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
The amendments filed 06/09/2026 have been entered. Claim 17 has been added with support. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 9-17 are now pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome the previously presented objections to the claims, presented in the Non-Final Office Action dated 03/23/2026, hereinafter NFOA0323. These objectional issues remain in the claims. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have introduced additional issues. See below for further discussion.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been considered but are moot because they pertain to amended limitations not present at the time of NFOA0323.
However, for clarity of the record, Applicant’s relevant arguments will be addressed herein.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record Covey does not disclose or teach the ion source as recited in amended claim 1, and discusses the field of endeavor and goal of Covey. Applicant argues Covey does not teach the limitations “wherein the deflection site and the guide portion are configured such that insertion of the capillary into the gas spray tube causes the downstream end of the capillary to be deflected by the deflection site and returned to an inner side along the guide portion” and “wherein the capillary is configured to contact the deflection site at a first contact point and the tip hole at a second contact point such that the downstream end of the capillary is fixed in position by the first contact point and the second contact point”.
Applicant supports this assertion by making reference to Figs. 2D-2F of Covey, and Covey’s disclosure directed toward the directional orientation of the output of the conduit (i.e., items 44 and 43) relative to item 46 (which is external to the capillary and spray tube, and was not used in the rejection of claim 1, and is not particularly relevant to the discussion). However, Covey’s disclosure of using the dimple 45 to perform orienting of the output of the conduit relative to an additional element in the system has no bearing on whether Covey discloses the claim limitations. Covey’s intended purpose does not change the physical structure of the device, and items 43, 44, and 45 are the elements previously applied to teach the structure of claim 1, not element 46, which is not relevant to discussion of the structure and relative disposal of items 43, 44, and 45.
Applicant further argues that, therefore, Covey does not teach “the deflection site and the guide portion are configured such that insertion of the capillary into the gas spray tube causes the downstream end of the capillary to be deflected by the deflection site and returned to an inner side along the guide portion (Emphasis added by Applicant).
This emphasis, combined with the above, appears to indicate that Applicant believes Covey is deficient because it lacks explicit disclosure of such a limitation. However, this limitation is a functional limitation, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), such a limitation requires only a structure that is capable of the function. Accordingly, lack of explicit disclosure of the limitation in a reference does not mean that the limitation is not disclosed by the prior art structure. Covey need not explicitly state that the insertion of the capillary into the gas spray tube causes the downstream end of the capillary to be deflected and returned as required for the structure of Covey to teach such a limitation. If the structure disclosed by the prior art is capable of the limitation, it teaches the limitation.
Applicant further discusses disclosure of Covey directed toward the alleged purpose of the dimple 45, however, the recited purpose of the dimple in Covey does not limit the capabilities of the disclosed structure. Each functionality of the disclosed structure need not be explicitly stated in order for the structure to have such functionalities.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
As can be seen in Figs. 2D-2F of Covey, the capillary tube 43 is, in its final position, has its downstream end deflected by the dimple 45, and returned to an inner side (not particularly limited) along the tapered portion of 44 (i.e., the guide portion). If, in the final operating position, the physical disposal of the components of Covey read on all of the requirements of “the downstream end of the capillary to be deflected by the deflection site and returned to an inner side along the guide portion”, then clearly one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the components to be “configured such that insertion of the capillary into the gas spray tube causes…” such limitations, as the capillary must inherently be inserted at some point, and at least at the final point of that insertion, such limitations are explicitly achieved in the Figs. Accordingly, the limitation “wherein the deflection site and the guide portion are configured such that insertion of the capillary into the gas spray tube causes the downstream end of the capillary to be deflected by the deflection site and returned to an inner side along the guide portion” is clearly taught by Figs. 2D-2F of Covey.
In regards to the latter limitation, Examiner notes that this limitation is formed as a limitation on the capillary itself, and it is not clear what specifically would be required of the claimed capillary to allow such an arrangement, other than being sufficiently long and sufficiently flexible to achieve the arrangement. No further instruction in the specification is given regarding what would allow the capillary to achieve such an arrangement, and accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand this limitation to require a capillary that is capable of such functionality. In other words, the BRI of the limitation is a capillary capable of being disposed in such an arrangement as claimed. As can be seen in Figs. 2D-2F of Covey, the capillary tube 43, in its final position, is contacting the deflection site at a first contact point, and is contacting the tip hole at a second contact point, and is held in position by these points, which are the only points of contact disclosed by Covey. Accordingly, the capillary disclosed by Covey meets the requirement of such a limitation, as the capillary must necessarily be capable of such a disposal to achieve the disposal disclosed in Covey Figs. 2D-2F. Accordingly, while not explicitly stated in such terms, Covey would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to clearly disclose the limitation “wherein the capillary is configured to contact the deflection site at a first contact point and the tip hole at a second contact point such that the downstream end of the capillary is fixed in position by the first contact point and the second contact point”, at least in Figs. 2D-2F.
Examiner notes for completeness that Covey also explicitly discloses ([0033]) potentially actuating the capillary, which would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as teaching the insertion functionalities/capabilities as well.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are directed toward the teaching references, and are moot, as the teaching references were not applied to teach such limitations.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing, as they do not differentiate between the required structures of the claim, under the BRI, and the disclosed structure of Covey.
See below for further discussion of amended claim limitations.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to for the grammatical issue indicated in NFOA0323;
Claims 1 and 15 also refer to ‘decreasing toward a downstream side’, however, the claim does not specifically indicate the downstream side relative to what/which element(s); In context, Examiner believes the limitation is definite, but for clarity should read ‘decreases toward a downstream side of the gas spray tube’;
Claim 15 recites “the insertion”; While Examiner believes the limitation is definite in context, it nevertheless lacks antecedent basis; Examiner suggests merely amending to ‘insertion’, or alternatively, referring back to the ‘bringing into contact’ steps previously required by the claim; The former is adopted herein.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Covey (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2019034978 A1).
Examiner notes that Covey is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 12/10/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Covey teaches an ion source (See Figs. 1-2; [0021]-[0022]; Claim 1) comprising:
a capillary (See Figs. 2D-2F, item 43; [0022]); and
a gas spray tube into which the capillary is inserted, the gas spray tube spraying a gas to an outer side of the capillary (See Figs. 2D-2F, items 43 and 44; [0022]; [0029]),
wherein the gas spray tube has a deflection site on an upstream side of a tip hole of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F, item 45; [0032]), the deflection site deflecting a downstream end of the capillary with respect to a central axis of the tip hole of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F, item 45; [0032]-[0034]),
wherein the gas spray tube has a guide portion disposed between the deflection site and the tip hole (See Figs. 2D-2F, showing tube 44 with a guide portion disposed between the deflection site (i.e., item 45) and the tip hole (i.e., the downstream end of item 44) in the portion that tapers until the tip hole at the downstream end of item 44, which is disposed downstream of item 45), and an inner diameter of the guide portion decreasing toward a downstream side (See Figs. 2D-2F, showing an inner diameter of the guide portion decreases toward a downstream side as it tapers from the full width to the minimum radius at the tip hole),
wherein the deflection site and the guide portion are configured such that (interpreted under BRI as structured and positioned in such a way as to allow) insertion of the capillary into the gas spray tube causes the downstream end of the capillary to be deflected by the deflection site and returned to an inner side along the guide portion (See Figs. 2D-2F, showing 45 and guide portion of 44 disposed relative to one another, such that the inserted capillary is deflected by the deflection site and returned to an inner side of the gas spray tube 44 along the guide portion thereof; Examiner notes that such a functional limitation in an apparatus claim requires a structure capable of the function under the BRI, and in the arrangement of Covey, the structure is clearly capable of such functionality, thereby allowing the final positioning), and
wherein the capillary is configured to contact the deflection site at a first contact point and the tip hole at a second contact point such that the downstream end of the capillary is fixed in position by the first contact point and the second contact point (Examiner notes that this limitation is formed as a limitation on the capillary itself, and it is not clear what specifically would be required of the capillary to allow such an arrangement, other than being sufficiently long and sufficiently flexible to achieve the arrangement, and accordingly, under the BRI, this limitation requires a capillary that is capable of such functionality; See Figs. 2D-2F, showing the capillary tube 43 contacting the deflection site 45 at a first contact point, and contacting the tip hole at a second contact point; Accordingly the capillary disclosed by Covey meets the requirements of the limitation, as the capillary must necessarily be capable of such a disposal to achieve the disposal in the Figs.).
Regarding claim 3, Covey teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey further teaches wherein a cross-sectional shape of the guide portion is a tapered shape (See Figs. 2D-2F).
Regarding claim 12, Covey teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey further teaches wherein the deflection site is a protrusion protruding radially inward of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F).
Regarding claim 13, Covey teaches a mass spectrometer ([0002]-[0003]; [0006]; [0009]) comprising the ion source according to claim 1 (See claim 1 for claim mapping of claim 1 limitations).
Regarding claim 14, Covey teaches the mass spectrometer according to claim 13.
Covey further teaches wherein the deflection site is disposed to make the downstream end of the capillary directed to an extension line of an inlet of the mass spectrometer (See Fig. 1; [0020]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 15, Covey teaches a capillary insertion method for inserting a capillary into a gas spray tube ([0022]; [0029]; [0032]-[0034]; Examiner interprets inserting the capillary as inherent, as the capillary is disposed within the gas spray tube), the method comprising:
bringing the capillary into contact with a deflection site (See Figs. 2D-2F; [0032]-[0034]); and
bringing the capillary into contact with a tip hole of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F; [0032]-[0034]),
wherein the gas spray tube is configured to be capable of spraying a gas to an outer side of the capillary (See Figs. 2D-2F; [0032]-[0034]), the deflection site, which deflects a downstream end of the capillary with respect to a central axis of the tip hole of the gas spray tube, is provided at an upstream side of the tip hole of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F; [0032]-[0034]),
wherein the gas spray tube has a guide portion disposed between the deflection site and the tip hole (See Figs. 2D-2F, showing tube 44 with a guide portion disposed between the deflection site (i.e., item 45) and the tip hole (i.e., the downstream end of item 44) in the portion that tapers until the tip hole at the downstream end of item 44, which is disposed downstream of item 45), and an inner diameter of the guide portion decreasing toward a downstream side (See Figs. 2D-2F, showing an inner diameter of the guide portion decreases toward a downstream side as it tapers from the full width to the minimum radius at the tip hole),
wherein the insertion of the capillary into the gas spray tube causes the downstream end of the capillary to be deflected by the deflection site and returned to an inner side along the guide portion (See Figs. 2D-2F, showing capillary 43 having its downstream end deflected by deflection site 45, and returned to an inner side of the gas supply tube along the guide portion thereof; Examiner notes that in the arrangement of Covey achieving the disclosed arrangements, the capillary would necessarily be inserted to cause such an arrangement), and
wherein the capillary contacts the deflection site at a first contact point and the tip hole at a second contact point such that the downstream end of the capillary is fixed in position by the first contact point and the second contact point (See Figs. 2D-2F, showing capillary 43 contacting deflection site 45 at a first point, and the capillary 43 contacting the tip hole of the gas supply tube at a second point, the capillary being fixed in position by the two points).
Examiner notes for completeness that Covey also explicitly discloses ([0033]) potentially actuating the capillary, which would be understood by an ordinarily skilled artisan as teaching the insertion functionalities/capabilities as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 9-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covey (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2019034978 A1) in view of Mordehai (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20090250608 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Covey teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey does not teach wherein the tip hole includes a plurality of portions having different inner diameters, and a downstream portion out of the plurality of portions has a larger inner diameter.
Mordehai teaches wherein the tip hole includes a plurality of portions having different inner diameters, and a downstream portion out of the plurality of portions has a larger inner diameter (See Figs. 1, 3-4, items 46 and 48, which have differing inner diameters, wherein 46 is downstream of 48 and has a larger inner diameter).
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 Covey to include wherein the tip hole includes a plurality of portions having different inner diameters, and a downstream portion out of the plurality of portions has a larger inner diameter, as taught by Mordehai.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to control the flow as desired, as discussed in Mordehai [0037]-[0040].
Regarding claim 9, Covey teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey does not teach wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube, and wherein a space is provided between an outer wall surface of the first tube and an inner wall surface of the second tube.
Mordehai teaches wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 1, 3-4, items 46 and 48; [0037]-[0040]), and
wherein a space is provided between an outer wall surface of the first tube and an inner wall surface of the second tube (See Figs. 1, 3-4; [0037]-[0040]).
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 Covey to include wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube, and wherein a space is provided between an outer wall surface of the first tube and an inner wall surface of the second tube, as taught by Mordehai.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to control the flow as desired, as discussed in Mordehai [0037]-[0040], and, for example, would allow one to flow heated sheath gas between the two spray tube elements so as not to boil the sample and have signal drop outs ([0040]), while maintaining the functionality of the deflection site of Covey.
Regarding claim 10, Covey in view of Mordehai teaches the ion source according to claim 9.
Covey further teaches wherein the deflection site has a bent structure provided at a tip portion of the first tube (See Figs. 2D-2F).
Examiner notes that were the elements of Mordehai combined with Covey as discussed above, in order for the deflection site of Covey to function as intended, it would necessarily be disposed on item 46 of Mordehai, which is the more upstream of the two tubes.
Regarding claim 16, Covey teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey does not teach wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube, wherein the second tube being disposed on an outer side of the first tube via a fitted portion configured to prevent leakage of the gas, and wherein the deflection site is provided in the first tube and deflects the downstream end of the capillary with respect to the central axis of the tip hole of the second tube.
However, Covey teaches wherein the deflection site…deflects the downstream end of the capillary with respect to the central axis of the tip hole…(See Figs. 2D-2F, item 45; [0032]-[0034]).
Mordehai teaches wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube, wherein the second tube being disposed on an outer side of the first tube via a fitted portion configured to prevent leakage of the gas (See Figs. 1, 3-4, items 46 and 48; [0037]-[0040]; Examiner notes that the arrangement of items 46 and 48 are such that no gas is capable of leaking, and the gas may only exit at the output end, and that their disposal such that no gas can leak is interpreted as reading on ‘a fitted portion’).
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 Covey to include wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube, wherein the second tube being disposed on an outer side of the first tube via a fitted portion configured to prevent leakage of the gas, as taught by Mordehai, in order to achieve wherein the gas spray tube includes at least two tubes, the at least two tubes include a first tube on the upstream side of the gas spray tube and a second tube on the downstream side of the gas spray tube, wherein the second tube being disposed on an outer side of the first tube via a fitted portion configured to prevent leakage of the gas, and wherein the deflection site is provided in the first tube and deflects the downstream end of the capillary with respect to the central axis of the tip hole of the second tube, because were the elements of Mordehai combined with Covey, in order for the deflection site of Covey to function as intended, it would necessarily be disposed on item 46 of Mordehai, which is the more upstream of the two tubes.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to control the flow as desired, as discussed in Mordehai [0037]-[0040], and, for example, would allow one to flow heated sheath gas between the two spray tube elements so as not to boil the sample and have signal drop outs ([0040]), while maintaining the functionality of the deflection site of Covey.
Claims 6, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Covey (WIPO Doc. No. WO 2019034978 A1) in view of O’Brien (U.S. PGPub. No. US 20160217992 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Covey teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey does not explicitly teach wherein the gas spray tube includes a plurality of deflection sites provided at different positions in a longitudinal direction of the gas spray tube and at different radial directions.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art of mass/ion mobility spectrometry ion sources and the related fields would likely have an advanced degree in a physical science/engineering, or equivalent experience, and would thus have a relatively high level of ordinary skill.
Accordingly, duplicating the disclosed deflection site of Covey, and locating an optimal location therefor would be well within the abilities of an ordinarily skilled artisan via routine experimentation, as the deflections sites would function identically, and would merely influence the physical positioning in predictable ways.
Nevertheless, so as not to rely upon such ordinary skill alone:
O’Brien teaches wherein the gas spray tube includes a plurality of deflection sites provided at different positions in a longitudinal direction of the gas spray tube and at different radial directions (See Fig. 3, items 130, at opposite radial directions and at different positions in the longitudinal direction; [0153]).
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 Covey to include wherein the gas spray tube includes a plurality of deflection sites provided at different positions in a longitudinal direction of the gas spray tube and at different radial directions, as taught by O’Brien.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known method in order to achieve predictable results, as O’Brien teaches the use of plural, differently radially/longitudinally positioned deflection sites in a similar system, which could be readily applied by an ordinarily skilled artisan to the arrangement of Covey (with its own disclosure of a deflection site) with a reasonable expectation of success, which would allow additional degrees of freedom by which to limit the positioning of the capillary, as disclosed by O’Brien’s disclosure in [0153] to “hold the conductive capillary 124 in a substantially fixed radial position”.
Regarding claim 11, Covey teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey does not explicitly teach wherein the deflection site is a plate-shaped member.
However, Examiner again notes the high level of ordinary skill possessed by an ordinarily skilled artisan in the field, who could readily determine alternative geometries and form factors for such a deflection site as needed, using routine experimentation.
Nevertheless, so as not to rely upon such ordinary skill alone:
O’Brien teaches wherein the deflection site is a plate-shaped member (See Fig. 3, item 130, which is interpreted as ‘plate-shaped’).
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 Covey to include wherein the deflection site is a plate-shaped member, as taught by O’Brien.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known method in order to achieve predictable results, as O’Brien teaches the use of deflection sites in a similar system to hold a capillary in a substantially fixed position, similar to Covey, using an alternative form factor for the deflection site, which could be readily applied by an ordinarily skilled artisan to the arrangement of Covey (with its own disclosure of a deflection site) with a reasonable expectation of success, and would allow one, as disclosed by O’Brien’s disclosure in [0153], to “hold the conductive capillary 124 in a substantially fixed radial position”.
Regarding claim 17, Covey teaches the ion source according to claim 1.
Covey further teaches wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube (See Figs. 2D-2F, item 45 being approximately half of an inner diameter of the tube 44)
Covey does not explicitly teach wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube such that the deflection site lies on a central axis of the tip hole (Emphasis added by Examiner).
O’Brien teaches wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube such that the deflection site lies on a central axis of the tip hole (See Fig. 3, item 130, which deflects the capillary 124 off the center axis and has its inner face aligned with a central axis of the tip hole; [0153]).
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 Covey to include wherein a channel width of the deflection site is approximately one-half of an inner diameter of the gas spray tube such that the deflection site lies on a central axis of the tip hole (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by O’Brien.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, as both O’Brien and Covey disclose their respective deflection sites as being used to position their respective capillaries to better control the sample spray output in [0153] and [0032]-[0034], respectively, and an ordinarily skilled artisan could combine such teachings with a reasonable expectation of success, which would allow one to ensure firm control of the capillary, as disclosed in [0153] of O’Brien, which could aid in more precisely positioning the capillary 43 of Covey to achieve a desired angle of spray output relative to the central axis of the vaporization tube 46, as discussed in [0032]-[0034] of Covey.
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 CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights