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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 45-58 and 61-64, in the reply filed on 02/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/11/2026.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an extraction unit” in claim 45;
“a lysis unit” in claim 46;
“storage unit” in claims 47, 54, and 63;
“waste unit” in claim 53;
“metering unit” in claim 58.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In this instant case:
“an extraction unit” in claim 45 is being interpreted as comprising at least one of a lysis unit or storage unit (specification, [0021]) or equivalents thereof;
“a lysis unit” in claim 46 is being interpreted as comprising at least one of a chamber ([0094]), agents for lysing a cell including mechanical or chemical mechanisms for lysis ([0116],[0118]) or equivalents thereof;
“storage unit” in claims 47, 54, and 63 is being interpreted as comprising at least one of a support, such as a bead or magnetic bead, ([0021]), a movable stage ([0023],[0098],[0100]), preservative, storing agents, such as stabilization buffers ([0097]), mount or other positioning mechanism ([0100]), a memory device ([0100]), magnetic device and actuator ([0101]), fluid handling unit comprising a needle assembly ([0102]), cartridge or other storage vessel [0118] or equivalents thereof;
“waste unit” in claim 53 is being interpreted as comprising at least one of a mechanism for moving contents ([0106],[0107]), one or more ports, inlets, or outlets ([0106],[0107]), or equivalents thereof;
“metering unit” in claim 58 is being interpreted as comprising at least one of a buffer metering manifold ([0112]), a pump, a pneumatic interface, an inlet, an outlet, a valve ([0112]), one or more pumps, a pneumatic interface, a buffer inlet, a buffer outlet, a valve manifold, a base, a pump and/or valve electronic interface, or any combination thereof ([0113],[0114]), or equivalents thereof.
Note that “an extraction unit” is not interpreted under 112(f) in claims 46-52 since claim 46 recite sufficient structure for the extraction unit.
Note that “storage unit” is not interpreted under 112(f) in claims 50-52 and 55-56 since claims 50 and 55 recite sufficient structure for the storage unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 45-49, 53-54, 57, and 61-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Amin (US 20190062813 A1; cited in the IDS filed 01/30/2024).
Regarding claim 45, Amin teaches a system (abstract; Figs. 4-14) for processing a stool sample provided on a substrate (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; abstract and Figs. 4-14 teach smart toilets with integrated stool analysis technology, therefore the smart toilet is capable of processing stool sample provided on a substrate), comprising:
one or more liquid sources ([0064] and [0070] teaches various surfactants, detergents, and/or aqueous solutions needed to implement DNA extraction contained within actuatable reservoirs, i.e. liquid sources; [0121] teaches reservoirs, tanks/containers for storing or applying required detergents, surfactants, and lysis buffers; or [0158], toilet water reservoir);
a vessel (Figs. 5-6, waste collector 501) fluidically connected to said one or more liquid sources (Figs. 5-6 and [0107],[0120] teaches stool 404 can enter a toilet bowl and collected in the waste collector 501; [0019],[0065] teaches toilet water carries the waste to be collected by the smart toilet system; [0158] teaches a toilet water reservoir; therefore, the waste collector is fluidically connected to at least the toilet water reservoir that allows for toilet water to move the stool to the waste collector) and configured to process (i) said stool sample provided on said substrate (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 6 and [0125] teaches the waste collector includes a pump, propeller, and impeller 608 to draw the waste into the waste collector, therefore is capable of processing said stool sample) and (ii) a liquid from said one or more liquid sources to generate a mixture comprising said liquid and portions of said substrate (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 6 and [0125] teaches the waste collector includes a pump, propeller, and impeller 608 to draw the waste and toilet water into the waste collector, therefore is capable of processing a liquid to generate a mixture of toilet water and portions of a substrate); and
an extraction unit (Fig. 5 and [0121], DNA extractor 506; [0121] teaches the DNA extractor extract DNA of the sample with lysate, which reads on the interpretation of extraction unit under 112(f)) fluidically connected to said vessel (Fig. 5) and configured to extract at least a portion of said stool sample from said mixture to generate a processed stool sample (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; [0121] teaches extracting DNA from the waste sample, where the extracted DNA generates a processed stool sample).
Regarding claim 46, Amin further teaches wherein said extraction unit comprises a lysis unit (Fig. 5 and [0121] teach the DNA extractor 506 extracts DNA of the sample and includes lysis buffers; note that lysis buffers reads on the 112(f) interpretation of lysis unit, i.e. lysis agent) configured to lyse one or more cells present in said mixture to generate a lysed product (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; [0121] teaches the DNA extractor breaks or lyse cells to generate lysed product, such as biologically significant molecules including DNA).
Regarding claim 47, Amin further teaches wherein said extraction unit further comprises a storage unit configured to extract said at least said portion of said sample from said lysed product ([0121] teaches once lysed, the lysate can be refined by adding further surfactants/detergents, proteases, and RNase, to break down lipids, proteins, RNA, and other non-DNA molecules released by the cellular disruption and the lysate can then be purified by centrifugation to separate the microbial DNA from the broken down cellular material; therefore, the DNA extractor 506 at least includes a mount or storage vessel for refining the lysate and centrifugation, which reads on the 112(f) interpretation of storage unit).
Regarding claim 48, Amin further teaches wherein said storage unit is in fluidic communication with a reservoir comprising reagents for extracting a cell, an organelle, or a biomolecule from said at least said portion of said sample ([0064] and [0070] teaches various surfactants, detergents, and/or aqueous solutions needed to implement DNA extraction contained within actuatable reservoirs, i.e. liquid sources; [0121] teaches the lysate can be refined by adding further surfactants/detergents, proteases, and RNase, to break down lipids, proteins, RNA, and other non-DNA molecules released by the cellular disruption and reservoirs, tanks/containers for storing or applying required detergents, surfactants, and lysis buffers; therefore, the mount or storage vessel for refining the lysate and centrifugation is in fluid communication with a reservoir with detergents, surfactants, and lysis buffers that are capable of extracting a cell, organelle, or biomolecule from the sample).
Regarding claim 49, Amin further teaches wherein said biomolecule is a protein, a peptide, a lipid, a carbohydrate, or a nucleic acid molecule ([0121], “DNA”).
Regarding claim 53, Amin further teaches the system of claim 45, further comprising a waste unit configured to store or expel waste from said vessel or said extraction unit (Fig. 7 and [0132] teaches a toilet drain 708 to discard remnants of a sample, i.e. waste; [0159] teaches after examinations, the waste sample can be expelled from the testing chamber to the outlet).
Regarding claim 54, Amin further teaches the system of claim 45, further comprising a storage unit configured to store a biomolecule extracted from said processed stool sample (Fig. 5 teaches a DNA amplifier 508 and/or waste analysis component 408, which are capable of storing DNA extracted from said processed stool sample; wherein the DNA amplifier 508 and/or waste analysis component 408 is interpreted as including a storage vessel, which reads on the 112(f) interpretation of a storage unit).
Regarding claim 57, Amin further teaches the system of claim 45, further comprising a reservoir in fluidic communication with said extraction unit ([0121] teaches the lysate can be refined by adding further surfactants/detergents, proteases, and RNase, to break down lipids, proteins, RNA, and other non-DNA molecules released by the cellular disruption and reservoirs, tanks/containers for storing or applying required detergents, surfactants, and lysis buffers; therefore reservoirs with the required detergents, surfactants, and lysis buffers are in fluidic communication with the DNA extractor 506).
Regarding claim 61, Amin further teaches wherein said vessel comprises a chamber (Fig. 6, testing chamber 604) for processing said stool sample and said liquid (interpreted as an intended use, see MPEP 2114; Figs. 5-6 and [0120],[0125] teach the waste collector 501 collects waste for manipulation and moving of the waste and toilet water).
Regarding claim 62, Amin further teaches wherein said vessel comprises a blade, propeller, or blender (Fig. 6 and [0125] teach a propeller and impeller 608) for mixing, agitating, or homogenizing said stool sample and said liquid (interpreted as an intended use, MPEP 2114; the impeller 608 is structurally capable of mixing, agitating, or homogenizing as claimed as the waste and toilet water flows through the waste collector).
Regarding claim 63, Amin further teaches wherein said extraction unit comprises a storage unit (Fig. 5 and [0123] teaches a DNA amplifier 508 that receives the sample, therefore includes a storage vessel in order to receive the sample, which reads on the 112(f) interpretation of a storage unit), wherein said storage unit is configured to couple to a sample container (interpreted as a functional limitation, see MPEP 2114; Fig. 5 teaches the DNA amplifier 508 is configured to couple to a waste analysis component 408; [0109] teaches a sample can be received by the waste analysis component; [0129] teach the waste analysis component can include a DNA sequencer; therefore, the waste analysis component 408 is implied to include at least a container for the sample to be analyzed and the DNA amplifier is configured to couple to the container; note that “a sample container” is not positively recited structurally).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of Jovanovich et al. (US 20110005932 A1).
Regarding claim 50, Amin fails to teach wherein said storage unit comprises a support for capturing a biomolecule from said at least said portion of said sample.
Jovanovich teaches a system for processing a raw biological sample for analysis, the system can extract DNA (abstract), wherein samples can include stool ([0005]). Jovanovich teaches the instrument can perform chemical reactions on nucleic acids, where a sample comprising DNA can be collected in a chamber and paramagnetic capture particles capture a calibrated amount of nucleic acid; and the paramagnetic particles can be held in the chamber by magnetic force and the uncaptured sample can be removed as waste ([0155]). Jovanovich teaches a sample preparation module extracts DNA from a material, captures DNA on capture particles, such as magnetically responsive particles, and delivers the DNA to a reaction module ( [0162]). Jovanovich teaches magnetic beads and a magnetic field can be used to capture and concentrate materials in a single step using a mechanistically simplified format, wherein beads can be used to capture, concentrate, and then purify specific target antigens, proteins, carbohydrates, toxins, nucleic acids, cells, viruses, and spores ([0225]).
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 storage unit of Amin to incorporate teachings of sample preparation modules that extract DNA from a material using magnetic particles that capture desired biomolecules such as DNA of Jovanovich ([0155],[0162],[0225]) to provide: wherein said storage unit comprises a support (e.g. magnetic bead) for capturing a biomolecule from said at least said portion of said sample. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving capturing and concentrating specific biomolecules of interest as taught by Jovanovich.
Regarding claim 51, modified Amin further teaches wherein said support is a bead (see above claim 50; Amin in view of Jovanovich provides a magnetic bead).
Regarding claim 52, modified Amin further teaches wherein said bead is a magnetic bead (see above claim 50; Amin in view of Jovanovich provides a magnetic bead).
Claims 55-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin as applied to claim 54 above, and further in view of Burd et al. (US 20090088336 A1).
Regarding claim 55, Amin fails to teach wherein said storage unit comprises a moveable stage configured to couple to a sample container.
Amin teaches there is a need in the field to provide more convenient, automated, and real-time (or near real-time) analysis of gut microflora and corresponding diagnoses and/or recommendations ([0004]). Amin teaches an automated DNA sequencing device ([0010]) and automated centrifugation and microscopy, and automated imaging equipment ([0102]). Amin teaches sequencing can include a microwell (paragraph [0076]). Amin teaches once the sample is collected and/or prepared by the filtration component, it can be received by the waste analysis component; the waste analysis component can, in one or more embodiments, perform DNA sequencing analysis on the sample (paragraph [0109]).
Burd teaches devices and systems for automatic detection of analytes in bodily fluid (abstract), wherein bodily fluids can include stool ([0179]). Burd teaches bodily fluids can be pre-treated before performing analysis; and extracting nucleic acid using various lytic enzymes or agents ([0183]). Burd teaches an exemplary fluid transfer device is comprised of any component required to perform and/or read the assay; and example of components include, pumps to aspirate and eject accurately known fluid volumes from wells or units of the device, at least one translational stage for improving the precision and accuracy of the movement within the system, a detector to detect an analyte in an assay unit, and temperature regulation means to provide a regulated temperature environment for incubation of assays ([0109]). Burd teaches in an automated system, a stage can move a device according to steps necessary to complete an assay ([0144]). Burd teaches a sample can be distributed to any type of device such a microtiter plate, as would be obvious to those skilled in the art ([0193]). Burd teaches an assay including a microtiter plate stage ([0309]). Burd teaches a translational stage onto which a cartridge is placed (Fig. 6; [0149]).
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 storage unit of Amin to incorporate Amin’s teachings of automated systems for analysis and a sample is delivered to a analysis component ([0004],[0010], [0102], [0076], [0109]) and Burd’s teachings of automated systems for analyzing samples including a translational stage for a cartridge ([0109],[0144],[0149],[0193],[0309]; Fig. 6) to provide: wherein said storage unit comprises a moveable stage configured to couple to a sample container. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving automation of sample processing and improving precision and accuracy of desired movement of elements within the system as taught by Burd.
Regarding claim 56, note that “sample container” is not positively recited structurally and is interpreted as a functional limitation of the claimed system. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements; thus, inclusion of the material or article (“sample container”) worked upon by a structure (movable stage) being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115).
Modified Burd teaches the movable stage that is configured to couple to a sample container (see above claim 55), therefore the movable stage is configured to couple to a sample container that is disposable at a later time. Thus, modified Burd teaches all of the limitations of claim 56.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Halverson et al. (US 20100248215 A1).
Regarding claim 58, Amin fails to teach the system of claim 45, further comprising a metering unit configured to meter volumes of liquids provided to said extraction unit or said vessel.
Halverson teaches a system for preparing and delivering samples for analyte testing (abstract), the sample including feces ([0032]). Halverson teaches a sample delivery system includes automatic valves, such as metering valves and constant volume metering valves ([0159]). Halverson teaches volumetric metering devices can be employed in the sample delivery system ([0172]). Halverson teaches metering a specific volume of filtrate or liquid composition ([0176],[0180]).
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 system of Amin to incorporate the teachings of volumetric metering devices and valves of Halverson to provide: the system of claim 45, further comprising a metering unit configured to meter volumes of liquids provided to said extraction unit or said vessel. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving control and precision of liquid delivery to the extraction unit or vessel.
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin as applied to claim 63 above, and further in view of O’Neill et al. (WO 2005014154 A1).
Regarding claim 64, Amin fails to teach: wherein said storage unit is configured to couple to the sample container, wherein said sample container is a multi-well plate.
Amin teaches there is a need in the field to provide more convenient, automated, and real-time (or near real-time) analysis of gut microflora and corresponding diagnoses and/or recommendations ([0004]). Amin teaches an automated DNA sequencing device ([0010]) and automated centrifugation and microscopy, and automated imaging equipment ([0102]). Amin teaches sequencing can include a microwell (paragraph [0076]). Amin teaches once the sample is collected and/or prepared by the filtration component, it can be received by the waste analysis component; the waste analysis component can, in one or more embodiments, perform DNA sequencing analysis on the sample (paragraph [0109]). Amin teaches a target DNA can be placed in a microwell ([0076]).
O’Neill teaches a system and method for removing cellular material from a faecal stool (abstract). O’Neill teaches a stool sample can be transferred to an automated liquid-handling system for high throughput processing (page 7, lines 1-4). O’Neill teaches sample receptacles may include a standard microplate format used for clinical analysis (page 14, lines 29-32).
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 storage unit of Amin to incorporate Amin’s teachings of automated systems for performing analysis on the sample and a sample placed in a microwell ([0004],[0010],[0076],[0102],[0109]) and O’Neill’s teachings of a system for processing and analyzing stool that transfers the sample to an automated liquid-handling system for high throughput processing and the use of a standard microplate format for clinical analysis (page 7, lines 1-4; page 14, lines 29-32) to provide: wherein said storage unit is configured to couple to the sample container, wherein said sample container is a multi-well plate. Doing so would have a reasonable expectation of successfully improving flexibility and adaptability of the storage unit to couple to known containers for improved clinical analysis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hall et al. (US 20180055491 A1) teaches an excreta-sampling toilet including a bowl and processing apparatus (abstract), the apparatus including blades to chip or stir solid excreta ([0028]).
Sidorsky et al. (US 20140017720 A1) teaches systems for isolating gastrointestinal microflora from stool (abstract), where a solvent is introduced into a container with the stool, various agents are added for dissolving and deodorizing, and the solvent and stool is homogenized into a mixture (abstract). Sidorsky teaches the stool is homogenized with a blender ([0025]). Sidorsky teaches further refinement, processing, isolation, or analysis of the filtrate and its contents for subsequent use in a wide variety of applications ([0135]).
Halverson et al. (US 20100255484 A1) teaches a system for preparing and collecting samples for analyte testing (abstract), a nonfood source can include feces ([0040]). Halverson teaches capturing analytes of interest with magnetic beads ([0172]-[0173]).
Dewar (US 20170067806 A1; cited in the IDS filed 01/30/2024) teaches an automated stool sampling device (abstract; Fig. 1) including multiple fluid sources (126,130), a macerator pump that liquefies and homogenizes a stool sample (112; [0014]), a container (114), sample tubes (120) on a movable stage (124), and a waste treatment unit (108).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2338. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30A-5:00P.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758