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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority (CN202011509012.9, filed on December 19, 2020) under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the pipe of the monitoring analysis module” should be corrected to read “the fluid pipeline of the monitoring analysis module” for consistency with the terminology recited in Claim 1.
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “the pipe of the monitoring analysis module” should be corrected to read “the fluid pipeline of the monitoring analysis module” for consistency with the terminology recited in Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Update: Upon further consideration of the claim language and Applicant’s arguments, the recited sampling module, power module, and monitoring analysis module are interpreted according to their claimed functions and structural relationships under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEWITSON et al. (US20180149625A1, hereinafter HEWITSON).
Regarding Claim 1, HEWITSON discloses an automated sampling and reaction system including an external sampling valve, a microreactor in fluid communication with the external sampling valve, and an injection valve connected to the microreactor. The external sampling valve is configured to draw sample from a reactor or reactor stream (¶[0007]).
FIG. 1 illustrates a separation and detection system 1 including an automated sampling and reaction system 2 and a solvent delivery system 8. The automated sampling and reaction system 2 is in fluidic communication with a reactor 10 or reactor flow stream and with the solvent delivery system 8. A solvent composition stream is combined with the sample and sent to chromatographic column 6 or a detector. The automated sampling and reaction system 2 is directly connected to the reactor 10, reactor flow stream, or process line by tubing and can acquire samples for chromatographic analysis (¶¶[0040]–[0042]).
The separation and detection system 1 further includes data system 100 in signal communication with the automated sampling and reaction system 2 and solvent delivery system 8. Data system 100 is programmed to control operation of the automated sampling and reaction system 2, including turning pumps on and off and rotating valves to automatically acquire and treat a process sample for introduction into the solvent composition stream. Host computing system 102 communicates with data system 100 to provide parameters and profiles affecting system performance (¶[0047]).
PNG
media_image1.png
420
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of HEWITSON
FIG. 2A illustrates that the automated sampling and reaction system 2 includes an external sampling valve 22, a priming valve 24, a diluent valve 26, a reagent valve 28, an injection valve 30, a sample pump 32, a diluent pump 34, a reagent pump 36, a mixing tee 18, and a microreactor 12 (¶[0049]). The external sampling valve 22 includes a first sample loop 40 and fluidic ports 22-1 to 22-6. Tubing connects fluidic port 22-2 to reactor 10, fluidic port 22-3 to collection reservoir 44, fluidic port 22-5 to fluidic port 24-1 of priming valve 24, and fluidic port 22-6 to mixing tee 18 (¶¶[0052]–[0053]).
PNG
media_image2.png
659
919
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2A of HEWITSON
For a nonpressurized reactor, external sample pump 52 draws sample from reactor 10 through external auxiliary sampling valve 54 and loads the sample into external sampling valve 22 (¶¶[0085]–[0087]). Once loaded, sample pump 32 discharges wash through external sampling valve 22 to transfer the sample to mixing tee 18 and microreactor 12 (¶¶[0070]–[0071]). The sample is then loaded into injection valve 30 and introduced into the solvent composition stream flowing to chromatographic column 6 or a detector (¶¶[0118]–[0120]).
Based on the disclosure, it is reasonable to interpret external auxiliary sampling valve 54, external sampling valve 22, and the associated sample loops as the sampling module, the pumping system including external sample pump 52 and sample pump 32 as the power module, chromatographic column 6 or the detector together with data system 100 as the monitoring analysis module, and host computing system 102 as the upper computer. The tubing between the components provides the claimed fluid communication. The signal communication between data system 100, the automated sampling and reaction system, and host computing system 102 provides the claimed electrical connections, and the parameters and profiles provided by host computing system 102 for controlling the pumps correspond to the suction instruction from the upper computer.
The automated sampling and reaction system provides analysis through a chromatographic column or detector (¶¶[0027]–[0029]). It would have been obvious to program data system 100 to generate a monitoring report from the chromatographic analysis and transmit the monitoring report to host computing system 102, and to program host computing system 102 to generate an analysis result according to the monitoring report, to predictably provide the user with the monitored reaction results through the existing automated chromatographic and host-computing systems.
Regarding Claim 4, HEWITSON makes obvious the automatic monitoring system of Claim 1. HEWITSON discloses that the sample pump, diluent pump, and reagent pump are positive displacement pumps, and that syringe pumps may be selected for high-precision dosing with synchronized software control (¶[0059]; ¶[0116]). In view of the disclosed positive displacement pumping system, a person skilled in the art would have selected the disclosed syringe pump as the power pump to provide precise, software-controlled fluid transfer.
Regarding Claim 5, HEWITSON makes obvious the automatic monitoring system of Claim 1. HEWITSON discloses that the automated sampling and reaction system is configured for high pressure liquid chromatography and specifically identifies High Performance Liquid Chromatography as a suitable chromatography system for analysis of the sample (¶¶[0027]–[0029]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEWITSON as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of XIAO et al. (CN209076707U, hereinafter XIAO) and WU (CN207756136U).
Regarding Claim 2, HEWITSON makes obvious the automatic monitoring system of Claim 1. HEWITSON discloses that the automated sampling and reaction system 2 is in fluidic communication with a reactor flow stream and sends sample for chromatographic analysis to column 6 or a detector (¶¶[0040]–[0042]). The automated sampling and reaction system 2 includes a microreactor 12 (¶[0049]), where sample together with reagent and/or diluent is introduced to react and form a secondary sample for discharge to the liquid chromatography column or detector (¶¶[0030]–[0031]).
However, HEWITSON does not explicitly disclose the reactor comprising a bottle mouth and a bottle body; a sample intake, an air outlet, a sampling port, a cyclic liquid outlet, and a cyclic liquid inlet having the recited positional and fluid-communication relationships; or the bottle body sequentially comprising a reaction layer, a temperature cycle layer, and a vacuum layer from inside to outside, wherein a bottom of the reaction layer has an arc-shaped structure.
XIAO discloses a round-bottom flask with recirculating heating (¶[0002]). FIG. 1 illustrates a recirculating heated round-bottom flask including a neck section 1 and a double-layered bottle body formed by an inner flask 2 and an outer flask 3. A serpentine heating tube 4 is provided between the inner flask 2 and the outer flask 3, and the inlet 5 and outlet 6 of the serpentine heating tube 4 extend out of the outer flask 3 to connect with an external circulating heating liquid pipeline. The inlet 5 and outlet 6 have an included angle of 0° to 180° and are set at any angle from 0° to 90° with the horizontal direction (¶[0024]).
PNG
media_image3.png
907
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of XIAO
During operation, the liquid circulation heating tank is connected to the inlet 5 and outlet 6 of the serpentine heating tube 4 through the liquid circulation pipe 10, and the circulation pump 9 circulates heating liquid through the serpentine heating tube 4 to heat the flask, maintain stable liquid temperature, and rapidly cool the flask when needed (¶[0026]). The recirculating heated round-bottom flask functions as a reactor vessel because it contains the material during reaction or extraction and uses circulating heating liquid to control temperature and rapidly cool the flask and the material inside to stop the reaction or extraction process.
The recirculating heated round-bottom flask disclosed by XIAO maintains controlled and stable temperature of the material in the flask, ensures experimental stability, improves reaction or extraction efficiency for temperature-stable substances, and avoids unwanted chemical changes for temperature-sensitive substances (¶[0017]). In view of HEWITSON’s automatic monitoring system, a person skilled in the art would have used the recirculating heated round-bottom flask as the reaction vessel to predictably carry out the monitored process under controlled and stable temperature conditions.
Regarding the limitation “a set angle is formed between the sample intake and the bottle mouth,” this arrangement is considered a routine design choice because the particular angle merely determines the physical position of the sample intake relative to the bottle mouth. It would have been obvious to select the angle according to available space, access to the bottle mouth, and routing of associated tubing.
Regarding the limitation “the cyclic liquid outlet and the cyclic liquid inlet are both communicated with the temperature cycle layer, and the cyclic liquid outlet and the cyclic liquid inlet are diagonally arranged,” XIAO discloses that inlet 5 and outlet 6 communicate with serpentine heating tube 4 positioned between inner flask 2 and outer flask 3 and are arranged within disclosed angular ranges (¶[0024]). The angular positioning is considered a routine design choice, and it would have been obvious to select a diagonal arrangement to facilitate routing and separation of the circulating-liquid tubing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the recirculating heated round-bottom flask, as disclosed by XIAO, as the reaction vessel in the automatic monitoring system by HEWITSON.
However, modified HEWITSON does not explicitly disclose the bottle body further comprising a vacuum layer outside the temperature cycle layer.
WU discloses a reaction vessel for producing acrylic resin (¶[0002]). FIG. 1 illustrates a reactor body 1 having a feed inlet 11 at the top and a vacuum layer 12 provided outside the reactor body 1. The input end of the air heater 3 is connected to the inside of the vacuum layer 12 through a connecting pipe 31, a venting valve 121 is provided on the side of the reactor body 1 corresponding to the vacuum layer 12, and an exhaust pipe 13 is provided at the bottom of the vacuum layer 12 (¶[0024]).
PNG
media_image4.png
771
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of WU
The reactor disclosed by WU is convenient to use, effectively mixes and reacts the raw materials, improves reaction efficiency, and allows easier temperature control, solving the problems of uneven heating and difficult temperature adjustment of traditional electric-heating reaction vessels (¶[0006]). In view of modified HEWITSON, a person skilled in the art would have incorporated a vacuum layer into the bottle body to predictably improve temperature control and reduce uneven heating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a vacuum layer in the bottle body, as disclosed by WU, in the reaction vessel by modified HEWITSON.
Claims 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEWITSON as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CHEN et al. (CN204514694U, hereinafter CHEN) and CHENG (CN108267607A).
Regarding Claim 3, HEWITSON makes obvious the automatic monitoring system of Claim 1. HEWITSON discloses an automated sampling and reaction system 2 arranged to draw sample from a reactor or reactor flow stream and introduce the sample for chromatographic analysis (¶¶[0040]–[0042]). However, HEWITSON does not explicitly disclose that the sampling module comprises a stainless steel needle and a slide rail.
CHEN discloses a pipe-taking device with real-time monitoring function (¶[0002]). FIG. 1 illustrates that the drive mechanism for moving the stainless steel pipe 5 up and down includes a slide table 14 and a slide rail 13, where the track extension direction of the slide rail 13 is the same as the movement direction of the stainless steel pipe 5. The slide table 14 slides along the track direction of the slide rail 13, and the top end of the stainless steel pipe 5 is fixedly connected to the drive mechanism through the “T”-shaped connecting block 3 (¶[0030]). The tube-taking head 2 is fixed on the drive mechanism, with one end connected to the end of the stainless steel tube 5 and the other end connected to the suction pump 20 (¶[0034]).
PNG
media_image5.png
659
380
media_image5.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of CHEN
The tube-retrieving device includes a stainless steel tube, a controller, and a drive mechanism for moving the stainless steel tube up and down. The drive mechanism includes a motor, a “T”-shaped connecting block, a slide table, and a slide rail, and the “T”-shaped connecting block drives the slide table to slide along the slide rail, thereby moving the stainless steel tube. The controller receives signals from the photoelectric sensor and controls operation of the drive mechanism based on the signals (¶¶[0009]–[0012]).
The tube-taking device disclosed by CHEN provides guided, stable movement of the stainless steel sampling member, reduces operating resistance, and improves reliability during tube-taking (¶[0017]; ¶[0021]). In view of HEWITSON’s automated sampling and reaction system, a person skilled in the art would have incorporated the slide-rail-driven stainless steel sampling structure into the sampling portion of the system to predictably provide guided and stable movement of the sampling member, reduce operating resistance, and improve sampling reliability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the slide-rail-driven stainless steel sampling structure, as disclosed by CHEN, into the sampling module of the automatic monitoring system by HEWITSON.
However, modified HEWITSON does not explicitly disclose that the slide rail is fixed on a turntable.
CHENG discloses an automated sample analysis and detection method (¶[0002]). FIG. 1 illustrates that the turntable has six reaction tube receiving holes and six workstations arranged around the turntable, including a starting position 12, a first liquid injection position, a second liquid injection position, a detection position, a cleaning position, and a reaction tube removal position 8. The six workstations are evenly arranged around the circumference of the turntable, with adjacent workstations 60° apart. The starting position is used by the robotic arm to place the reaction tube containing the sample liquid into the reaction tube receiving hole on the turntable, and the reaction tube removal position is used by the robotic arm to remove the reaction tube from the turntable (¶¶[0079]–[0084]). The detection device is equipped with a communication module for transmitting detection data and tag data to a host computer or other data platform (¶[0087]).
PNG
media_image6.png
731
858
media_image6.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1 of CHENG
The integrated stirring, injection and extraction device includes a support 50, a lifting needle seat 53, a lifting cylinder 55, a motor 54, and a needle 51. The needle holder has an injection tube 56 and a suction tube 57, where the needle is connected to a reagent container through the injection tube and to a waste liquid collection container through the suction tube, and the respective tube includes a pump. During operation, when the cylinder lowers the needle holder to the lowest position, the needle is inserted into the reaction tube, and when the drainage pump is started, the liquid in the reaction tube is displaced (¶¶[0107]–[0109]).
The automatic sample analysis and detection system disclosed by CHENG is easy to implement, has high detection efficiency, and reduces reliance on manual operations in biochemical detection systems (¶¶[0004]–[0005]; ¶[0008]). In view of modified HEWITSON including the slide-rail-driven sampling structure, a person skilled in the art would have fixed the slide rail on the turntable so that the sampling structure can be positioned with the turntable for automated handling of reaction tubes to predictably improve automation and detection efficiency.
Regarding the placement and configuration of the sampling module, in combination, HEWITSON provides the automated sampling context, CHEN provides the slide-rail-driven stainless steel sampling structure, and CHENG provides the turntable-based arrangement with needle-based liquid handling and host-computer-linked detection data. Based on these disclosures, a person skilled in the art would have been able to configure the slide-rail-driven stainless steel sampling structure on the turntable in an automated sampling system, including arranging the first tube on the slide rail, fixing the stainless steel needle at one end of the slide rail while leaving the other end free, selecting the slide-rail position and angle, and electrically connecting the slide rail and turntable to the upper computer as routine design arrangements, so that the sampling member can be moved into position for sampling and operated in coordination with turntable-based handling and host-computer-linked analysis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the turntable-based sampling arrangement, as disclosed by CHENG, into the sampling module of the automatic monitoring system by modified HEWITSON.
Regarding Claim 6, modified HEWITSON makes obvious the automatic monitoring system of Claim 3. CHENG discloses that, for tested reaction tubes, liquid is extracted, cleaning solution is injected, the contents are stirred, and the liquid is extracted again, and this process may be repeated multiple times (¶[0101]). The needle is connected to a reagent container through an injection tube having an injection pump and to a waste liquid collection container through a suction tube having a suction pump, whereby cleaning solution is injected and liquid is withdrawn during cleaning (¶¶[0108]–[0109]).
Based on the disclosure, it is reasonable to interpret the reagent container, waste liquid collection container, injection tube, suction tube, pumps, and needle-based fluid path as the cleaning module. The needle-based fluid path connects the cleaning module to the sampling module, and the injection pump and suction pump constitute the pumping system corresponding to the power module.
Regarding Claim 7, modified HEWITSON makes obvious the cleaning module of Claim 6. CHENG discloses that the needle holder has an injection tube 56 and a suction tube 57, where the needle is connected to a reagent container through the injection tube and to a waste liquid collection container through the suction tube. The injection tube has a valve and a miniature injection pump, and the suction tube has a miniature suction pump (¶¶[0108]–[0109]).
Regarding the solenoid valve structure, use of the valve in the automated liquid-handling line as a solenoid valve is considered a routine design choice. Solenoid valves are well-known electrically actuated valves for controlling fluid flow in coordination with pump operation. It would have been obvious to use the valve as a solenoid valve to predictably control the flow of cleansing solution during the automated cleaning operation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEWITSON in view of CHEN and CHENG as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of MA et al. (CN105890923A, hereinafter MA).
Regarding Claim 8, modified HEWITSON makes obvious the cleansing solution of Claim 7. CHENG discloses use of a cleaning solution during cleaning of the reaction tube system (¶[0109]). However, modified HEWITSON does not explicitly disclose that the cleansing solution is an organic solvent.
MA discloses a sterile micro-liquid sampling device and method suitable for online detection systems of bioreactors such as microbial fermentation and cell culture (¶[0002]). In a pipeline cleaning and sterilization method, 75% ethanol solution is used as a pipeline cleaning liquid and is drawn through the sampling system until discharged to the waste bottle, thereby cleaning the equipment flow path (¶[0018]; ¶[0023]).
The pipeline cleaning and sterilization method disclosed by MA uses ethanol as a consumable cleaning liquid for cleaning the sampling flow path. In view of modified HEWITSON including a cleaning arrangement using a cleaning solution, a person skilled in the art would have selected ethanol as the cleansing solution to predictably clean and sterilize the sampling flow path.
Regarding the limitation “the cleansing solution is an organic solvent,” the organic solvent is a consumable material used by the apparatus during the cleaning operation and does not require any particular modification to the claimed apparatus structure. The inclusion of material worked upon by an apparatus does not impart patentability to the apparatus where the material does not require additional structure (In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 1967; In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 1963).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the organic-solvent cleansing solution, as disclosed by MA, in the cleaning arrangement of the automatic monitoring system by modified HEWITSON.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed June 9, 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained and updated.
Applicant argues that Claim 1 establishes a closed-loop monitoring and control system that evaluates reaction conversion, raw material residue, and other factors and provides feedback to adjust reaction liquid activation duration, reaction time, reagent replenishment, and other process parameters. This argument is not persuasive because Claim 1 does not recite feedback regulation or adjustment of any reaction parameter. Claim 1 requires the upper computer to generate an analysis result according to the monitoring report. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments concerning adaptive feedback and regulation are not commensurate with the scope of Claim 1. To the extent Applicant relies on the multilayer reactor, stainless steel needle, slide rail, turntable, or cleaning-module arrangement as distinguishing Claim 1, those features are recited in dependent Claims 2, 3, and 6–8 rather than Claim 1.
Applicant further argues that MA performs ethanol sterilization during a static idle state rather than real-time, on-demand, selective organic-solvent cleaning of residual synthesis material during continuous online monitoring. This argument is not persuasive because Claim 8 merely recites that “the cleansing solution is an organic solvent.” Claim 8 does not require that cleaning occur in real time, on demand, selectively, by zones, during continuous monitoring, or specifically to remove residual synthesis material. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments concerning those additional cleaning conditions are not commensurate with the scope of Claim 8.
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 TAK L. CHIU whose telephone number is (703)756-1059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am - 6:00pm (CST).
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, PREM C. SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-6381. 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.
/TAK L. CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights