DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendments filed 09/15/2025 have been entered. Applicant amendments overcomes the previous claim objection and 112(b) rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 04/16/2025, the previous claim objection and 112(b) rejection are withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 6, 26-35 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 26-35 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.
Claim 26 recites “a piezoelectric substrate” on line 9, where it is unclear if this is the same or different from the piezoelectric substrate described on line 6.
For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same piezoelectric sensor.
Claims 31-35 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 27 recites “for the detection of a different targeted compound.” on lines 4-5, where it is unclear if the different targeted compound is the same or different from the volatile organic compounds described in claim 6. In other words, does the different targeted compound have to be a volatile organic compound, or could it be any other type of compound?
To make it clear that the targeted compound is also a VOC, it is suggested to amend claim 27 to recite “for the detection of a different VOC target molecule
Claims 28-30 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 28 recites “the one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors and the one or more references sensors” on lines 2-3, where this is unclear because claim 28 is dependent on claim 27 and claim 27 recites “a plurality of the one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors and a plurality of the one or more reference sensors” on lines 1-3.
For examination, it will be interpreted that claim 28 is referring to the plurality of sensors.
Claims 29-30 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 29 recites “the piezoelectric sensor” on line 1, where it is unclear what piezoelectric sensor is being referred to, as claim 6 describes a piezoelectric sensor for the one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors, and a piezoelectric sensor for the one or more reference sensors.
For examination, it will be interpreted that there is a single piezoelectric sensor.
Claims 30 is rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 32 recites “for the detection of a different targeted compound.” on lines 4-5, where it is unclear if the different targeted compound is the same or different from the volatile organic compounds described in claim 26. In other words, does the different targeted compound have to be a volatile organic compound, or could it be any other type of compound?
To make it clear that the targeted compound is also a VOC, it is suggested to amend claim 32 to recite “for the detection of a different VOC target molecule
Claims 33-35 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 33 recites “the one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors and the one or more references sensors” on lines 2-3, where this is unclear because claim 33 is dependent on claim 32 and claim 32 recites “a plurality of the one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors and a plurality of the one or more reference sensors” on lines 1-3.
For examination, it will be interpreted that claim 33 is referring to the plurality of sensors.
Claims 34-35 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 34 recites “the piezoelectric sensor” on line 1, where it is unclear what piezoelectric sensor is being referred to, as claim 26 describes a piezoelectric sensor for the one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors, and a piezoelectric sensor for the one or more reference sensors.
Please see the interpretation of claim 26 above is that there is only one piezoelectric sensor.
Claim 35 is rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim 35 recites “are markers for disease.” on lines 1-2, where it is unclear if this disease is the same or different from the disease described on line 2 of claim 31.
For examination, it will be interpreted that they are the same disease.
It is suggested to amend claim 35 to recite “are markers for the disease.”
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 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.
Claim(s) 6, 26, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickert et al., "QCM and SAW Transducers Allow Analyte Detection From nanometer to micrometer dimensions using imprinting techniques", herein Dickert, in view of Sun (US-2019/0313944-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Dickert teaches a modular sensor array for detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from exhaled breath comprising:
i. one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors comprising a polymer film (molecular imprinted polymer (MIP)) molecularly imprinted with a target molecule (desired analyte) and coated on a piezoelectric sensor (piezoelectric substrate) having a frequency sensitive to binding with the said target molecule (desired analyte) (page 528 column 1 mass-sensitive transducers section see quartz and see the frequency of the vibrations corresponds to mass loading, page 528 column 2 sensitive coating section see MIPs are produced by polymerization of carefully selected monomers around a template, the desired analyte, Figure 3), and
ii. one or more reference sensors (non-imprinted reference) comprising a non-imprinted polymer film coated on a piezoelectric sensor (piezoelectric substrate) for measuring a change in the frequency (page 529 see mass-sensitive measurement in aqueous phases section where it is seen in Figure 3 that there is a dual electrode QCM with a reference electrode (coated with non-imprinted polymer) and a sensitive electrode (honeycomb-like imprints) so the differential measurement can now be performed and unspecific adsorption phenomena can be eliminated during QCM measurements);
wherein, the modular sensor array is configured to quantify the difference between the frequency of the one or more MIP coated piezoelectric sensors and the frequency of the one or more reference sensors to determine a concentration of the target molecule (page 529 column 1 see where the amount of receptor sites for small organic molecules allows detection limits down to the ppb range. Page 529 column 2 see mass-sensitive measurement in aqueous phases section where there is the dual electrode QCM with reference and sensitive electrode so the differential measurement can now be performed and unspecific adsorption phenomena can be eliminated during QCM measurements. It is understood that the frequencies of the imprinted and non-imprinted sensors are being compared to determine concentration (ppb being a concentration) of the desired analyte).
While Dickert does teach possible template materials to include whole cells or small organic molecules (Dickert; page 529), Dickert does not teach a volatile organic compound target molecule.
In the analogous art of molecularly imprinted polymers, Sun teaches detection of one or more analytes in a sample such as a breath sample (Sun; abstract, [0005]).
Specifically, Sun teaches where molecular imprinting is a technique to polymerize around a template molecule and remove the template after polymerization that leaves cavities with the exact size and shape of the template in the polymer matrix, where elements include: the target molecule (or template) that corresponds to the analyte to be sensed, the functional monomer, and the cross-linking agent (Sun; [0145]). [0084] of Sun describes where one or more analytes are associated with a disease or condition, where devices with MIPs selective for one or more disease can be used as a diagnostic device to detect analytes associated with the particular disease or condition, where a potential source of analytes includes the breath. [0082] of Sun describes where one or more analytes include volatile organic compounds that includes ethanol, and [0097] of Sun describes where the disease is diabetes and an analyte is ethanol.
It is noted that while not required, Sun describes toluene ([0089], [0094]), pentanal ([0089]), octanal ([0089]), hexanal ([0080], [0089], [0096]), nonanal ([0089], heptanal ([0089]), acetone ([0089], [0097]), as possible analytes for various diseases/conditions.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the MIP of Dickert such that it is imprinted with ethanol as taught by Sun because Sun teaches that ethanol is an effective template used in MIPs and that it is desirable to detect ethanol for detection of diabetes (Sun; [0097]).
Note the limitation “for detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Dickert and the apparatus of modified Dickert is capable of detecting VOCs in exhaled breath. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Dickert (see MPEP §2114).
Further, please note that the exhaled breath has not been positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a part of the modular sensor array.
Regarding claim 26, Dickert teaches a breath analyzer device comprising a modular sensor array for detection of disease-specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from exhaled breath, the modular sensor array comprising:
one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors, each comprising a polymer film matrix (molecular imprinted polymer (MIP)) molecularly imprinted with a target molecule (desired analyte) and coated on a piezoelectric substrate (piezoelectric substrate), wherein the resonant frequency of the sensor is sensitive to binding with the target molecule (page 528 column 1 mass-sensitive transducers section see quartz and see the frequency of the vibrations corresponds to mass loading, page 528 column 2 sensitive coating section see MIPs are produced by polymerization of carefully selected monomers around a template, the desired analyte, Figure 3); and
one or more reference sensors (non-imprinted reference) comprising a non-imprinted polymer film coated on a piezoelectric substrate (piezoelectric substrate) (page 529 see mass-sensitive measurement in aqueous phases section where it is seen in Figure 3 that there is a dual electrode QCM with a reference electrode (coated with non-imprinted polymer) and a sensitive electrode (honeycomb-like imprints));
wherein the modular sensor array is configured to quantify the difference between the frequency response of the one or more MIP coated piezoelectric sensors and that of the one or more reference sensors to determine the concentration of the target molecule (desired analyte) in the exhaled breath (page 529 column 1 see where the amount of receptor sites for small organic molecules allows detection limits down to the ppb range. Page 529 column 2 see mass-sensitive measurement in aqueous phases section where there is the dual electrode QCM with reference and sensitive electrode so the differential measurement can now be performed and unspecific adsorption phenomena can be eliminated during QCM measurements. It is understood that the frequencies of the imprinted and non-imprinted sensors are being compared to determine concentration (ppb being a concentration) of the desired analyte).
While Dickert does teach possible template materials to include whole cells or small organic molecules (Dickert; page 529), Dickert does not teach a volatile organic compound target molecule.
In the analogous art of molecularly imprinted polymers, Sun teaches detection of one or more analytes in a sample such as a breath sample (Sun; abstract, [0005]).
Specifically, Sun teaches where molecular imprinting is a technique to polymerize around a template molecule and remove the template after polymerization that leaves cavities with the exact size and shape of the template in the polymer matrix, where elements include: the target molecule (or template) that corresponds to the analyte to be sensed, the functional monomer, and the cross-linking agent (Sun; [0145]). [0084] of Sun describes where one or more analytes are associated with a disease or condition, where devices with MIPs selective for one or more disease can be used as a diagnostic device to detect analytes associated with the particular disease or condition, where a potential source of analytes includes the breath. [0082] of Sun describes where one or more analytes include volatile organic compounds that includes ethanol, and [0097] of Sun describes where the disease is diabetes and an analyte is ethanol.
It is noted that while not required, Sun describes toluene ([0089], [0094]), pentanal ([0089]), octanal ([0089]), hexanal ([0080], [0089], [0096]), nonanal ([0089], heptanal ([0089]), acetone ([0089], [0097]), as possible analytes for various diseases/conditions.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the MIP of Dickert such that it is imprinted with ethanol as taught by Sun because Sun teaches that ethanol is an effective template used in MIPs and that it is desirable to detect ethanol for detection of diabetes (Sun; [0097]).
Note the limitation “for detection of disease-specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from exhaled breath,” is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Dickert and the apparatus of modified Dickert is capable of detecting disease-specific VOCs in exhaled breath. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Dickert (see MPEP §2114).
Further, please note that the exhaled breath has not been positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a part of the breath analyzer.
Regarding claim 31, modified Dickert teaches the breath analyzer device of claim 26. The limitations of claim 31 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Dickert and the apparatus of modified Dickert is capable of detecting a disease and capable of allowing the sensor array to be swapped out with other sensor arrays, and is capable of detecting different diseases. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Dickert (see MPEP §2114).
[0082] of Sun describes where an analyte is ethanol and [0097] of Sun describes that the disease is diabetes and an analyte is ethanol. Sun further describes toluene ([0089], [0094]), pentanal ([0089]), octanal ([0089]), hexanal ([0080], [0089], [0096]), nonanal ([0089], heptanal ([0089]), acetone ([0089], [0097]), as possible analytes for various diseases/conditions. While ethanol was a selected analyte to be detected, one skilled in the art would recognize that any of the target analytes of Sun would be capable of being used to detect different diseases.
Claim(s) 27-30, 32-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickert et al., "QCM and SAW Transducers Allow Analyte Detection From nanometer to micrometer dimensions using imprinting techniques", herein Dickert, and Sun (US-2019/0313944-A1), and in further view of Belbruno (US-2010/0039124-A1).
Regarding claim 27, modified Dickert teaches the modular sensor array of claim 6. Dickert teaches a QCM that has a reference electrode (coated with non-imprinted polymer) and sensitive electrode (honeycomb-like imprints) that has been modified by Sun so the MIP is imprinted with ethanol. It is further noted that Sun teaches a variety of different analytes for various diseases/conditions (Sun; toluene ([0089], [0094]), pentanal ([0089]), octanal ([0089]), hexanal ([0080], [0089], [0096]), nonanal ([0089], heptanal ([0089]), acetone ([0089], [0097]).
However, Dickert does not teach comprising a plurality of the one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors and a plurality of the one or more reference sensors; and wherein each of the plurality of molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors are specific for the detection of a different targeted compound.
In the same problem solving area of detecting target molecules using molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs), Belbruno teaches an array of MIP sensors (Belbruno; abstract, [0018]).
Specifically, Belbruno teaches a sensor array 300 that includes a plurality of MIP sensors 100 and optionally one or more non-imprinted reference polymer sensors, that are arranged in a pattern such that the relative positions of the MIP sensors within the array or pattern correlate with their identities, i.e., the identities of the target molecules used to create them (Belbruno; [0018]). It is further described by [0018] of Belbruno that the entire array may comprise unique sensors, or may include redundant sensors depending on the application.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the QCM of modified Dickert such that there is an array of unique QCM sensors as taught by Belbruno because Belbruno teaches that an array of unique sensors can detect different target molecules (Belbruno; [0018]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the QCM of modified Dickert such that it is an array of unique QCM sensors as taught by Belbruno because it is taught by Sun that devices comprising MIPs selective for one or more disease-or condition-associated analytes can be used as diagnostic devices to detect analytes associated with a particular disease or condition to thereby diagnose a subject having the disease or condition (Sun; [0084]).
There will now be a plurality of QCM sensors (see Figure 3 of Dickert), where each of the sensors will be unique to a different analyte as taught by Belbruno.
Sun teaches a variety of different analytes associated with a disease or condition where the devices with MIPs can be selective for one or more diseases can be used as a diagnostic device (Sun; [0084]). One skilled in the art would find it obvious that the other analytes described by Sun (toluene ([0089], [0094]), pentanal ([0089]), octanal ([0089]), hexanal ([0080], [0089], [0096]), nonanal ([0089], heptanal ([0089]), acetone ([0089], [0097]) may be used in addition to ethanol to create the array of unique QCM sensors.
Regarding claim 28, modified Dickert teaches the modular sensor array of claim 27. The limitations of claim 28 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Dickert and the apparatus of modified Dickert is capable of having the exhaled breath traveling through the one or more MIP coated piezoelectric sensors and one or more reference sensors in-series. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Dickert (see MPEP §2114).
Further, please note that the exhaled breath has not been positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a part of the modular sensor array.
Regarding claim 29, modified Dickert teaches the modular sensor array of claim 28. Dickert further teaches wherein the piezoelectric sensor is a quartz crystal microbalance (Dickert; see Figure 3 which shows a QCM).
Regarding claim 30, modified Dickert teaches the modular sensor array of claim 29. The desired analyte of Dickert has been modified to be ethanol as taught by Sun, where ethanol is an analyte for diabetes (Sun; [0082]). Further, Sun describes toluene ([0089], [0094]), pentanal ([0089]), octanal ([0089]), hexanal ([0080], [0089], [0096]), nonanal ([0089], heptanal ([0089]), acetone ([0089], [0097]), as possible analytes for various diseases/conditions.
Regarding claim 32, modified Dickert teaches the breath analyzer device of claim 31. Dickert teaches a QCM that has a reference electrode (coated with non-imprinted polymer) and sensitive electrode (honeycomb-like imprints) that has been modified by Sun so the MIP is imprinted with ethanol. It is further noted that Sun teaches a variety of different analytes for various diseases/conditions (Sun; toluene ([0089], [0094]), pentanal ([0089]), octanal ([0089]), hexanal ([0080], [0089], [0096]), nonanal ([0089], heptanal ([0089]), acetone ([0089], [0097]).
However Dickert does not teach comprising a plurality of the one or more molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors and a plurality of the one or more reference sensors; and wherein each of the plurality of molecularly imprinted polymer (MIP) coated piezoelectric sensors are each specific for the detection of a different targeted compound.
In the same problem solving area of detecting target molecules using molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs), Belbruno teaches an array of MIP sensors (Belbruno; abstract, [0018]).
Specifically, Belbruno teaches a sensor array 300 that includes a plurality of MIP sensors 100 and optionally one or more non-imprinted reference polymer sensors, that are arranged in a pattern such that the relative positions of the MIP sensors within the array or pattern correlate with their identities, i.e., the identities of the target molecules used to create them (Belbruno; [0018]). It is further described by [0018] of Belbruno that the entire array may comprise unique sensors, or may include redundant sensors depending on the application.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the QCM of modified Dickert such that there is an array of unique QCM sensors as taught by Belbruno because Belbruno teaches that an array of unique sensors can detect different target molecules (Belbruno; [0018]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the QCM of modified Dickert such that it is an array of unique QCM sensors as taught by Belbruno because it is taught by Sun that devices comprising MIPs selective for one or more disease-or condition-associated analytes can be used as diagnostic devices to detect analytes associated with a particular disease or condition to thereby diagnose a subject having the disease or condition (Sun; [0084]).
There will now be a plurality of QCM sensors (see Figure 3 of Dickert), where each of the sensors will be unique to a different analyte as taught by Belbruno.
Sun teaches a variety of different analytes associated with a disease or condition where the devices with MIPs can be selective for one or more diseases can be used as a diagnostic device (Sun; [0084]). One skilled in the art would find it obvious that the other analytes described by Sun (toluene ([0089], [0094]), pentanal ([0089]), octanal ([0089]), hexanal ([0080], [0089], [0096]), nonanal ([0089], heptanal ([0089]), acetone ([0089], [0097]) may be used in addition to ethanol to create the array of unique QCM sensors.
Regarding claim 33, modified Dickert teaches the breath analyzer device of claim 32. The limitations of claim 33 are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by modified Dickert and the apparatus of modified Dickert is capable of having the exhaled breath traveling through the one or more MIP coated piezoelectric sensors and one or more reference sensors in-series. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Dickert (see MPEP §2114).
Further, please note that the exhaled breath has not been positively recited in the claim, and is therefore not a part of the breath analyzer device.
Regarding claim 34, modified Dickert teaches the breath analyzer device of claim 33. Dickert further teaches wherein the piezoelectric sensor is a quartz crystal microbalance (Dickert; see Figure 3 which shows a QCM).
Regarding claim 35, modified Dickert teaches the breath analyzer device of claim 34. The desired analyte of Dickert has been modified to be ethanol as taught by Sun, where ethanol is an analyte for diabetes (Sun; [0082]). Further, Sun describes toluene ([0089], [0094]), pentanal ([0089]), octanal ([0089]), hexanal ([0080], [0089], [0096]), nonanal ([0089], heptanal ([0089]), acetone ([0089], [0097]), as possible analytes for various diseases/conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claim and arguments, see page 6, filed 09/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dickert et al., "QCM and SAW Transducers Allow Analyte Detection From nanometer to micrometer dimensions using imprinting techniques" and Sun (US-2019/0313944-A1).
Sun was previously used in the Office Action mailed 04/16/2025.
In response to applicant's argument on page 8 that Sun utilizes resistance measurements and does not teach a piezoelectric sensor, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In other words, Sun is being used for the teaching of the different analytes that can be used in a MIP, not for the resistance measurements or piezoelectric sensor.
In response to the experimental trials provided on page 9 of the remarks, please see MPEP 716.01(c)II which states that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor.
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 SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571) 272-7129. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/ELIZABETH A ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1796