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 Arguments
The objections of claims 1 and 14-15 are withdrawn. However, new objections follow below.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn. However, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 follow below.
Applicant's arguments filed July 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Guenter does not disclose improving electromagnetic efficiency by influencing current flow and therefore does not anticipate claims 1 or 15 (Remarks, page 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “improving electromagnetic efficiency by influencing current flow”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further to this argument, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The Examiner contends that Guenter discloses a configuration which meets the limitations of claim 1 as shown by the previously attached evidentiary references because Guenter discloses an aluminum alloy base layer with a ceramic layer (para. [0018]) where the ceramic layer is Al2O3 (para. [0021]) and as evidenced by NDT Supply.com (“NDT”) and Precision Ferrites & Ceramics (“PFC”), the resistance of aluminum oxide is much greater than metallic aluminum (PFC, for aluminum oxide, “electrical resistance” column, page 1, NDT, for metallic aluminum, “resistivity” column, page 1) and thus the electric current induced by the changing magnetic field (Guenter, claim 1) will be interrupted at the interface of the base layer and the ceramic layer and the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Guenter states that the ceramic layer provides scratch resistance and corrosion resistance and further discloses that the ceramic layer has poor thermal conductivity. In addition, paragraph [0013] of Guenter discloses that the overall purpose of the heating plate is to allow magnetic fields to penetrate it without interference (i.e. no improvement on electromagnetic efficiency) (Remarks, pages 10-11).
Paragraph [0013] of Guenter is shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
203
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Again, the Examiner respectfully contends that electrical current will be interrupted due to the difference in resistivity between the base layer and the ceramic layer and the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, supra.
Finally, the Applicant argues that Guenter teaches away from the solution of the present invention since (paraphrasing) it discloses vertical zoning and the purpose of the ceramic layer of Guenter is protecting the base layer (Remarks, page 11). The Examiner notes that “zoning” is not a limitation of claim 1 and as discussed above, the ceramic layer acts to interrupt current. Guenter discloses a zoning configuration at least in that the base layer is located centrally/away from exposed surfaces and is surrounded by the ceramic layer and the base layer is also located in grooves 21 (para. [0044]) and again: The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, supra. Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears the comma in claim 15, line 8 (shown below), was removed (struck through) and it is recommended to add it back:
PNG
media_image2.png
63
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
At line 11, claim 15 recites: “forming a separation layer in a region of the sample receiving element such that the separation layer extends from the first side to the second side of the sample receiving element and forms a zoning of the base layer and forming a recess in a region of the sample receiving element and extending from the first side to the second side,”.
It is recommended to revise this for clarity. Among other options, it could be revised as:
“forming a separation layer in a region of the sample receiving element such that the separation layer extends from the first side to the second side of the sample receiving element and forms a zoning of the base layer,
wherein forming the separation layer comprises forming a recess in a region of the sample receiving element which extends from the first side to the second side,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “inserting a suitable insert into the recess, wherein the insert is manufactured separately” in line 15 was previously an optional limitation, but is now a required limitation and the claim further recites: “or wherein in forming the recess, at least the first zone of the base layer is removed such that the first zone and a second zone of the base layer formed by removing the first zone are present” at the end of the claim, but separate manufacturing and insert removal are alternative methods (see specification page 7, lines 11-18) and the specification does not appear to disclose a method which includes both “inserting a suitable insert into the recess, wherein the insert is manufactured separately” and “the base layer is removed such that the first zone and a second zone of the base layer (is) formed by removing the first zone”.
It appears this rejection could be overcome by removing “wherein the insert is manufactured separately” from the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 17 and 18 recite “wherein in a direction parallel to the first side and/or to the second side of the sample receiving element, the separation layer has an extension of” in lines 1-2. It is unclear if “a direction parallel” and “an extension” are the same as those previously recited in claim 7 from which the claim depends or different.
Among other options, these claims could be amended as: “The sample receiving element according to claim 7, wherein the extension of the separation layer is”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guenter (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102006005155) as evidenced by NDT Supply.com (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “NDT”, Precision Ferrites & Ceramics (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “PFC”, and Magnets and Motors (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “MM”.
Regarding claim 1, Guenter discloses a sample receiving element (heating plate 4) for use in or with a laboratory device (magnetic stirrer, para. [0001]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
855
1655
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Guenter discloses the sample receiving element is configured to receive a sample (liquid within a vessel, para. [0002]) to be treated by the laboratory device and to be penetrated by a magnetic field (para. [0036]) during operation of the laboratory device, and wherein the sample receiving element is configured to effect, at least in sections, an interruption of an electric current induced by changes in the magnetic field (changing magnetic field, claim 1) that penetrates the sample receiving element (not explicitly stated, but the sample receiving element/heating plate 4 is made of metallic aluminum alloy with a ceramic layer 11 made of aluminum oxide, pars. [0018], [0020]-[0021] & [0023], thus, the electric current induced by the magnetic field in the metallic aluminum will be interrupted at the ceramic layer due to the increased resistance of this layer: As evidenced by NDT and PFC, the resistance of aluminum oxide is much greater than metallic aluminum [PFC, for aluminum oxide, “electrical resistance” column, page 1, NDT, for metallic aluminum, “resistivity” column, page 1] and as evidenced by MM, the changing magnetic field [Guenter, claim 1] will induce electrical current in the aluminum sample receiving element [MM, “movement is causing electrical currents”, page 3, 1:46-2:02]).
Regarding claim 2, Guenter discloses wherein the sample receiving element is temperature-controllable (para. [0013]) by a temperature control device (heating coils 22) to allow heat transfer from or to a sample received by the sample receiving element.
Regarding claim 3, Guenter discloses wherein the sample receiving element (heating plate 4) has a first side (upper side, para. [0041], shown annotated above for claim 1) facing the sample and a second side (underside 19, shown annotated above for claim 1) facing away from the sample (Fig. 3), and wherein the sample receiving element comprises a base layer of at least one base material (aluminum alloy base layer 23, pars. [0011]-[0012] and [0042]) and a separation layer (oxide-ceramic layer 11, pars. [0011]-[0012] and [0042]), the separation layer extending in a region of the sample receiving element from the first side to the second side (annotated below, extending from the first side to the second side along peripheral edge 10) of the sample receiving element (shown annotated below) and forming a zoning of the base layer (“zoning” in that the base layer is located centrally and surrounded by the ceramic layer, as indicated annotated below, and in grooves 21, para. [0044]), and the separation layer is formed of a separation layer material (oxide-ceramic, para. [0011], aluminum oxide, para. [0021]) having a greater specific electrical resistance than the at least one base material (aluminum alloy, para. [0018]) of the base layer (as evidenced by NDT and PFC, the resistance of aluminum oxide is much greater than metallic aluminum or various alloys [PFC, for aluminum oxide, “electrical resistance” column, page 1, NDT, for metallic aluminum and alloys, “resistivity” column, page 1]):
PNG
media_image4.png
818
1676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Guenter discloses wherein the separation layer is at least partially formed by conversion from the base material of the base layer by generating an oxidic layer by anodic oxidation of the base layer (para. [0024]) and/or by passivation of the base layer.
Regarding claim 6, Guenter discloses wherein the base material is an electrical conductor (aluminum alloy, para. [0018]) and the separation layer material (aluminum oxide, para. [0021]) is an electrical non-conductor (as evidenced by NDT and PFC, the resistance of aluminum oxide is extremely high [> 1014 Ω-cm, PFC, for aluminum oxide, “electrical resistance” column, page 1] while metallic aluminum and aluminum alloys have very low resistance [≈ 10-8 Ω-cm, NDT, for metallic aluminum and alloys, “resistivity” column, page 1]).
Regarding claim 7, Guenter discloses wherein in a direction parallel to the first side and/or to the second side of the sample receiving element, the separation layer has an extension of 50 μm to 130 μm (“A layer thickness of at most 100 micrometers has proven to be particularly preferred”, para. [0020]) as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
549
915
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Guenter discloses wherein the base material comprises an aluminum alloy (para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 9, Guenter discloses wherein the sample receiving element is a plate (heating plate 4) having an outline of a defined geometric shape (Fig. 1), and the separation layer is provided in a centered region of the plate (such as along the bottom side surfaces as Guenter teaches the ceramic layer may be formed on the underside, para. [0026], except in the grooves 21, para. [0044]) and has an outline corresponding to a defined geometric shape (such as a circle as viewed from below):
PNG
media_image6.png
567
1250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Guenter discloses wherein the separation layer divides the base layer into a first zone and a second zone provided therearound (viewed from the bottom side, the ceramic layer is present as a circular shape, annotated above, and also a spiral shape or other circular shapes around the heating coils, para. [0041], shown below, such that the base layer is “divided” between the grooves 21 for the coils 22 by a surface having a ceramic layer formed between the grooves 21 such that the grooves form “zones” of the base layer without a ceramic layer, para. [0041], where the outer groove/second zone is provided “therearound” the inner groove/first zone):
PNG
media_image7.png
876
1450
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Guenter discloses wherein the sample receiving element (heating plate 4) has a first side facing the sample (upper side) and a second side facing away from the sample (under side 19) and wherein a recess extending at least partially from the first side to the second side is provided in a region of the sample receiving element (Fig. 3) as shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
487
967
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Guenter discloses wherein a protective layer (ceramic part of the layer guarantees “a high scratch resistance and corrosion resistance”, para. [0020]) is provided on the first side (upper surface, shown above for claim 1, para. [0026]) of the sample receiving element.
Regarding claim 13, Guenter discloses wherein the protective layer (para. [0020]) consists of the same material as the separation layer (ceramic layer 11) and/or wherein the protective layer is formed at least partially by conversion from the base material (aluminum alloy, para. [0018]) of the base layer (para. [0021]).
Regarding claim 14, Guenter discloses a laboratory device (magnetic stirrer, para. [0001]) comprising a sample receiving element (heating plate 4) according to claim 1 (see discussion for claim 1 above), wherein the laboratory device is configured as a magnetic stirrer (para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 16, Guenter discloses wherein the sample receiving element is configured as a placement plate or a temperature control plate (heating plate 4) of the magnetic stirrer.
Regarding claim 17, Guenter discloses wherein in a direction parallel to the first side and/or to the second side of the sample receiving element, the separation layer has an extension of 60 μm to 120 μm (100 micrometers is particularly effective by being thick enough for scratch and corrosion resistance while being thin enough to ensure good heat transfer, para. [0020]) as shown above for claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, Guenter discloses wherein in a direction parallel to the first side and/or to the second side of the sample receiving element, the separation layer has an extension of 90 μm to 110 μm (100 micrometers is particularly effective by being thick enough for scratch and corrosion resistance while being thin enough to ensure good heat transfer, para. [0020]) as shown above for claim 7.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102006005155) as evidenced by NDT Supply.com (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “NDT”, Precision Ferrites & Ceramics (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “PFC”, and Magnets and Motors (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “MM” as applied to claim 3 above and in further view of Herz et al. (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 3043335A1) as evidenced by Crest Coatings Inc. (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “CC”.
Regarding claim 5, Guenter does not expressly disclose wherein the separation layer is a layer formed separately from the base layer.
However, Herz et al. discloses a lab device (magnetic stirrer, Abstract) having a separation layer
(encapsulation 15) wherein the separation layer is a layer formed separately from the base layer (section 10, Fig. 4, para. [0018], “tetrafluoroethylene” is Teflon, as evidenced by CC, the resistance of Teflon is also much greater than aluminum alloy, > 1018 Ω-cm, see CC page 1, “volume resistivity” row).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Guenter by using a separation layer, such as comprising Teflon, which is formed separately from the base layer.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a Teflon layer to simplify forming the separation layer (e.g. not requiring anodization process using potentially hazardous liquid, such as acids, and electrodes) while providing for a layer which simplifies cleaning (Herz et al., para. [0006]) and still protects from chemical exposure.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102006005155) as evidenced by NDT Supply.com (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “NDT”, Precision Ferrites & Ceramics (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “PFC”, and Magnets and Motors (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “MM” as applied to claim 9 above and in further view of Zipperer (US 3554497).
Regarding claim 10, Guenter is silent as to the stirring bar size, but the first zone (shown above for claim 9) has the same diameter as the heating coil (Guenter, heating coils 22) closest to the center of the plate (Fig. 3) and Zipperer discloses a magnetic stirrer (Abstract) wherein the stirring bar (stirring member 32) substantially occupies the area within the innermost coil (heating bars 34), but is not larger than the diameter of the inner coil (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Guenter wherein a diameter of the first zone substantially corresponds to a maximum extension of a magnetic stirring bar which can be set in motion by the magnetic field that penetrates the sample receiving element.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to size the stirring bar to be nearly as large, but no larger than the first zone (corresponding to the heating coil groove 21 of Guenter annotated above for claim 9) in order to ensure a high flow velocity (flow coming off the end of the stirring bar) over the surface closest to the heating coil in order to facilitate heat transfer (e.g. via convection).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guenter (previously attached translation of Applicant disclosed DE 102006005155) as evidenced by NDT Supply.com (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “NDT”, Precision Ferrites & Ceramics (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “PFC”, and Magnets and Motors (previously attached non-patent literature) hereinafter “MM” as applied to claim 8 above and with or without Bahrami et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Modeling electrical resistivity of naturally aged Al–Mg–Si alloys”) and as further evidenced by Bahrami et al. or Kumar et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Electrical resistivity of microstructural components in Al–Mg-Si alloys”).
Regarding claim 19, Guenter discloses wherein the base material comprises aluminum and additionally may comprise magnesium and silicon (para. [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Guenter wherein the base material comprises an aluminum-magnesium-silicon alloy (para. [0031]).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select aluminum-magnesium-silicon alloy as a suitable material for a magnetic mixer such as to optimize for requirements (e.g. alloy availability). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Further, Bahrami et al. is analogous art at least because Bahrami et al. is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selecting aluminum alloys and Bahrami et al. teaches using aluminum-magnesium-silicon alloys (page 1, Introduction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Guenter by selecting an aluminum-magnesium-silicon alloy.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select an aluminum-magnesium-silicon alloy to achieve optimum formability, corrosion resistance, and mechanical properties (Bahrami et al., page 1, Introduction).
As evidenced by Kumar et al., Al-Mg-Si alloys have resistivity much lower (page 14803, left column, e.g. “3 μΩ cm”) than ceramic/oxide (> 1014 Ω-cm, PFC, for aluminum oxide, “electrical resistance” column, page 1). Likewise, as evidenced by Bahrami et al. Al-Mg-Si alloys have much lower resistivity (page 7, Fig. 2, “micro Ohm.cm”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The subject matter of claim 15 would be allowable upon resolution of the objections and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as discussed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record discloses a sample receiving element which is part of a magnetic stirrer and which is configured such that it interrupts electric current induced by changes in a magnetic field which penetrates the sample receiving element and where the sample receiving element has a base layer and a separation layer extending around the base layer and extending in a region of the sample receiving element from a first side to a second side of the sample receiving element where the separation layer is formed of a separation layer material having a greater specific electrical resistance than at least one base material of the base layer wherein the sample receiving element is a plate having an outline of a defined geometric shape and the separation layer is provided in a centered region of the plate and has an outline corresponding to a defined geometric shape, wherein the separation layer divides the base layer into zones.
However, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a sample receiving element which is a circular plate and configured such that it interrupts electric current induced by changes in a magnetic field which penetrates the sample receiving element and where the sample receiving element has a base layer and a separation layer, the separation layer extending in a region of the sample receiving element from a first side to a second side of the sample receiving element and forming a zoning of the base layer, and the separation layer is formed of a separation layer material having a greater specific electrical resistance than at least one base material of the base layer where the separation layer is provided in a centered region of the circular plate and has an outline corresponding to a defined geometric shape, wherein the separation layer divides the base layer into a first circular zone and a second annular zone provided therearound.
Likewise, the prior art of record did not reasonably disclose, teach or otherwise suggest a method for manufacturing a sample receiving element for a laboratory device, the sample receiving element being configured to receive a sample to be treated by the laboratory device and configured to be penetrated by a magnetic field during operation of the laboratory device, and wherein the sample receiving element is configured to interrupt electric current induced by changes in the magnetic field that penetrates the sample receiving element and where the method includes providing a base layer of the sample receiving element; and forming a separation layer in a region of the sample receiving element such that the separation layer extends from a first side to a second side of the sample receiving element and forms a zoning of the base layer and where the method further includes forming a recess in a region of the sample receiving element which extends from the first side to the second side and inserting a suitable insert into the recess and where the separation layer is formed of a separation layer material having a greater specific electrical resistance than a base material of the base layer wherein the insert forms the first zone of the base layer or wherein in forming the recess, at least the first zone of the base layer is removed such that the first zone and a second zone of the base layer formed by removing the first zone are present during manufacturing.
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 PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights