CTNF 18/433,250 CTNF 81300 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority The Examiner has reviewed the disclosures of both provisional applications to which the instant application claims priority (60/811,064 and 60/840,060) and finds neither discloses at least the feature of excitation from a location above. Therefore, Vossenaar (cited in the rejection below) qualifies as prior art. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-12, 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vossenaar et al (US 2009/0325164, IDS ref) in view of Balch et al (US 6,083,763, IDS ref) and Xu (US 2006/0088844, IDS ref) . With regard to claim 1, Vossenaar disclosed: (a) providing a biosensor comprising: (i) a solid substrate comprising an array of semiconductor-based optical sensors; See figure 1 and paragraph [0058]: “microelectronic sensor device”. See paragraph [0060]: “On top of the sample chamber SC, a sensor array is disposed consisting of a rectangular arrangement of individual sensor elements SE that are in alignment with the heating elements HE.” See paragraph [0063]: “By including a discrete array of photosensors SE together with a discrete heating array, a fully integrated, "pixilated" system can be obtained. The array of photosensors may be based on CCD or CMOS technology and may in general be positioned below or above the reaction surface RS.” (ii) a molecular recognition layer adjacent to said solid substrate and comprising a plurality of probes corresponding to a plurality of target analytes, See figure 1 and paragraph [0058]: “The bottom wall of the sample chamber SC is formed by a reaction surface RS on which target specific reactants 10 (i.e. hybridization probes in this example) are immobilized.” See paragraph [0063]: “The array of photosensors may be based on CCD or CMOS technology and may in general be positioned below or above the reaction surface RS.” Note that if the SE array in figure 1 were placed below the reaction surface RS, as disclosed in paragraph [0063], the molecular recognition layer would be adjacent to the solid substrate comprising the array of semiconductor-based optical sensors. wherein said plurality of probes comprises different probes corresponding to different target analytes from said plurality of target analytes, See paragraph [0067]: “Each element of this device array is preferably coated with a different nucleic acid probe 10.” wherein said plurality of probes comprise donor fluorophores but do not include quenchers; See paragraph [0058]: “The bottom wall of the sample chamber SC is formed by a reaction surface RS on which target specific reactants 10 (i.e. hybridization probes in this example) are immobilized.” See paragraph [0060]: “The sensor elements SE can measure an observable property of labels 12 that are part of the reactants 10, wherein said property changes if the reaction between the reactant 10 and the corresponding target molecules 20 takes place.” See paragraph [0061]: “Fluorescence light emitted by the labels 12 can be detected by the associated sensor elements SE in a spatially resolved way. If no target substance 20 is present, the measurement of fluorescence allows to verify the distribution and amount of reactants 10 immobilized on the reaction surface RS.” See paragraph [0062]: “The labeled reactants 10 and target specific substances 20 are optionally designed such that the target substance comprises a quencher 24 that stops fluorescence of the labels 12 if the target substance is bound to the reactant. The resulting decline of fluorescence then provides a measure of the amount of bound target substance.” (b) bringing a fluid containing or suspected of containing said plurality of target analytes or derivatives thereof in contact with said molecular recognition layer of said biosensor; See paragraph [0058]: “The device comprises a sample chamber SC in which a sample fluid comprising (biological) target molecules 20 can be provided.” See paragraph [0062]: “The labeled reactants 10 and target specific substances 20 are optionally designed such that the target substance comprises a quencher 24 that stops fluorescence of the labels 12 if the target substance is bound to the reactant. The resulting decline of fluorescence then provides a measure of the amount of bound target substance.” See paragraph [0075]: “…the labeled primer 21 may comprise a quencher instead of a dye molecule (22), so that upon (specific) binding of PCR products to the reaction surface, the fluorescence of the labeled probe 10 is quenched.” (c) directing excitation light…to said molecular recognition layer, See paragraph [0041]: “For fluorescence to be observed, excitation light must be provided…”. See paragraph [0061]: “The fluorescence of these labels is excited with a backlight BL arranged below the (transparent) heating array.” and using said array of semiconductor-based optical sensors to detect signals from said molecular recognition layer by measuring said signals while said fluid is in contact with said solid substrate; See paragraph [0010]: “The described microelectronic sensor device allows to monitor the progress of a reaction between the target specific reactants in the sample chamber and a biological target substance contained in a sample by sensing the observable property of the label.” See paragraph [0043]: “During the progressing reaction between reactant and target specific substance, the fluorescence will then decrease due to the associated quenching of fluorescence. This provides an indirect measure of the amount of reacted target specific substance. The quenching of fluorescence can particularly be achieved if the reactant comprises the label and the target substance comprises a quencher as a functional group.” See paragraph [0062]: “The labeled reactants 10 and target specific substances 20 are optionally designed such that the target substance comprises a quencher 24 that stops fluorescence of the labels 12 if the target substance is bound to the reactant. The resulting decline of fluorescence then provides a measure of the amount of bound target substance.” See paragraph [0065]: “…rapid, real-time detection is possible; all areas within the sample chambers can be monitored continuously and simultaneously.” The language “monitor the progress” (paragraph [0010]) and “monitored continuously” (paragraph [0065]) suggests measuring at multiple time points, and the language “real-time detection” (paragraph [0065]) suggests such measurement takes place while the fluid is in contact with the array. and (d) using said signals to determine a presence or relative amount of said plurality of target analytes. See paragraph [0062]: “The labeled reactants 10 and target specific substances 20 are optionally designed such that the target substance comprises a quencher 24 that stops fluorescence of the labels 12 if the target substance is bound to the reactant. The resulting decline of fluorescence then provides a measure of the amount of bound target substance.” With regard to claim 2, see: Paragraph [0010]: “The described microelectronic sensor device allows to monitor the progress of a reaction between the target specific reactants in the sample chamber and a biological target substance contained in a sample by sensing the observable property of the label.” Paragraph [0043]: “During the progressing reaction between reactant and target specific substance, the fluorescence will then decrease due to the associated quenching of fluorescence. This provides an indirect measure of the amount of reacted target specific substance. The quenching of fluorescence can particularly be achieved if the reactant comprises the label and the target substance comprises a quencher as a functional group.” Paragraph [0062]: “The labeled reactants 10 and target specific substances 20 are optionally designed such that the target substance comprises a quencher 24 that stops fluorescence of the labels 12 if the target substance is bound to the reactant. The resulting decline of fluorescence then provides a measure of the amount of bound target substance.” Paragraph [0065]: “…rapid, real-time detection is possible; all areas within the sample chambers can be monitored continuously and simultaneously.” The language “monitor the progress” (paragraph [0010]) and “monitored continuously” (paragraph [0065]) suggests measuring at multiple time points, and the language “real-time detection” (paragraph [0065]) suggests such measurement takes place while the fluid is in contact with the array. With regard to claim 4, see paragraph [0043]: “During the progressing reaction between reactant and target specific substance, the fluorescence will then decrease due to the associated quenching of fluorescence. This provides an indirect measure of the amount of reacted target specific substance. The quenching of fluorescence can particularly be achieved if the reactant comprises the label and the target substance comprises a quencher as a functional group.” With regard to claim 5, the embodiment discussed by Vossenaar at paragraphs [0043] and [0062] wherein targets labeled with quenchers hybridize to probes labeled with donor fluorophores is a non-competitive interaction. With regard to claim 6, it would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that when Vossenaar stated (paragraph [0067]) that “[e]ach element of this device array is preferably coated with a different nucleic acid probe”, this was for the purpose of hybridizing such probes to correspondingly different targets. With regard to claim 10, Vossenaar disclosed that the target could be prepared by PCR (paragraph [0073]) and disclosed (paragraph [0075]): “…the labeled primer 21 may comprise a quencher instead of a dye molecule (22), so that upon (specific) binding of PCR products to the reaction surface, the fluorescence of the labeled probe 10 is quenched.” With regard to claims 15 and 16, Vossenaar disclosed (paragraph [0067]) that “[e]ach element of this device array is preferably coated with a different nucleic acid probe”. Vossenaar also disclosed (paragraph [0012]): “Binding a target specific reactant to a surface has the advantage that it is immobilized at a defined location and in a defined concentration for optimal access by the sensor component. Moreover, the availability of spatial information allows that different capture probes can be present in the same reaction compartment.” Finally, at paragraph [0082], Vossenaar disclosed: “Using different fluorophores or different locations on the surface allows for multiplexed detection (i.e. detection of different targets).” Thus, it is clear that the individual elements, each having a different probe attached thereto, were “independently addressable”, meaning that binding of one target species at one location of the array could be distinguished from binding of a different target species to a different location of the array. With regard to claim 17 and 18, Vossenaar disclosed targets and probes as being nucleic acids (paragraph [0045]). Vossenaar also disclosed (paragraph [0067]) that “[e]ach element of this device array is preferably coated with a different nucleic acid probe”. With regard to claims 19 and 20, see e.g. paragraph [0075]: “…the labeled primer 21 may comprise a quencher instead of a dye molecule (22), so that upon (specific) binding of PCR products to the reaction surface, the fluorescence of the labeled probe 10 is quenched.” With regard to claim 21, Vossenaar disclosed another embodiment wherein, instead of the probes being labeled only with a fluorophore as in the embodiment of Vossenaar figure 1, a probe which also functions as a primer (“Scorpion primer”) is labeled with a fluorophore and also a PCR stopper which functions as a quencher; see figure 4 and paragraphs [0076]-[0077]. With regard to claim 22, Vossenaar disclosed (paragraph [0025]): “An electrically isolating layer and/or a biocompatible layer may be disposed between the sample chamber and the heating and/or sensor array. Such a layer may for example consist of silicon dioxide SiO 2 or the photoresist SU8.” Silica is silicon dioxide. With regard to claim 1, Vossenaar did not disclose providing excitation light from a position above the array . In fact, Vossenaar only disclosed providing excitation light from a position below the array (e.g. paragraph [0061]). In addition, while Vossenaar used language suggestive of measuring signal at multiple time points while the fluid (containing the target analyte) was in contact with the array (“monitor the progress” (paragraph [0010]); “monitored continuously” (paragraph [0065]); “real-time detection” (paragraph [0065])), Vossenaar did not explicitly disclose, in the particular embodiment where targets bearing quenchers were hybridized to probes bearing fluorophores, that multiple measurements were made while the fluid was in contact with the array. Thus, Vossenaar also did not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 3 and 7, 8, 10 or 11 regarding measurements at multiple time points while the fluid was in contact with the array, or using these multiple data points to determine the amounts of the targets (though Vossenaar clearly disclosed at paragraph [0062] that the decline in fluorescence caused by hybridization of the targets to the probes could be used to determine the amount of the targets). With regard to claim 12, Vossenaar did not teach or suggest an optical coupling in the form of a fiber optic faceplate between the molecular recognition layer and the optical sensors. With regard to the location of the source of excitation light, it is noted that Vossenaar disclosed (paragraph [0063]): “The array of photosensors may be based on CCD or CMOS technology and may in general be positioned below or above the reaction surface RS.” Vossenaar also disclosed (paragraph [0064]): “The photosensors SE and heating elements HE are optionally positioned on top of the same substrate.” Note that if the SE array in figure 1 were placed below the reaction surface RS, as disclosed in paragraph [0063], and on the same substrate as the heating elements HE, as disclosed in paragraph [0064], this would place the sensors between the light source (BL) and the array reaction surface (RS). Balch disclosed a device in which a sensor array was placed below array of reaction chambers, while the excitation source was placed above the array of reaction chambers (figure 9). Balch also disclosed a fiber optic faceplate between the sensor array and the reaction chambers (figure 9), noting (column 28, lines 27-32): “The faceplate provides sensor isolation to accommodate routine cleaning, as well as affording thermal isolation for ultrasensitive detection under cooled sensor operation. Also the optical faceplate can serve to filter excitation radiation by employing selective coatings.” It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device of Vossenaar to place the excitation source above the array, as taught by Balch, in embodiments where the sensors (SE) were placed below the reactive surface (RS) of the array, as discussed by Vossenaar at paragraph [0063]. At a minimum, it would have been obvious since this was a known alternative placement for an excitation source for a sensor array. In addition, such placement would have avoided a possible problem where the sensors themselves might block excitation light if the excitation source were below the sensors, as would be the case if the device of Vossenaar’s figure 1 were modified to place the sensor elements (SE) below the reactive surface (RS) as discussed by Vossenaar at paragraph [0063]. Finally, such placement of the excitation source above the array, as in Balch, would have accommodated a fiber optic faceplate between the reactive surface (RS) and the sensors (SE), which Balch indicated provided some advantages to the sensor, such as permitting routine cleaning and filtering out excitation light by the use of selective coatings. Regarding taking multiple measurements during hybridization of the quencher-labeled targets and the fluorophore-labeled probes while the fluid containing the quencher-labeled targets was in contact with the array, and using those measurements to determine the amount of the targets as recited in claims 1, 3 and 7, 8, 10 and 11, Xu disclosed the concept of performing PCR over an array of probes, similar to what Vossenaar disclosed at paragraphs [0072]-0075] and figure 3. Although Xu’s detection methodology was different (i.e. using a fluorophore-labeled primer and unlabeled probes on the array, with excitation provided by an evanescent wave propagated through the substrate of the array), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the concept of performing PCR in a sample chamber over the array, with real-time detection of the amplicons based on their binding to probes on the array, would have translated to Vossenaar’s device, especially as Vossenaar describes this same concept at paragraph [0073]. Xu taught (paragraph [0027]): “During the annealing and extension phases of the PCR process, the fluorescently-tagged, target amplicons hybridize to their corresponding oligoprobes…By monitoring the strength of the fluorescence at various locations on the substrate surface, the current abundance of amplicons of the corresponding, target DNA can be determined. This may be done in real time as the PCR reaction progresses, and the results used to obtain a quantitative measure of the abundance of a specific target in the original sample, in a manner analogous to the real time PCR calculation.” It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method suggested by the combined disclosures of Vossenaar and Balch by taking multiple measurements of the fluorescence of the probes on the array, i.e. during each annealing and extension phase of the PCR, as discussed by Xu, while the fluid was in contact with the array, and to use such measurements to determine the original amounts of the various targets in the sample, also as discussed by Xu. The only difference is that, instead of measuring an increase in fluorescence at the probe sites, one would measure the decrease in fluorescence at the probe sites, based on Vossenaar’s detection method . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-6, 8, 12 and 14-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,106,839 in view of Balch (US 6,083,763) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because issued claim 12 discloses the features of the instant claim except that: (i) issued claim 12 mentions only “a” target, not a “plurality” of targets; (ii) issued claim 12 mentions probes at “independently addressable locations”, but does not indicate these probes are “different” from one another and correspond to a “plurality” of “different” target analytes; (iii) issued claim 12 does not indicate that the illumination comes from “above” the molecular recognition layer. Additionally, since issued claim 12 does not mention that the plurality of probes are “different” from one another, or correspond to a “plurality” of “different” target analytes, issued claim 12 does not address the limitations of instant claim 6. Additionally, issued claim 12 did not disclose that the optical layer was a fiber-optic faceplate as recited in instant claim 12. Additionally, issued claim 12 did not disclose that the targets analytes were nucleic acids, as recited in instant claims 17 and 18. However, these differences would have been obvious in view of Balch. Balch taught a device (e.g. figure 9) comprising a molecular recognition layer, an optical layer, and an array of detectors. Balch taught that “[t]he multiplexed molecular analysis system of the instant invention is useful for analyzing and quantifying several molecular targets within a sample substance using an array having a plurality of biosites upon which the sample substance is applied” (column 4, line 30). As an example, Balch disclosed “a microplate configured with 15×15 arrays of probe elements in each of 96 wells enables a total of 21,600 nearly simultaneous hybridization analyses, which becomes significant for analyzing gene expression from specific cells” (column 4, line 49). Balch disclosed that an advantage of such a system was high throughput (column 6, line 1), stating: Multiple DNA/RNA probe arrays can be fabricated in the bottom of 96 well microtiter plates which offer the potential of performing 1,536 (96×16) to 21,600 (96×225) hybridization tests per microtiter plate. Each well will contain a probe array of N elements dispensed onto plastic or glass and bonded to the microtiter plate. Moreover, by coupling the microtiter trays to a direct (lensless) CCD proximal/imager, all 1,536 to 21,600 hybridization tests can be quantitatively accessed within seconds at room temperature. Such disclosure renders obvious the modification of the method disclosed by issued claim 12 by analyzing a plurality of at least 10 different target analytes, including nucleic acids, by using a plurality of at least 10 different probes for hybridizing a plurality of different target nucleic acids. One would do this because Balch discloses that performing analyses in high-throughput manner is advantageous, and that nucleic acids were analytes of interest. Balch also disclosed illuminating the molecular recognition layer “from above”; see figure 9. Balch also disclosed that the optical layer between the molecular recognition layer and the sensors could be in the form of a fiber-optic faceplate (figure 9, column 28, lines 25-32), noting: “The faceplate provides sensor isolation to accommodate routine cleaning, as well as affording thermal isolation for ultrasensitive detection under cooled sensor operation. Also the optical faceplate can serve to filter excitation radiation by employing selective coatings.” It would have been obvious to modify the method disclosed by issued claim 12 by illuminating “from above” since Balch disclosed such an arrangement, and to utilize a fiber-optic faceplate as the optical layer since Balch discussed the useful attributes of such a faceplate . 08-36 AIA Claim s 7 and 10-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,106,839 in view of Balch (US 6,083,763, IDS reference) as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 12 and 14-20 above and further in view of Xu (US 2006/0088844, IDS reference) . The disclosures of issued claim 12 and Balch have been discussed. Neither issued claim 12 nor Balch suggested using the measured signals at multiple time points to determine a “concentration” of target analyte (as recited in instant claim 7), or performing an amplification reaction on a plurality of template nucleic acid molecules to create the plurality of target (nucleic acid) analyte molecules and using the signals to detect hybridization (as recited in instant claim 10), or using the hybridization measurement to determine a “concentration” of the target analytes (as recited in instant claim 11). Xu disclosed the concept of performing PCR over an array of probes (abstract): “By measuring the fluorescence at various locations on the substrate surface, the current abundance of hybridized amplicons of each of the target nucleic acids can be determined. The analytic techniques of real time PCR may then be used to obtain accurate, quantitative measurements for each of the nucleic acids in the sample.” Although Xu’s detection methodology was different (i.e. using a fluorophore-labeled primer and unlabeled probes on the array, with excitation provided by an evanescent wave propagated through the substrate of the array), one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the concept of performing PCR in a sample chamber over the array, with real-time detection of the amplicons based on their binding to probes on the array, would be applicable to the method of issued claim 12. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the method of issued claim 12 by incorporating the feature of conducting nucleic acid amplification in a chamber containing the molecular recognition layer, and use the principles discussed by Xu to determine the concentration of nucleic acid target analytes using the hybridization measurements conducted at multiple time points. Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-20 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of US 11,001,881 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘881 claims disclose the limitations of the instant claims, the difference being that the ‘881 claims disclose further details regarding how the control regions lacking probes are used to correct the signals from the regions having probes. Therefore, the ‘881 claims anticipate and thus render obvious the instant claims. Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-20 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US 11,098,345 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘345 claims disclose the limitations of the instant claims, the difference being that the ‘345 claims disclose further details regarding how the control regions lacking probes are used to correct the signals from the regions having probes. Therefore, the ‘345 claims anticipate and thus render obvious the instant claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL C WOOLWINE whose telephone number is (571)272-1144. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm. 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, GARY BENZION can be reached at 571-272-0782. 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. /SAMUEL C WOOLWINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 2 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 3 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 4 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 5 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 6 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 7 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 8 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 9 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 10 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 11 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 12 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 13 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 14 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 15 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 18/433,250 Page 16 Art Unit: 1681
Prosecution Insights