5, lines 36-43) and the material of the transparent window 26 (Monk, Fig. 3, col. 4, line 63 – col. 5, line 8). These factors all come together to impact the reflected incident angle (the “result-effective variable”) (the circled angle in reproduced Fig. 3 of Monk and corresponding with the ϴ of the instant application), wherein these factors can be routinely optimized, with the most simplistic route of testing being through changing the incident angle, in order to create the longest flow path possible to increase sensitivity of the device without substantial increase in background noise (Monk, col. 5, lines 21-36). This of course is based on Beer’s Law wherein an increase of optical path length results in absorbance detection of smaller molar concentrations of the analyte of interest.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, through a manner of routine optimization, to modify the incident angle of the source light to create an incident angle of the reflection of the internal wall of up to at least 40 degrees.
Applicant offers no additional argument for dependent claims 2-20 outside of their dependence to claim 1 (Remarks, pg. 8 par. 04 – pg. 9).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Monk teaches a flow cell with an internal passage that reflects light (Abstract) (for examining an optical characteristic of a test material at least a first wavelength). Monk teaches a flow cell 10 within housing 12 comprising inner walls 14 extending a length to create a flow passage 16 that is longer than it is wider and accommodates a sample (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 36-55) (an elongated hollow structure elongated along a length thereof and comprising one or more walls extending along the length of the hollow structure and defining an elongated chamber therebetween configured to receive the test material). Flow cell 10 further comprises transparent windows 26, 28 (Fig. 1) (the elongated hollow structure comprising at least a first light opening). The inner wall 14 of the flow cell 10 is coated in a material 30 that internally reflects at least 80% of the incident light (Fig. 1, 3; col. 5, lines 9-20) (such that for the at least the first wavelength, the one or more walls have an optical reflectance of greater than about 50%). Monk teaches the transparent windows 26, 28 are made of a highly transparent material such as fused silica that have high optical transmittance due to their transparency (col. 4, lines 63-66) (at least one of the at least the first light opening has an optical transmittance of greater than about 50% for at least one incident angle).
Monk is silent to incident angles of up to at least 40 degrees.
As seen in Figure 3, the reflected light within flow cell passage 16 is depicted as greater than 40 degrees; however, Monk does not specify a specific degree. Monk teaches the angle (incident half angles of light) that is directed into the first transparent window 26 is selected maximize the light that enters the flow cell 10 and be reflected from material 30 along inner walls 14 making the incident angles of the reflected light is a result-effective variable (Fig. 3; col. 5, line 57 - col. 6, lines 17). Since this particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result), the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention through routine optimization to modify the angle of the initial light beam to create incident angles of up to at least 40 degrees.
Regarding claim 16, Monk teaches the sample being analyzed is a liquid phase sample (col. 2, lines 58-59) and when considering the zig-zag configuration of the flow cell, the liquid sample must entirely fill the flow passage 16 to move from the inlet 18 to the outlet 20 (Fig. 1) (wherein the test material comprises a liquid test material configured to substantially fill the elongated chamber). Examiner notes the limitation of the claim is with respect to an article worked upon and does not further limit an apparatus claim. MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 17, while Monk does not specifically disclose the analysis of a solid sample subject, if the flow cell is capable of holding a liquid (col. 2, lines 58-59) the flow cell is also capable of holding a sample wherein the test material is a solid test material configured to be disposed along at least 50% of the length of the elongated chamber. Examiner notes the limitation of the claim is with respect to an article worked upon and does not further limit an apparatus claim. MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 18, Monk teaches the flow cell 10 has a second end 24 wherein a transparent window 28 is located (Fig. 1) (wherein the at least the first light opening is disposed proximate a first end of the one or more walls).
Claims 2-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) in view of Shen, et. al. (US 20090051901 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Monk teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 (see above). Monk teaches the flow cell is paired with a separation technique, like HPLC (col. 1, lines 10-30), and is comprised of flow passage 16 encompassed by transparent windows to be used with an optical-based detector (col. 5, lines 1-8) like a paired light absorption detector (col. 1, lines 10-30). Monk further teaches since the goal of flow cell 10 is to allow light to pass through the sample, lengthening flow passage 16, such as through curves or bends increases the sensitivity of the detector (col. 5, lines 21-30). It is understood by those of ordinary skill in the art if a flow path is not linear from light source to light detector, the flow path must be made of a material that will reflect the light beam to change direction in order for the light beam to move from the source, through the non-linear path containing the sample, and finally to the detector.
Monk is silent to the one or more walls comprise a metal layer extending along the length of the hollow structure.
Shen teaches microfluidic optical chambers for spectroscopic detection (Abstract). Shen teaches an elongated optical chamber 118 wherein the walls of the chamber 118 have a reflective coating 106 (Fig. 1). Shen teaches reflective coating can be a metal like aluminum, gold, or silver (par. 0044) (wherein the one or more walls comprise a metal layer extending along the length of the hollow structure). Shen teaches the reflective ability of the inner wall (as determined by material and angle) allows the optical elements to be rearranged with the goal of minimizing the size of the device resulting in an elongated path length (contributing to increased sensitivity) without requiring a linear pathway from source, through flow cell, and to the detector (par. 0008).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reflective material of Monk to be a metal as taught by Shen because doing so would maximize the reflective ability of the inner chamber of the device to elongate the light path through the flow cell with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 3, modified Monk in view of Shen teaches an embodiment where the metal reflective coating 106 is directly coating the interior of the chamber 118 and can encounter the sample (Shen, Fig. 1) (wherein the metal layer is exposed to the elongated chamber and configured to come into physical… contact with the test material).
Regarding claim 4, modified Monk in view of Shen teaches an embodiment where the surface is coated in a hydrophilic material like a silica layer in order to allow a liquid sample to more easily fill the chamber. Because the hydrophilic material is a silica layer like silicon dioxide, a optically transparent material, they hydrophilic layer can be the first layer coating the chamber interior to interact with the sample and the metal reflective layer can be embedded just past the hydrophilic layer so it only interacts with the light and not the sample (par. 0045) (wherein the metal layer is embedded in the one or more walls so as to not make physical contact with the test material).
Regarding claim 5, modified Monk in view of Shen teaches reflective coating can be a metal like aluminum, gold, or silver (par. 0044) (wherein the metal layer comprises one or more of gold, silver, aluminum).
Regarding claim 17, Monk teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 (see above).
If it is not seen that Monk teaches flow cell wherein the test material is a solid test material configured to be disposed along at least 50% of the length of the elongated chamber as rejected above, this rejection is put forth in the alternative. Monk is silent to wherein the test material is a solid test material configured to be disposed along at least 50% of the length of the elongated chamber.
Shen teaches the elongated optical chamber 118 can hold "biological samples" of all sorts, including suspended solid tissue samples (from biopsies) (par. 0042) and considering the configuration of the chamber, the sample must enter and fill the sample before moving to the outlet (Fig. 1) (wherein the test material is a solid test material configured to be disposed along at least 50% of the length of the elongated chamber). The chamber being able to accommodate solid samples results in a wider variety of samples and assay that can be tested/analyzed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the chamber and system of Monk to further be able to accommodate a solid sample as taught by Shen because doing so would increase number and types of samples and assays that can be used by a single device with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) in view of Kim (US 20170205042 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Monk teaches the light propagates from one end, starting at transparent window 26, to a second end, ending at transparent window 28 (Fig. 1).
Monk is silent to wherein at least a portion of the one or more walls comprises an optical diffuser exposed to the elongated chamber and configured to scatter light primarily forwardly along the length of the hollow structure.
Kim teaches lightguides in elongated optical cavities (Abstract). Kim teaches a light system with an elongated optical cavity 117 where one side covering the cavity is a light diffusing film 120 (Fig. 1; par. 0019) (wherein at least a portion of the one or more walls comprises an optical diffuser exposed to the elongated chamber and configured to scatter light primarily forwardly along the length of the hollow structure). Kim teaches the diffusing film can increase the brightness of the light along an axis (par. 0019).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the elongated optical chamber of Monk to further include a light diffusing film as taught by Kim because doing so would enhance the light brightness as it passes through a long chamber with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim 7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) in view of Yun, et. al. (US 20200319389 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Monk teaches the flow cell can be coated with a polymer 82 atop an inner layer 86 (Fig. 2a-d; col. 7, lines 4-10) (a plurality of… layers) (wherein the one or more walls comprise a multilayer… extending along the length of the hollow structure).
Monk is silent to a multilayer optical film comprising a plurality of microlayers numbering at least 4 in total, each of the microlayers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm.
Yun teaches an optical film with optical layers that reflect wavelengths of light (Abstract). Yun teaches the layers of the optical film have an average thickness of "less than about 200 nm" (par. 0005) (here, the optical film of Yun corresponds to the inner and polymer layers of Monk) (each of the microlayers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm) and each optical stack has between 50 and 300 layers (par. 0006) (comprising a plurality of microlayers numbering at least 4 in total). Yun teaches the careful selection of each layer allows for control over the transmittance or reflection of specific, predetermined wavelengths (par. 0003, 0032) giving more control to the user when selecting what wavelengths will be used for optical analysis to get optimal results.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polymer layers of Monk to instead be a multilayer optical film as taught by Yun because doing so would optimize wavelength transmittance and reflection along within an optical system with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 14, modified Monk in view of Yun teaches wherein one material type is an organic polymer such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Yun, par. 0049) (wherein at least some of the microlayers in the plurality of microlayers comprise an organic material).
Regarding claim 15, modified Monk in view of Yun teaches wherein one material type is an organic polymer such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (par. 0049) (wherein the organic material comprises a polymer).
Claims 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) and Yun, et. al. (US 20200319389 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Martin, et. al. (Multifunctional multilayer optical coatings).
Regarding claim 8, modified Monk teaches the limitations as applied to claim 7 (see above).
Modified Monk is silent to wherein at least some of the microlayers in the plurality of microlayers comprise an inorganic material.
Martin teaches a multilayer optical coating applied to a surface to manipulate the wavelengths are in contact with the surface (Abstract). Martin teaches a fourteen layer coating comprising titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, and silver (pg. 1099, col. 2, section "A. Laser reflector/heater coating") (wherein at least some of the microlayers in the plurality of microlayers comprise an inorganic material). Martin teaches the selection of layer materials increase the functionality of the optical coating such as what wavelengths are transmitted or reflected (pg. 1098, col. 2, par. 2-3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the polymer layers of modified Monk in view of Yun to further comprise inorganic materials as taught by Martin because doing so would allow for selectivity with what wavelengths are transmitted or reflected by the layers with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 9, modified Monk in view of Martin teaches a fourteen layer coating comprising titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, and silver (pg. 1099, col. 2, section "A. Laser reflector/heater coating"). Martin additionally teaches carbides are a possible material in the layers with similar results (pg. 1101, col. 2, par. 2) (wherein the inorganic material comprises one or more of an oxide, a nitride, a carbide, and a metal).
Regarding claim 10, modified Monk in view of Martin teaches a fourteen layer coating comprising titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, and silver (pg. 1099, col. 2, section "A. Laser reflector/heater coating") (wherein the oxide comprises one or more of… silicon oxide, silicon dioxide, and titanium oxide).
Regarding claim 11, modified Monk in view of Martin teaches a fourteen layer coating comprising titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, and silver (pg. 1099, col. 2, section "A. Laser reflector/heater coating") (wherein the nitride comprises one or more of silicon nitride).
Regarding claim 13, modified Monk in view of Martin teaches a fourteen layer coating comprising titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, and silver (pg. 1099, col. 2, section "A. Laser reflector/heater coating") (wherein the metal comprises one or more of… silver).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1), Yun, et. al. (US 20200319389 A1), and Martin, et. al. (Multifunctional multilayer optical coatings) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kelly, et. al. (“Application of Germanium Carbide in Durable Multilayer IR Coatings”).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Monk in view of Martin teaches carbides are a possible material in the layers (pg. 1101, col. 2, par. 2).
Modified Monk (in view of Martin) is silent to wherein the carbide comprises one or more of silicon carbide and germanium carbide.
Kelly teaches coating layers containing germanium carbide (Abstract). Kelly teaches coating of germanium carbide comprising multiple layers and varying thickness each influencing the reflection and transmission ability of the coating (pg. 124, section 2.1 "General") (wherein the carbide comprises one or more of… germanium carbide). Kelly teaches coating containing germanium oxide offer durability and specific anti-reflective properties (Abstract, pg. 122, par. 02 - pg. 123, par. 01).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the carbide material in the coating of modified Monk in view of Martin to specifically be germanium carbide as taught by Kelly because doing so would achieve specific transmission and reflective properties based on wavelength with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monk, et. al. (US 6199257 B1) in view of Girling (GB 2231951 A).
Regarding claim 19, Monk teaches the flow cell system operates with a light source (further comprising a light source) that is at a first end 22 opposite second end 24 of flow cell 10 (proximate a second, opposite the first, end of the one or more walls) through transparent window 26 through flow passage 16 lined with reflective material 30 to transparent window 28 (the light source configured to emit light having the at least the first wavelength, the emitted light configured to propagate along the elongated hollow structure and exit the elongated hollow structure through the at least the first light opening after going through the test material and being reflected multiple times by the one or more walls) (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 56-62).
Monk is specifically silent to the light source being disposed in the elongated hollow structure.
Girling teaches a sampling chamber for analysis of a sample using a light beam (Abstract). Girling teaches an elongated sample chamber 25 defined by a housing 24 with a light source 28 enclosed within housing 24 on one side (Fig. 4) (a light source disposed in the elongated hollow structure). The sample chamber 25 further comprises a highly reflective interior surface 33 and at least one light sensor 31 (Fig. 4; pg. 08, line 2 - pg. 09, line 4). Girling teaches this configuration of optical elements within a housing allows for more light to be collected by the sensor especially light that is heavily scattered and reflected (pg. 08, line 29 - pg. 09, lines 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the location of optical elements of Monk to all be located within a housing as taught by Girling because doing so would create an overall system for efficient at collecting scattered and reflected light with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 20, modified Monk in view of Girling teaches the light source 28 and at least one light sensor 31 are all enclosed within housing 24 meaning no walls or openings are separating the chamber 25 from the light source 28 and the sensors 31 (Fig. 4; pg. 08, line 2 - pg. 09, line 4) (not comprising any light openings proximate the second end of the one or more walls). Examiner notes while part 29 of Figure 4 appears as a wall in the drawing, it is a lens with the purpose of focusing the light beam and not a wall (pg. 08, lines 6-7).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON T HERBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30a-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.
/M.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights