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
The Amendment filed on 7/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-30 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the non-final Office Action mailed 4/9/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2018/0161019, hereinafter Donovan.
Donovan teaches a device for collection of fluid samples (figures 20-22), comprising: an elongated supporting structure (item 340), a fluid collection region (item 342) disposed at or near a distal end of the elongated supporting structure (figures 20-22) and including an absorbent material configured to collect fluids that are placed in contact with the absorbent material (paragraph [0106]); and a protrusion (item 348) disposed near a proximal end of the elongated supporting structure (figures 20-22), which is at an opposite end of the elongated supporting structure from the distal end (figures 20-22); wherein the fluid collection device includes an angled section (the curve of item 340 as seen in figure 22) above the absorbent material (figures 20-22), the angled section including sloped edges that are sloped downward in a direction toward the proximal end (figures 20-22).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 10-12, 14-17, 19, 20, 25-27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2014/0243706, hereinafter Fahmawi in view of United States Application Publication No. 2011/0239793, hereinafter Ohtsuka.
Regarding claim 1, Fahmawi teaches a device for collection of fluid samples (item 10), comprising: a fluid collection device (item 146), including: an elongated supporting structure (the upper portion of item 146), and a fluid collection region (item 146a) disposed at or near a distal end of the elongated supporting structure (figure 8) and including an absorbent material configured to collect fluids that are placed in contact with the absorbent material (paragraph [0048]); a holding and expelling component (item 14), including: a base structure (item 102) having an outer surface configured to contact a sidewall of a sample collection container (figure 7), thereby securing the holding and expelling component in the sample collection container (paragraph [0048]); a first extension tab (item 118) extending from a first side of a top portion of the base structure to a first end portion of the first extension tab (figures 6 and 7); and a second extension tab (item 122) extending from a second side of a top portion of the base structure to a second end portion of the second extension tab (figure 6 and 7); wherein the first end portion and second end portion are arranged to form a gap therebetween (figures 6 and 7), the gap sized to receive a proximal end of the elongated supporting structure to hold the elongated supporting structure (paragraph [0048]); and a sample collection container (item 18).
Fahmawi fails to teach the base structure is configured to be removably attachable to the sample collection container.
Ohtsuka teaches a sample collection device with an extraction vessel with a narrowed opening where the swab goes through with the valve member (expelling component) have a screw-type body to allow for the connecting of the valve member with the collection container (paragraph [0112] and figures 8A and 8B).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., the expelling component is screwed onto the sample container) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., the expelling component is adhered onto the sample container) with other component(s) (i.e., the expelling component being screwed onto the sample container), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., the expelling component being adhered onto with being screwed onto the sample container), and the results of the substitution (i.e., holding the expelling component on the device) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the expelling component is adhered onto the sample container of reference Fahmawi with the expelling component being screwed onto the sample container of reference Ohtsuka, since the result would have been predictable. Making the expelling component screwed onto the sample collection container would make the base structure removably attachable to the sample collection container.
Regarding claim 3, Fahmawi teaches wherein the first extension tab and the second extension tab are formed of a semi rigid material (paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 4, Fahmawi teaches wherein the semi rigid material allows flexion of the first extension tab and second extension tab to apply force to a portion of the elongated supporting structure when the elongated supporting structure is placed in the gap (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 5, Fahmawi teaches wherein the gap is sized to allow the elongated supporting structure to move upward through the holding and expelling member (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and depends upon the size of the elongated supporting structure and is taught in paragraphs [0048]-[0049]), thereby applying compressive forces to sides of the fluid collection region as the fluid collection region is pulled through the gap (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 10, Fahmawi and Ohtsuka teach all limitations of claim 1; however, they failto specifically teach that the first end portion of the first extension tab and the second end portion of the second extension tab are substantially parallel such that the gap is substantially linear.
Fahmawi further teaches that the shape of the legs can be different and the number of the legs can be greater or fewer than the three legs described in the drawings to achieve maximum sample retrieval (paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum shape and number of legs to two legs which would allow for the maximum sample retrieval (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)). In using two legs and changing the shape of the legs, the first end portion of the first extension tab and the second end portion of the second extension tab are substantially parallel such that the gap is substantially linear.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Fahmawi and Ohtsuka teach limitations of claim 10; however, they fail to specifically teach the gap is between about 0.05 mm and 2 mm in width.
Fahmawi teaches that the opening of the insert is size for the maximum sample retrieval (paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the gap to be between 0.05-2 mm which would allow for the maximum sample retrieval (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 14, Fahmawi teaches a device for collection of fluid samples (item 10), comprising: a fluid collection device (item 146), including: an elongated supporting structure (the upper portion of item 146), and a fluid collection region (item 146a) disposed at or near a distal end of the elongated supporting structure (figure 8) and including an absorbent material configured to collect fluids that are placed in contact with the absorbent material (paragraph [0048]); a holding and expelling component (item 14), including: a base structure (item 102) having an outer surface configured to contact a sidewall of a sample collection container (figure 7), thereby securing the holding and expelling component in the sample collection container (paragraph [0048]); extension regions (items 118, 122 and 126) extending from the base structure and forming a holding and expelling portion (figures 7 and 8), the holding and expelling portion configured to support a distal end of the elongated supporting structure (paragraph [0049]), and upon pulling the fluid collection device through the holding and expelling portion, applying compressive force to the fluid collection region to cause expulsion of a desired amount of fluid from the absorbent material (paragraph [0049]); and a sample collection container (item 18); wherein the extension regions extend from the base structure in a direction extending away from the sample collection container (figure 7, the extension regions extend a least partially away from the sample collection container.
Fahmawi fails to teach the extension regions are configured to be disposed outside of the sample collection container.
Ohtsuka teaches a sample collection device with an extraction vessel with a narrowed opening where the swab goes through with the valve member (expelling component) have a screw-type body to allow for the connecting of the valve member with the collection container (paragraph [0112] and figures 8A and 8B).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., the expelling component is screwed onto the sample container) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., the expelling component is adhered onto the sample container) with other component(s) (i.e., the expelling component being screwed onto the sample container), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., the expelling component being adhered onto with being screwed onto the sample container), and the results of the substitution (i.e., holding the expelling component on the device) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the expelling component is adhered onto the sample container of reference Fahmawi with the expelling component being screwed onto the sample container of reference Ohtsuka, since the result would have been predictable. The claim does not state at what point the extension regions are configured to be disposed outside of the sample collection container and therefore, in making the expelling component screwed onto the sample collection container would make the base structure removably attachable to the sample collection container and therefore when the expelling component is not installed on the sample collection container, the extension regions are disposed outside of the sample collection container.
Regarding claim 15, these limitations 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 Fahmawi and the apparatus of Fahmawi is capable of having the desired amount of fluid comprise at least 30% of the fluid. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Fahmawi (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 16, these limitations 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 Fahmawi and the apparatus of Fahmawi is capable of having the desired amount of fluid comprise at least 40% of the fluid. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Fahmawi (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 17, these limitations 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 Fahmawi and the apparatus of Fahmawi is capable of having the desired amount of fluid comprise at least 50% of the fluid. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Fahmawi (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 19, Fahmawi teaches wherein extension regions are formed of a semi rigid material (paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 20, Fahmawi teaches wherein the semi rigid material allows flexion of the extension regions to apply force to a portion of the elongated supporting structure when the elongated supporting structure is placed in the gap (paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claim 25, Fahmawi and Ohtsuka teach all limitations of claim 14; however, they fail to specifically teach that the first end portion of the first extension tab and the second end portion of the second extension tab are substantially parallel such that the gap is substantially linear.
Fahmawi further teaches that the shape of the legs can be different and the number of the legs can be greater or fewer than the three legs described in the drawings to achieve maximum sample retrieval (paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum shape and number of legs to two legs which would allow for the maximum sample retrieval (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)). In using two legs and changing the shape of the legs, the first end portion of the first extension tab and the second end portion of the second extension tab are substantially parallel such that the gap is substantially linear.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Fahmawi and Ohtsuka teach all limitations of claim 25; however, they fail to specifically teach the gap is between about 0.05 mm and 2 mm in width.
Fahmawi teaches that the opening of the insert is size for the maximum sample retrieval (paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the gap to be between 0.05-2 mm which would allow for the maximum sample retrieval (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 30, Fahmawi teaches a device for holding and expelling of fluid samples from a collection device (item 14), comprising: a holding and expelling component (item 14), including: a base structure (item 102) having an outer surface configured to contact a sidewall of a sample collection container (figure 7), thereby securing the holding and expelling component in the sample collection container (paragraph [0048]); a first extension tab (item 118) extending from a first side of a top portion of the base structure to a first end portion of the first extension tab (figures 6 and 7); and a second extension tab (item 122) extending from a second side of a top portion of the base structure to a second end portion of the second extension tab (figure 6 and 7); wherein the first end portion and second end portion are arranged to form a gap there between (figures 6 and 7), the gap sized to receive a proximal end of the elongated supporting structure to hold the elongated supporting structure (paragraph [0048]); and wherein the first and second extension tabs are configured to extend from the base structure in a direction extending away from the sample container (figure 7, the extension regions extend a least partially away from the sample collection container.
Fahmawi fails to teach the first and second extension tabs are configured to be disposed outside of the sample collection container.
Ohtsuka teaches a sample collection device with an extraction vessel with a narrowed opening where the swab goes through with the valve member (expelling component) have a screw-type body to allow for the connecting of the valve member with the collection container (paragraph [0112] and figures 8A and 8B).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., the expelling component is screwed onto the sample container) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., the expelling component is adhered onto the sample container) with other component(s) (i.e., the expelling component being screwed onto the sample container), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., the expelling component being adhered onto with being screwed onto the sample container), and the results of the substitution (i.e., holding the expelling component on the device) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the expelling component is adhered onto the sample container of reference Fahmawi with the expelling component being screwed onto the sample container of reference Ohtsuka, since the result would have been predictable. The claim does not state at what point the first and second extension tabs are configured to be disposed outside of the sample collection container and therefore, in making the expelling component screwed onto the sample collection container would make the first and second extension tabs removably attachable to the sample collection container and therefore when the expelling component is not installed on the sample collection container, the first and second extension tabs are disposed outside of the sample collection container.
Claim(s) 2, 13, 18 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahmawi and Ohtsuka in view of United States Application Publication No. 2004/0267181, hereinafter Tuite.
Regarding claim 2, Fahmawi and Ohtsuka teach all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the elongated supporting structure includes a substantially flat rod member.
Tuite teaches a collection swab in which the elongated support structure and the swab are made from a rectangular shape as it improves the sample collection and recovery compared to conventional ellipsoid shapes (Tuite, paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the fluid collecting device of Tuite as the fluid collection device in Fahmawi because it would improve the sample collection and recovery compared to conventional ellipsoid shapes (Tuite, paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 13, Fahmawi and Ohtsuka teach all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the elongated supporting structure fluid collection region has a thickness along its main body between about 7 and 12 mm.
Tuite teaches a collection swab in which the elongated support structure and the swab are made from a rectangular shape with a thickness of 7-12 mm as it improves the sample collection and recovery compared to conventional ellipsoid shapes (Tuite, paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the fluid collecting device of Tuite as the fluid collection device in Fahmawi because it would improve the sample collection and recovery compared to conventional ellipsoid shapes (Tuite, paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 18, Fahmawi and Ohtsuka teach all limitations of claim 14; however, they fail to teach the elongated supporting structure includes a substantially flat rod member.
Tuite teaches a collection swab in which the elongated support structure and the swab are made from a rectangular shape as it improves the sample collection and recovery compared to conventional ellipsoid shapes (Tuite, paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the fluid collecting device of Tuite as the fluid collection device in Fahmawi because it would improve the sample collection and recovery compared to conventional ellipsoid shapes (Tuite, paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 28, Fahmawi and Ohtsuka teach all limitations of claim 14; however, they fail to teach the elongated supporting structure fluid collection region has a thickness along its main body between about 7 and 12 mm.
Tuite teaches a collection swab in which the elongated support structure and the swab are made from a rectangular shape with a thickness of 7-12 mm as it improves the sample collection and recovery compared to conventional ellipsoid shapes (Tuite, paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the fluid collecting device of Tuite as the fluid collection device in Fahmawi because it would improve the sample collection and recovery compared to conventional ellipsoid shapes (Tuite, paragraph [0031]).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahmawi and Ohtsuka in view of Donovan.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Fahmawi and Ohtsuka teach all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the fluid collection device includes a protrusion near a proximal end of the elongated supporting structure and the protrusion includes a sloped top edge and a substantially flat bottom portion.
Donovan teaches a sample collection device which has a protrusion (Donovan, figure 24, items 374 and 376) near the proximal end of the elongated supported structure (Donovan, figure 24) with the protrusion includes a sloped top edge (the sloped portion of the mushroom head) and a substantially flat bottom portion (the flat portion of the base of the mushroom) so that the protrusions can hold the swab portion on the handle (Donovan, paragraph [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the protrusions of Donovan to the fluid collection device because it would hold the swab portion on the handle (Donovan, paragraph [0106]).
Further, modified Fahmawi teaches the sloped top edge configured to facilitate passage of the elongated supporting member structure through the gap in the holding and expelling component, and the substantially flat bottom portion configured to facilitate securing the fluid collection device in the holding and expelling component (functional limitations (MPEP § 2114) and the sloped top edge would be able to facilitate passage of the elongated supporting member structure through the gap and the substantially flat bottom would be able to secure the fluid collection device in the holding and expelling component.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Fahmawi and Ohtsuka teach all limitations of claim 14; however, they fail to teach the fluid collection device includes a protrusion near a proximal end of the elongated supporting structure and the protrusion includes a sloped top edge and a substantially flat bottom portion.
Donovan teaches a sample collection device which has a protrusion (Donovan, figure 24, items 374 and 376) near the proximal end of the elongated supported structure (Donovan, figure 24) with the protrusion includes a sloped top edge (the sloped portion of the mushroom head) and a substantially flat bottom portion (the flat portion of the base of the mushroom) so that the protrusions can hold the swab portion on the handle (Donovan, paragraph [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the protrusions of Donovan to the fluid collection device because it would hold the swab portion on the handle (Donovan, paragraph [0106]).
Further, modified Fahmawi teaches the sloped top edge configured to facilitate passage of the elongated supporting member structure through the gap in the holding and expelling component, and the substantially flat bottom portion configured to facilitate securing the fluid collection device in the holding and expelling component (functional limitations (MPEP § 2114) and the sloped top edge would be able to facilitate passage of the elongated supporting member structure through the gap and the substantially flat bottom would be able to secure the fluid collection device in the holding and expelling component.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahmawi and Ohtsuka in view of United States Application Publication No. 2023/0165571, hereinafter Novak.
Regarding claim 8, Fahmawi and Ohtsuka teach all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the fluid collection device includes an angled section above the absorbent material.
Novak teaches a sample collection swab which has a tapered neck and handle (Novak, paragraph [0062]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., an angled section above the absorbent material) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a straight handle) with other component(s) (i.e., an angled section above the absorbent material), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a straight handle with an angled section above the absorbent material), and the results of the substitution (i.e., holding the absorbent material) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute a straight handle of reference Fahmawi with a protrusion forming an angled section above the absorbent material of reference Novak, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 9, modified Fahmawi teaches a protrusion forming an angled section above the absorbent material (functional limitations (MPEP § 2114) and the angled section would be able to facilitate passage of the elongated supporting member structure through the gap in the holding and expelling component.
Regarding claim 23, Fahmawi and Ohtsuka teach all limitations of claim 14; however, they fail to teach the fluid collection device includes an angled section above the absorbent material.
Novak teaches a sample collection swab which has a tapered neck and handle (Novak, paragraph [0062]).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., an angled section above the absorbent material) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a straight handle) with other component(s) (i.e., an angled section above the absorbent material), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a straight handle with a protrusion forming an angled section above the absorbent material), and the results of the substitution (i.e., holding the absorbent material) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute a straight handle of reference Fahmawi with an angled section above the absorbent material of reference Novak, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 24, modified Fahmawi teaches a protrusion forming an angled section above the absorbent material (functional limitations (MPEP § 2114) and the angled section would be able to facilitate passage of the elongated supporting member structure through the gap in the holding and expelling component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 7/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5, 14-17, 29, 20 and 30 under 102(a)(1) 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 Fahmawi and Ohtsuka.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 7/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 29 under 103(a) 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 Donovan.
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 MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights