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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/05/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in the application. Claims 13-19 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-12 and 21 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections of claim 20 are obviated by Applicant’s cancellation.
The claim objections are being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) are withdrawn.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are being withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1, line 9 and lines 12-13 “calibrating liquid” should read “calibration liquid” to improve clarity;
claim 9, line 3 and line 5, “the two control parts” should read “the at least two control parts” to improve clarity.
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 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:
“a first control part configured to control on-off between the waste liquid area and the internal pipeline” in claim 6;
“a second control part configured to control the on-off between the sample to be detected inlet and the internal pipeline” in claim 6;
“a third control part configured to control the on-off between the internal pipeline and the hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area” in claim 6;
“at least two control parts; in an initial state, the two control parts are configured to enable the pipelines corresponding to the two control parts to be in a cut-off state; and after the removable detection card enters an operation state, the two control parts are configured so that only the pipeline corresponding to one control part is in a conduction state at any one time” in claim 9;
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.
For this instant case, the correspond structures for:
“a first control part configured to control on-off between the waste liquid area and the internal pipeline” is a valve (para. 0074) or equivalents thereof.
“a second control part configured to control the on-off between the sample to be detected inlet and the internal pipeline” is a valve (para. 0074) or equivalents thereof.;
“a third control part configured to control the on-off between the internal pipeline and the hemoglobin and derivatives detection area” is a valve (para. 0074) or equivalents thereof.;
“at least two control parts; in an initial state, the two control parts are configured to enable the pipelines corresponding to the two control parts to be in a cut-off state; and after the removable detection card enters an operation state, the two control parts are configured so that only the pipeline corresponding to one control part is in a conduction state at any one time,” are valves (para. 0074) or equivalents thereof;
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawi et al. (“A Microfluidic Cartridge System for Multiplexed Clinical Analysis” JALA Charlottesv Va. 2009 Dec 1;14(6):407–412).
Regarding claim 1, Lawi teaches a removable detection card (cartridge) for an in-vitro medical diagnosis device, comprising:
a blood gas detection area (the area occupied by the first reaction chamber from left position in Fig. 3);
a hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area (the area occupied the sixth reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3);
an internal pipeline (common fluid passage, waste channel and channels that connect directly between the reaction chambers and the waste channel)(Fig. 4); and
at least two external interfaces, wherein one of the at least two external interfaces comprises a calibration liquid inlet (the fill port to the reagent compartment at the top left position in Fig. 3) and another one of the at least two external interfaces comprises a sample to be detected inlet (the fill port to the reagent compartment at the top middle position in Fig. 3 and the reagent component)(under “Cartridge System”, sample is added to a reagent storage component), the removable detection card (cartridge) is configured to allow a calibrating liquid required by the removable detection card to enter the removable detection card through the calibration liquid inlet after being mounted in a detection area of the in-vitro medical diagnosis device (interpreted as functional limitation. The calibrating liquid and the in-vitro medical diagnosis device are not positive recited. The cartridge is structurally capable of being mounted to a device, for instance, a device comprising a syringe, through the fill port to the reagent compartment at the top left position in Fig. 3 of the cartridge and allowing the corresponding reagent component to be filled with a calibrating liquid); and before the removable detection card is mounted in the detection area of the in-vitro medical diagnosis device, the removable detection card is free of the calibrating liquid (p. 3, “Reagent Delivery Component”, during the final stages of assembly, before the reagents is preloaded, the removable detection card is free of any liquid/reagents. This stage of cartridge exists before the cartridge is being mounted to a diagnosis device. Furthermore, the reagents that get preloaded to the cartridge are not calibrating liquid, p. 2 “Cartridge System”).
Regarding claim 2, Lawi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Lawi further teaches wherein one or more first cavities (the first reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3) for blood gas detection are located in the blood gas detection area (Fig. 4)(interpreted as an intended use. Blood gas is not positively recited. The reaction chamber meets the structural limitation of the intended use), and one or more second cavities (the sixth reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3) for detecting a hemoglobin and its derivatives is located in the hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area (Fig. 4)(interpreted as an intended use. A hemoglobin and its derivatives are not positively recited. The reaction chamber meets the structural limitation of the intended use).
Regarding claim 3, Lawi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 2. Lawi furth teaches the removable detection card further comprising sensor electrodes are structurally capable of being modified for the detection of proteins such as hemoglobin and derivatives).
Regarding claim 5, Lawi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Lawi further teaches the removable detection card further comprising a waste liquid area (waste chamber, which is to top right reagent compartment in Fig. 3)(“Cartridge System”, Figs. 3 and 4), wherein the internal pipeline (common fluid passage, waste channel and channels that connect directly between the reaction chambers and the waste channel) is configured to provide a flow path (waste channel) between the blood gas detection area (area occupied the first reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3), the hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area (area occupied the sixth reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3), and the waste liquid area (Fig. 4, the waste channel is shared by all three areas).
Regarding claim 6, Lawi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 5. Lawi further teaches the removable detection card further comprising a first control part (waste channel delivery valve) configured to control on-off between the waste liquid area and the internal pipeline (common fluid passage, waste channel and channels that connect directly between the reaction chambers and the waste channel) (Fig. 4), and/or a second control part (reagent storage compartment valve corresponds to the top-middle reagent compartment in Fig. 3) configured to control the on-off between the sample to be detected inlet (the fill port to the reagent compartment at the top middle position in Fig. 3 and the reagent component) and the internal pipeline (Fig. 3), and/or a third control part (the reaction chamber delivery valve correspond to the sixth reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3) configured to control the on-off between the internal pipeline and the hemoglobin and derivatives detection area (area occupied the sixth reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3)(Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Lawi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Lawi further teaches the removable detection card further comprising an elastomeric material and/or valve (flexible valve membrane) inside or on a surface of the removable detection card, the elastomeric material and/or valve is configured to implement on-off (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Lawi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 5. Lawi further teaches wherein the waste liquid zone (interpreted as the waste liquid area of claim 5. 35 U.S.C 112(b) above) has an external interface (fill port corresponding to the waste chamber, which is to top right reagent compartment in Fig. 3) for communicating with ambient air pressure, and
Regarding claim 9, Lawi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 5. Lawi further wherein the internal pipeline (common fluid passage, waste channel and channels that connect directly between the reaction chambers and the waste channel) comprises a plurality of pipelines (Fig. 4); the detection card comprises at least two control parts (the reagent storage valve corresponding to the reagent compartment in the top-middle position in Fig. 3, and the reaction chamber delivery valve corresponds to the sixth reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3); in an initial state, the two control parts are configured to enable the pipelines corresponding to the two control parts (the portion the pipeline immediate adjacent to the each corresponding valve) to be in a cut-off state (interpreted as a functional limitation. p. 2-3, “Fluid Distribution Component” and Figs. 4 and 5, both valves are structurally capable of being in a cut-off state); and after the removable detection card enters an operation state, the two control parts are configured so that only pipeline corresponding to one control part to be in a conduction state at any one time (interpreted as a functional limitation, p. 2-3, “Fluid Distribution Component” and Figs. 4 and 5 teaches the valves are capable of being in an on-state and an off-state to block and allow fluid flow individually).
Regarding claim 10, Lawi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 9. Lawi teaches wherein the at least two control parts (valves shown in Fig. 4) comprises three control parts (waste channel delivery valve, the reagent storage valve corresponding to the reagent compartment in the top-middle position in Fig. 3, and the reaction chamber delivery valve corresponds to the sixth reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3), and a first control part (waste channel delivery valve) of the three control parts controls on-off between the waste liquid area and the internal pipeline (common fluid passage, waste channel and channels that connect directly between the reaction chambers and the waste channel)
Regarding claim 11, Lawi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim in claim 10, wherein a second control part (the reagent storage valve corresponding to the reagent compartment in the top-middle position in Fig. 3) of the three control parts controls on-off between the sample to be detected inlet (the fill port to the reagent compartment at the top-middle position in Fig. 3 and the reagent component) and the internal pipeline (common fluid passage, waste channel and channels that connect directly between the reaction chambers and the waste channel) in response to injecting a sample to be detected into the removable detection card (Fig. 4, the valve is capable of moving from closed to open to allow the sample to flow from inlet to internal pipeline.).
Regarding claim 12, Lawi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 11. Lawi further teaches wherein a third control part (the reaction chamber delivery valve corresponds to the sixth reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3) of the three control parts controls on-off between the internal pipeline (common fluid passage, waste channel and channels that connect directly between the reaction chambers and the waste channel) and the hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area (the area occupies by the sixth reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3) in response to transferring the sample to be detected in the blood gas detection area to the hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area (Fig. 4, the valve is capable of moving from closed to open to allow the sample to flow from internal pipeline to the reaction chamber); and/or each of the first control part, the second control part and the third control part in the removable detection card controls on-off of a corresponding pipeline (Fig. 4) in response to a power drive in a host of the in-vitro medical diagnosis device (interpreted as an intended use. A power drive, a host and an in-vitro medical diagnostic device are not positively recited. The first, second, third controls parts are structural limitation of the intended use.).
An alternate interpretation of Lawi
Regarding claim 1, Lawi teaches a removable detection card for an in-vitro medical diagnosis device, comprising:
a blood gas detection area (the area occupied the reagent compartment at the bottom right position as shown in Fig. 3);
a hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area (the area occupied the sixth reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3);
an internal pipeline (common fluid passage, waste channel and channels that connect directly between the reaction chambers and the waste channel)(Fig. 4); and
at least two external interfaces, wherein one of the at least two external interfaces comprises a calibration liquid inlet (the fill port to the reagent compartment at the top left position in Fig. 3) and another one of the at least two external interfaces comprises a sample to be detected inlet (the fill port to the reagent compartment at the top middle position in Fig. 3 and the reagent component)(under “Cartridge System”, sample is added to a reagent storage component), the removable detection card is configured to allow a calibrating liquid required by the removable detection card to enter the removable detection card through the calibration liquid inlet after being mounted in a detection area of the in-vitro medical diagnosis device (interpreted as functional limitation. The calibrating liquid and the in-vitro medical diagnosis device are not positive recited. The cartridge is structurally capable of being mounted to a device, for instance, a device comprising a syringe, through the fill port to the reagent compartment at the top left position in Fig. 3 of the cartridge and allowing the reagent component to be filled with a calibrating fluid); and before the removable detection card is mounted in the detection area of the in-vitro medical diagnosis device, the removable detection card is free of the calibrating liquid (p. 3, “Reagent Delivery Component”, during the final stages of assembly, before the reagents are preloaded, the removable detection card is free of any liquid/reagents. This stage of cartridge exists before the cartridge is being mounted to a diagnosis device. Furthermore, the reagents that get preloaded to the cartridge are not calibrating liquid, p. 2 “Cartridge System”).
Regarding claim 21, Lawi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Lawi further wherein one or more first cavities (the reagent compartment at the bottom right position as shown in Fig. 3) for blood gas detection (interpreted as an intended use. The reagent compartment meets the structure limitation of the intended use) are located in the blood gas detection area, one or more second cavities (the area occupied the sixth reaction chamber from the left in Fig. 3) for detecting a hemoglobin and its derivatives (interpreted as an intended use. The reaction chamber meets the structure limitation of the intended use) are located in the hemoglobin and its derivatives detection area, and each second cavity is thinner than each first cavity (Fig. 3, the width of the reaction chambers are thinner than that of the reagent compartments).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawi et al. (“A Microfluidic Cartridge System for Multiplexed Clinical Analysis.” JALA Charlottesv Va. 2009 Dec 1;14(6):407–412)) in view of Heller (US 20030201194 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lawi teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 2.
Lawi teaches a microfluidic device for detection of analytes using electrochemical methods. Lawi teaches the device comprises reaction chambers wherein at the bottom of each reaction chamber has an electrode modified with a sensing layer for detecting a target analyte. Lawi teaches the design of the device is to minimum sample volume.
Lawi teaches the overall size of the cartridge is 90 mm × 48 mm × 7.5 mm, but Lawi does not explicitly teaches wherein the second cavity is thinner than the first cavity, and/or a diameter of the second cavity is greater than a diameter of the first cavity; and/or the first cavity has a thickness of 0.6 mm to 0.9 mm, and/or the second cavity has a thickness of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm; and/or a distance between the one or more first cavities is at least greater than 7 mm, and/or the one or more first cavities have an interior width of 2.5 mm, 3.5 mm, or 4.5 mm; and/or a liquid path width between the one or more first cavities is 1 mm.
However, Heller teaches a biosensing device for detecting analyte based on electrochemical reaction (abstract, para. 0012). Heller further teaches the device comprises the sample chamber (26) wherein at the bottom of each sample chamber has an electrode (22) modified with a sensing layer (32)(Fig. 4) for detecting a target analyte. Heller further teaches the thickness of the sample chamber is less than about 0.2 mm (para.0076). Heller teaches the thickness is small to promote rapid electrolysis of the analyte, as more of the sample will be in contact with the electrode surface for a given sample volume (para. 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the reaction chambers taught by Lawi less than 0.2 mm as taught by Heller in order to promote rapid electrolysis of the analyte, as more of the sample will be in contact with the electrode surface with a reasonable expectation of success (Heller, para. 0076) (MPEP 2143)(I)(G). In addition, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the reaction chamber thickness to be between 0.1 to 0.2 mm, the portion of modified Lawi’s teaching that corresponds to the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
The teachings of Lawi as modified by Heller yields the second cavity has a thickness between 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm (which is within the range of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm as required by the limitation).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on page 6 of the amendment, the applicant argues that
Applicant’s arguments, see p.7, filed 05/04/2026, with respect to claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The clam objections of 02/05/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.7, filed 05/04/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 02/05/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-8 , filed 05/04/2026, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that claim 1 is patentable over the prior art, because Lawi fails to teach or render obvious all of the features of amended claim 1, in particular, the limitation “before the removable detection card is mounted in the detection area of the in-vitro medical diagnosis device, the removable detection card is free of the calibrating liquid” based on the reason that “the microfluidic cartridge itself already contains the reagents before use, because the reagents are preloaded during the final stages of the microfluidic cartridge assembly.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The removable detection is free of any liquid (including calibrating liquid) before reagents are preloaded into the cartridge during final stages of assembly. This “free-of-liquid” stage of cartridge is before the cartridge being mounting to an in-vitro medical diagnosis device. Furthermore, the reagents that get preloaded into Lawi’s cartridge are not calibrating liquid (p. 2 “Cartridge System”). For these reasons, Lawi teaches the limitation. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicant further argues that claims 2-12 and 21 are patentable over the prior art by virtue of their dependence of claim 1. The argument does not provide any specific supposed errors in the examiner's action, and since Lawi does teach claim 1 as discussed above, this argument is unpersuasive.
For the same reason, the argument, see p. 9, filed 05/04/2026, with regards to withdrawn claims 13-19 is also unpersuasive.
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 MAY CHIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1054. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 571-270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights