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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) document(s) submitted on 02/15/2024 is compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS document(s) has/have been fully considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because:
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “positioning mechanism” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually, the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Applicant’s recitation of “a positioning mechanism” in claim 1 was not disclosed in the originally filed application. However, the claimed terminology appears to be referring to “tip rack pressing means 119” disclosed in paragraphs [0210-0211] and Figures 24-26 of applicants originally filed disclosure (16/644,753). The examiner requests applicant amend the claim terminology “a positioning mechanism” to “a tip rack pressing means”.
Applicant’s recitation of “a height reference member” in claim 1 was not disclosed in the originally filed application. However, the claimed terminology appears to be referring to “a height reference side 44” disclosed in paragraphs [54-55] and Figures 24-26 of applicant’s originally filed disclosure (16/644,753). The examiner requests applicant amend the claim terminology “a height reference member” to “a height reference side”.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a positioning mechanism configured to position the expendable supply at a predetermined position” in claim 1.
For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the positioning mechanism to be “a plurality of pressing member” and “a plurality of biasing members” as defined by claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 line 21 recites “the inner wall”, line 23 recites “the four corners of the expendable supply”, and lines 27-28 recite “the rolling range of the ball”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms in the claim and it is unclear what applicant is referring to. Perhaps applicant is intending to recite “an inner wall”, “one of four corners of the expendable supply”, and “a rolling range of the ball”? Claims 2-6 are also rejected by their dependency from claim 1. A similar rejection is also made over lines 6, 12, and 22 of claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiyama et al. (US Patent No. 7,360,984 – hereinafter “Sugiyama”), in view of Belz et al. (US 2011/0300620 – hereinafter “Belz”) and further in view of Bouschart et al. (US Patent No. 3,264,866 – hereinafter “Bouschart”).
Regarding claim 1, Sugiyama teach an expendable supply device (Sugiyama; figs. 2-7, #80, col. 5 lines 59-60), comprising:
a table configured to allow an expendable supply to be mounted (Sugiyama; figs. 12-13, #34a, #34b, col. 11 lines 64-67); and
a positioning mechanism configured to position the expendable supply at a predetermined position while moving the table from side to side (Sugiyama; fig. 13, #11, col. 11 line 62 through col. 12 line 9),
wherein the positioning mechanism includes
a height reference member configured to restrict the vertical position of the expendable supply by coming into contact with a portion of the expendable supply from above as the table moves (Sugiyama; figs. 12-13, #29a, #29b, col. 11, lines 45-61).
Sugiyama does not teach the positioning mechanism configured to move the table from a lower side to an upper side, or the positioning mechanism includes a plurality of members supported so as to be movable in the vertical direction, wherein the plurality of members are brought into contact with a respective one of the four corners of the expendable supply from below to hold the expendable supply horizontally by placing them on the plurality of members.
However, Belz teach the analogous art of an expendable supply device (Belz; figs. 39-42; [0047-0050]) comprising an expendable supply (Belz; figs. 26-34, #101, [0195]) and a positioning mechanism configured to move a table from a lower side to an upper side (Belz; teach various motors, gears, belts, cams, shafts, etc. that position table 218, figs. 41-42, #218, [0213, 0218]), wherein the positioning mechanism includes a plurality of members supported so as to be movable in the vertical direction, wherein the plurality of members are brought into contact with a respective one of the four corners of the expendable supply from below to hold the expendable supply horizontally by placing them on the plurality of members (Belz; figs. 41-42, #205, [0212]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the positioning mechanism of Sugiyama to be configured to move the table from a lower side to an upper side and to comprise a plurality of members supported so as to be movable in the vertical direction by bringing the plurality of members into contact with a respective one of the four corners of the expendable supply from below so as to holding the expendable supply horizontally by placing them on the plurality of members, as taught by Belz, because Belz teach the table that moves form a lower side to an upper side and comprises a plurality of members that are brought into contact with the corners of the expendable supply from below, allows the plurality of members to engage with the expendable supply to perform processing (Belz; figs. 41-42, [0212]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Sugiyama and Belz both teach positioning a table around an expendable supply.
Modified Sugiyama does not teach the plurality of member are pressing members, the positioning mechanism includes a plurality of biasing members configured to apply biasing force from below to the plurality of pressing members, and wherein each of the plurality of the pressing members has a bottomed outer peripheral hole that opens upward at the upper end, and has a ball that is smaller than the outer peripheral hole and can roll freely, the ball being arranged in the outer peripheral hole with a gap from the inner wall, bringing the upper surface of the ball into contact with a respective one of the four corners of the expendable supply from below, and holding the expendable supply horizontally by placing them on the ball, wherein the expendable supply is configured to be horizontally moveable with the ball and within the rolling range of the ball in the outer peripheral hole.
However, Bouschart teach the analogous art of a positioning mechanism (Boushchart; fig. 11) wherein the positioning mechanism includes a pressing member (Boushcart; fig. 11, #51, col. 3, lines 34-35), a biasing member configured to apply biasing force from below to the pressing member (Bouschart; fig. 11, #75, col. 5 line 36), and wherein the pressing member has a bottomed outer peripheral hole that opens upward at the upper end (Bouschart; fig. 11, #49, col. 3 lines 33-34), and has a ball that is smaller than the outer peripheral hole and can roll freely (Bouschart; fig. 11, #48, col. 3 lines 33-34), the ball being arranged in the outer peripheral hole with a gap from the inner wall (Bouschart; fig. 11, col. 3 lines 33-34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the positioning mechanism and plurality of members of modified Sugiyama with the pressing member, as taught by Bouschart, because Bouschart teach the pressing member comprising the biasing member and bottomed outer peripheral hold that holds a ball allows sliding engagement with a pin 46 and rollers 45 using a slot 42 (Bouschart; col. 3 lines 30-35). NOTE: The modification would thus result in bringing the upper surface of the ball into contact with a respective one of the four corners of the expendable supply from below, and holding the expendable supply horizontally by placing them on the ball, wherein the expendable supply is configured to be horizontally moveable with the ball and within the rolling range of the ball in the outer peripheral hole. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Sugiyama and Bouschart both teach engaging a surface using a movable member.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sugiyama teach the expendable supply device according to claim 1, wherein the pressing members further include a central hole that is formed in the center of the bottom surface of the outer peripheral hole and is smaller than a diameter of the ball, and wherein the ball is configured to be mounted in the central hole when released from contact with the expendable supply (The modification of the positioning mechanism and plurality of members of modified Sugiyama with the pressing member, as taught by Bouschart, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Bouschart teach socket 49 tapers inward to form a central hole that is smaller in diameter than a diameter of the ball 48 so that the ball can be mounted in the central hole and would be configured to remain in the central hold when released from contact with the expendable supply; fig. 11, col. 3 lines 33-34).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sugiyama teach the expendable supply device according to claim 1 above, further comprising: a pair of positioning bearings provided along one side of the expendable supply in the horizontal direction in order to contact the one side of the expendable supply when the expendable supply is mounted on the table (Sugiyama; fig. 13, #30b, #30c, col. 11 lines 36-44); and a positioning facing bearing supported by springs on the other side of the expendable supply in the horizontal direction in order to contact the center of the other side of the expendable supply and to press the expendable supply towards the pair of positioning bearings when the expendable supply is mounted on the table (Sugiyama; fig. 13, #30a, col. 11 lines 36-44).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sugiyama teach the expendable supply device according to claim 2 above, further comprising: a pair of positioning bearings provided along one side of the expendable supply in the horizontal direction in order to contact the one side of the expendable supply when the expendable supply is mounted on the table (Sugiyama; fig. 13, #30b, #30c, col. 11 lines 36-44); and a positioning facing bearing supported by springs on the other side of the expendable supply in the horizontal direction in order to contact the center of the other side of the expendable supply and to press the expendable supply towards the pair of positioning bearings when the expendable supply is mounted on the table (Sugiyama; fig. 13, #30a, col. 11 lines 36-44).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sugiyama teach an automated analyzing device (Sugiyama; fig. 1, #100, col. 4 lines 4-12), comprising: a reagent vessel container that is capable of holding a plurality of reagent vessels containing a reagent used for analysis (Sugiyama; fig. 1, #53, #67, col. 5 lines 33-35); an analysis means that performs a predetermined analysis by dispensing a sample and a reagent to be analyzed (Sugiyama; fig. 1, #57, col. 5 lines 45-51]); and an expendable supply device according to claim 1 that supplies an expendable used for analysis of the sample (The expendable supply device according to claim 1 has already been discussed above. Sugiyama; fig. 1, #80, col. 4 lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sugiyama teach an automated analyzing device (Sugiyama; fig. 1, #100, col. 4 lines 4-12), comprising: a reagent vessel container that is capable of holding a plurality of reagent vessels containing a reagent used for analysis (Sugiyama; fig. 1, #53, #67, col. 5 lines 33-35); an analysis means that performs a predetermined analysis by dispensing a sample and a reagent to be analyzed (Sugiyama; fig. 1, #57, col. 5 lines 45-51]); and an expendable supply device according to claim 2 that supplies an expendable used for analysis of the sample (The expendable supply device according to claim 2 has already been discussed above. Sugiyama; fig. 1, #80, col. 4 lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 7, Sugiyama teach an expendable supply method for positioning an expendable at a predetermined position while moving a table from side to side, the table allowing an expendable supply to be mounted (Sugiyama; figs. 2-7 & 12-13, #80, #34a. #34b, col. 5 line 59-61, col. 11 lines 64-67), the method comprising:
a step of arranging the table (Sugiyama; fig. 13, #11, col. 11 line 62 through col. 12 line 9),
a step of restricting the vertical position of the expendable by bringing a height reference member into contact with a portion of the expendable supply from above as the table moves (Sugiyama; figs. 12-13, #29a, #29b, col. 11, lines 45-61).
Sugiyama does not teach moving the table from a lower side to an upper side, or arranging a plurality of members supported so as to be movable in the vertical direction with respect to the table, wherein the plurality of members are brought into contact with a respective one of the four corners of the expendable supply from below to hold the expendable supply horizontally by placing them on the plurality of members.
However, Belz teach the analogous art of an expendable supply method for positioning an expendable (Belz; figs. 39-42; [0047-0050]) comprising an expendable supply (Belz; figs. 26-34, #101, [0195]) and positioning a table from a lower side to an upper side (Belz teach various motors, gears, belts, cams, shafts, etc. that position table 218; figs. 41-42, #218, [0213, 0218]), wherein the positioning includes a plurality of members supported so as to be movable in the vertical direction, wherein the plurality of members are brought into contact with a respective one of the four corners of the expendable supply from below to hold the expendable supply horizontally by placing them on the plurality of members (Belz; figs. 41-42, #205, [0212]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Sugiyama to be configured to move the table from a lower side to an upper side and to comprise a plurality of members supported so as to be movable in the vertical direction by bringing the plurality of members into contact with a respective one of the four corners of the expendable supply from below so as to holding the expendable supply horizontally by placing them on the plurality of members, as taught by Belz, because Belz teach the table that moves form a lower side to an upper side and comprises a plurality of members that are brought into contact with the corners of the expendable supply from below, allows the plurality of members to engage with the expendable supply to perform processing (Belz; figs. 41-42, [0212]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Sugiyama and Belz both teach positioning a table around an expendable supply.
Modified Sugiyama does not teach the plurality of member are pressing members, applying a biasing force from below to the plurality of pressing members, and arranging each of the plurality of the pressing members so that a ball in a bottomed outer peripheral hole with a gap from the inner wall, the outer peripheral hole opening upward at the upper end, wherein the ball is smaller than the outer peripheral hole and can roll freely, the ball being arranged in the outer peripheral hole with a gap from the inner wall, bringing the upper surface of the ball into contact with a respective one of the four corners of the expendable supply from below, and holding the expendable supply horizontally by placing them on the ball, wherein the expendable supply is configured to be horizontally moveable with the ball and within the rolling range of the ball in the outer peripheral hole.
However, Bouschart teach the analogous art of a method arranging a member configured to apply a biasing force (Boushchart; fig. 11) wherein the method includes a pressing member (Boushcart; fig. 11, #51, col. 3, lines 34-35), a biasing member configured to apply biasing force from below to the pressing member (Bouschart; fig. 11, #75, col. 5 line 36), and wherein the pressing member has a bottomed outer peripheral hole that opens upward at the upper end (Bouschart; fig. 11, #49, col. 3 lines 33-34), and has a ball that is smaller than the outer peripheral hole and can roll freely (Bouschart; fig. 11, #48, col. 3 lines 33-34), the ball being arranged in the outer peripheral hole with a gap from the inner wall (Bouschart; fig. 11, col. 3 lines 33-34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the positioning mechanism and plurality of members of modified Sugiyama with the pressing member, as taught by Bouschart, because Bouschart teach the pressing member comprising the biasing member and bottomed outer peripheral hold that holds a ball allows sliding engagement with a pin 46 and rollers 45 using a slot 42 (Bouschart; col. 3 lines 30-35). NOTE: The modification would thus result in bringing the upper surface of the ball into contact with a respective one of the four corners of the expendable supply from below, and holding the expendable supply horizontally by placing them on the ball, wherein the expendable supply is configured to be horizontally moveable with the ball and within the rolling range of the ball in the outer peripheral hole. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Sugiyama and Bouschart both teach engaging a surface using a movable member.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure include:
Marouiss et al. (US 2001/0048899) disclose an expendable supply table that moves horizontally and vertically.
Liston (US Patent No. 3,748,044) disclose a positioning mechanism comprising a pressing member and biasing member that push upward on the bottom surface of a platform.
Zeiters (US Patent No. 3,763,695) disclose pressing members configured to apply a biasing force in the event of irregularities or distortions on a surface.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jill Warden can be reached on 571-272-1267. 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
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798