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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [0135], [0150], [0153], [0161]-[0162], [0165], [0167], [0169], [0177], [0182], [0204], [0215]-[0216], and [0221] each have one or more grammatical and/or typographical errors; Examiner notes that it is likely other grammatical/typographical errors exist elsewhere in the specification, Examiner only indicated obvious issues that were noticed upon reading for understanding of the invention as claimed;
[0153] and [0172] refer to item label 20’ as referring to different elements, and in particular, [0153] indicates that 20’ corresponds to glass beads which are not shown in the corresponding figure;
[0158] refers to “the size of the generated daughter isotope”, which Examiner believes should make reference to a quantity or amount, but not a physical size, as each of the target generated daughter isotopes have roughly the exact same size, as limited by their physical properties;
[0167] refers to “(similar radio-pharmacy experience)”, which does not make sense upon plain reading;
[0169] discusses the capping elements being configurable between two positions and indicates that when corresponding ports are open an emanation process naturally occurs, however, it appears that even in the ‘sterilization position’, any parent isotope in the parent isotope chamber would naturally emanate through the membrane regardless of whether the inlet and outlet ports to the daughter isotope chamber are closed;
[0171], similar to [0169], discusses the use of cap plugs, however, it is unclear how removal of cap plug 92 would ‘initiate the daughter isotope emanation process’, as any parent isotope in the parent isotope chamber would naturally emanate through the membrane regardless of whether eluent is flowed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “…a load port opening in the parent-isotope chamber…”, which is ambiguous upon plain reading, because ‘a load port opening’ could be reasonably understood as either claiming merely ‘an opening in the parent-isotope chamber’, or as ‘a load port that opens in the parent-isotope chamber’; While Examiner believes this limitation is definite in context, because the claims are read in light of the specification, and the latter interpretation agrees with both the specification and later portions of the claim referring to ‘the load port’, it should nevertheless me amended to remove this ambiguity in wording, as Examiner is not permitted to read limitations from the specification into the claims; e.g., ‘…a load port that has an opening in the parent-isotope chamber…’, or some other alternative that clearly indicates that a load port is being required by the claim, and that the load port opens in the parent-isotope chamber;
Claim 1 recites “…a collection container, in fluid communication with the outlet port, configured to collect a 212Pb eluate, corresponding to the 212Pb daughter isotope eluted in a liquid form from the daughter-isotope chamber…”, which should read ‘…a collection container, in fluid communication with the outlet port, configured to collect a 212Pb eluate corresponding to the 212Pb daughter isotope eluted in a liquid form from the daughter-isotope chamber…’, so as to ensure no ambiguity in what correspondence is intended;
Claim 1 recites “…and in the operational position, the corresponding ports are open, an emanation process naturally occurs and the 220Rn flows from the parent-isotope chamber, through the gas permeable membrane, to the daughter-isotope chamber, and then decaying into the 212Pb daughter isotope where the 212Pb daughter isotope is extracted by the eluent and carried to the collection container…”; This portion has grammatical issues including punctuation issues and verbs not matching tense that should be corrected, and should read ‘…and in the operational position, the corresponding ports are open, whereby an emanation process naturally occurs and the 220Rn flows from the parent-isotope chamber through the gas permeable membrane to the daughter-isotope chamber, and then decays into the 212Pb daughter isotope, where the 212Pb daughter isotope is extracted by the eluent and carried to the collection container…’, or some other grammatically acceptable form;
Claims 5-6 recite “the membrane”, which is inconsistent with previous recitations that refer to ‘the gas permeable membrane’; While Examiner believes the term is definite in context, consistent terminology should be used throughout the claim, i.e., either ‘the gas permeable membrane’ or ‘the membrane’ should be chosen and used throughout the claims;
Claim 9 recites “224Ra”, which is inconsistent with previous recitations of the various isotopes that initialize as ‘Element (Xx)-Mass Number (A)’, followed by later recitation of ‘AXx’; In this case, Examiner believes this is a typographical error that should read ‘224Ra’;
Claim 16 recites “…a controllable eluent duct having three ends; a first end…; a second end…; and a third end…”; While Examiner believes the limitations are definite in context, the three ends should be connected explicitly so as to avoid any ambiguity, namely, ‘…a controllable eluent duct having three ends comprising: a first end…; a second end…; and a third end…’;
Claim 16 recites “…the vortex created initiate generation…” in two places in the claim, which does not make sense upon plain reading; Examiner believes this is a typographical error that should read ‘…the vortex created initiates generation…’;
Claim 16 recites “…the vortex created initiate[s]…and force the…”, which does not make sense upon plain reading; Examiner believes this is a typographical error that should read ‘…the vortex created initiates…and forces the…’;
Claim 16 recites “…and force[s] the 220Rn in a gaseous form…”, which Examiner believes should read ‘…and forces the 220Rn in the gaseous form…’, as the claim previously recites “…generation of 220Rn in a gaseous form…”, and the subsequent recitation appears to refer to the same 220Rn;
Claim 16 recites “…wherein when actuated, the vortex created initiate[s] generation of 220Rn in a gaseous form, the 220Rn naturally decaying from 224Ra, and force[s] the 220Rn in 220Rn in a gaseous form, the 220Rn naturally decaying from 224Ra, and forces the 220Rn in the gaseous form to circulate in the upper zone of the parent-isotope chamber through the gas outlet port to the controllable gas duct in the open configuration, to the gas inlet port, and then to the daughter-isotope chamber…’;
Claim 16 recites “…wherein when the controllable gas duct in the closed configuration…”, which Examiner believes should read ‘…wherein when the controllable gas duct is in the closed configuration…’;
Claim 20 recites “…transferring the 220Rn in a gaseous form into a daughter-isotope chamber, through a gas permeable membrane separating the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber…”, which should read ‘…transferring the 220Rn in a gaseous form into a daughter-isotope chamber through a gas permeable membrane separating the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber…’;
Claim 20 recites “...to ensure sterilized collection container…”, which should read ‘…to ensure a sterilized collection container…’.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first/second actuator for creating a vortex” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In this case, the actuator is described in the specification (see [0030], [0098]-[0101]; [0204]) as “a stir pellet or bar” and “a magnetic stir plate” or alternatively, “any other actuators can be used to generate a vortex, such as a rotative arm”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 16 recites “A terminally sterilized isotope generator…”. It is unclear whether ‘terminally sterilized’ limits the apparatus, as the specification discusses ([0135]-[0136]) the ‘terminal sterilization’ as including several method steps for sterilizing the isotope generator prior to production of daughter isotopes in the retainer assembly, which would not limit the apparatus itself. If Applicant intends to limit the isotope generator by claiming the functionality that the apparatus is capable of being terminally sterilized, such limitations need to be claimed as such, i.e., each of the required elements in the necessary cooperating relationships to be capable of performing terminal sterilization. However, it is improper to claim method steps in an apparatus claim. If Applicant intends to claim the isotope generator being previously terminally sterilized in the apparatus claims, such a limitation would be indefinite as making implicit claims to a method being performed on the apparatus, rather than limiting the apparatus itself. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as not required by the claim, as it appears to make reference to method steps which cannot be required by the apparatus claims.
Claim 1 recites “A terminally sterilized isotope generator for producing an alpha-emitting Lead-212 (212Pb) daughter isotope by emanation of Radon-220 (220Rn) gas from a parent isotope”, and subsequently recites “the parent isotope” and “the 212Pb daughter isotope”. The former recitation appears to be a general recitation of the functionality which refers generally to ‘a parent isotope’ and ‘an alpha-emitting Lead-212 (212Pb) daughter isotope’. The latter recitation appears to referring to some respective particular parent isotope and lead daughter isotope. Furthermore, the claim later refers to “…wherein the parent isotope is naturally decaying into 220Rn within the parent-isotope chamber…” and “…the 220Rn…”, which appears to indicate that the claim’s body is referring to some specific quantity of parent isotope and some quantity of the resultant products. However, no such particular quantity is required by the claim, and as such each of these recitations lacks antecedent basis, as a general recitation of a device which operates with general parent isotope to generally produce daughter isotope does not provide the antecedent basis for particular quantities of the isotope(s) being used/manipulated by the system. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this claim is interpreted as though it recites ‘a parent-isotope chamber for receiving a quantity of the parent isotope’ and ‘a daughter-isotope chamber for collecting a quantity of the 212Pb daughter isotope’, and such that each subsequent recitation referring to particular quantities of the isotopes in the system refers to ‘the quantity of [relevant isotope]’, e.g. each relevant instance of ‘the parent isotope’ is interpreted as ‘the quantity of the parent isotope’.
Claim 1 subsequently recites “…wherein the parent isotope is naturally decaying into 220Rn within the parent-isotope chamber…”. In accordance with the above discussions, this portion is interpreted as ‘…wherein the quantity of the parent isotope naturally decays into a quantity of 220Rn within the parent-isotope chamber…’.
Claim 1 recites “…wherein the gas permeable membrane allows the 220Rn to passively pass therethrough under an action of gravity or diffusion, wherein the 220Rn is spontaneously decaying into 212Pb within the daughter-isotope chamber…”. In accordance with the above discussions, this portion is interpreted as ‘…wherein the gas permeable membrane allows the quantity of 220Rn to passively pass therethrough under an action of gravity or diffusion, wherein the quantity of 220Rn is spontaneously decaying into a quantity of 212Pb within the daughter-isotope chamber…’.
Claim 1 recites “…an eluent dispenser…configured to deliver an eluent in the daughter-isotope chamber, to elute in a liquid form the 212Pb daughter isotope generated in a gaseous form…”. In accordance with the above discussions this is interpreted as ‘…an eluent dispenser…configured to deliver an eluent in the daughter-isotope chamber, to elute in a liquid form the quantity of the 212Pb daughter isotope generated in a gaseous form…’.
Claim 1 recites “…a collection container…configured to collect a 212Pb eluate, corresponding to the 212Pb daughter isotope eluted in a liquid form from the daughter-isotope chamber…”. In accordance with the above discussions this is interpreted as is interpreted as ‘…a collection container…configured to collect a 212Pb eluate corresponding to the quantity of the 212Pb daughter isotope eluted in the liquid form from the daughter-isotope chamber…’.
Claim 1 recites “…wherein in the sterilization position, the corresponding ports are blocked, and the isotope generator is adapted to be sterilized…”, however, it is unclear what is required by ‘and the isotope generator is adapted to be sterilized’, as it does not positively recite limitations that would achieve being ‘adapted to be sterilized’ beyond blocking the corresponding ports. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein in the sterilization position, the corresponding ports are blocked…’.
Claim 1 recites “…in the operational position, the corresponding ports are open, an emanation process naturally occurs and the 220Rn flows from the parent-isotope chamber, through the gas permeable membrane, to the daughter-isotope chamber, and then decaying into the 212Pb daughter isotope where the 212Pb daughter isotope is extracted by the eluent and carried to the collection container…”. In accordance with the above discussions, this portion is interpreted as ‘…in the operational position, the corresponding ports are open, an emanation process naturally occurs and the quantity of 220Rn flows from the parent-isotope chamber through the gas permeable membrane to the daughter-isotope chamber, and then decays into the quantity of the 212Pb daughter isotope, where the quantity of the 212Pb daughter isotope is extracted by the eluent and carried to the collection container…’.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “…wherein the isotope generator is scalable based on (a) required 212Pb daughter-isotope quantities to be generated, the required 212Pb daughter-isotope quantities ranging/range from 1 mCi to 500 mCi.” It is unclear what would be required by the claim to allow the isotope generator to be ‘scalable’ based on required daughter isotope quantities ‘to be generated’, as this limitation does not clearly indicate nor particularly point out what elements would need to be modified to achieve such a ‘scalability’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein the quantity of the 212Pb daughter-isotope is within a range from 1 mCi to 500 mCi.’.
Claim 2 recites “…wherein the 212Pb daughter isotope is produced by emanation of 220Rn gas from the parent isotope without recourse to external utilities.” It is unclear what is and is not required by the claim, and whether the claim is further limiting. First, it appears that the claim is factually inaccurate, as the lead daughter isotope is not produced by emanation of 220Rn gas from the parent isotope, and is rather produced by the spontaneous decay of the 220Rn (as claimed in claim 1). Additionally, it is unclear what element of the apparatus is intended to be limited by this claim, as it appears to be limiting a process (i.e., a method) rather than an apparatus. See MPEP 2173.05(p).II. The phrase ‘without recourse to external utilities’ appears to indicate that the process is passive (as discussed in [0126] and [0143]), however, claim 1 previously requires that both the decay of parent isotope into 220Rn and the decay of 220Rn into 212Pb are natural/spontaneous, as well as the passing of the 220Rn through the gas permeable membrane to be passive. Thus, claim 1 precludes active production of 220Rn and/or 212Pb via gas flow/manipulation and precludes active forcing of the quantity of 220Rn through the membrane. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this claim is interpreted as not being further limiting. See 35 U.S.C. 112(d) section below.
Claim 3 recites “…wherein the eluent-cap plug and the parent-isotope cap plug are removable to initiate a daughter isotope emanation process …”. Because the claim is directed toward an apparatus, it is unclear whether the recitation ‘to initiate a daughter isotope emanation process’ is merely a recitation of intended use, or whether such a limitation is intended to require some kind of causal relationship between the removal of the caps and the initiation of the emanation process. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein the eluent-cap plug and the parent-isotope cap plug are configured to be removable, wherein removal of both the eluent-cap plug and the parent-isotope cap plug allows the isotope generator to initiate a daughter isotope emanation process…’.
Claim 4 recites “…wherein the 220Rn in its gaseous form is mechanically separated from the parent isotope by its passage through the gas permeable membrane, without recourse to external utilities…”. In accordance with the above discussions, this portion is interpreted as ‘…wherein the quantity of 220Rn in its gaseous form is mechanically separated from the quantity of parent isotope by its passage through the gas permeable membrane without recourse to external utilities…’. However, this portion is further unclear, as the claims do not previously require passage of the quantity of 220Rn through the gas permeable membrane, rather only the functionality to allow such an operation. Because the claim is directed toward an apparatus, it would be indefinite to claim such method steps. Accordingly, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein the isotope generator is configured to allow the quantity of 220Rn, in gaseous form, to be mechanically separated from the quantity of parent isotope by passage through the gas permeable membrane, and the isotope generator is further configured to allow the passage of the quantity of 220Rn through the gas permeable membrane without recourse to external utilities…’.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘a second surface’. In accordance with this interpretation and the above discussions, this claim is interpreted as ‘…wherein a first surface of the gas permeable membrane facing the parent-isotope chamber is hydrophobic, for maintaining the quantity of parent isotope in a liquid form, and wherein a second surface of the gas permeable membrane facing the daughter-isotope chamber is hydrophobic, to prevent permeation of the quantity of 212Pb daughter isotope from the daughter-isotope chamber back to the parent-isotope chamber…’. However, the claim is further unclear, as it is not clear whether the ‘for maintaining…’ and ‘to prevent…’ clauses further limit the claim, or are merely a recitation of intended use. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as intended use recitations, such that the claim only requires the gas permeable membrane have opposing hydrophobic surfaces facing the respective chambers that are capable of preventing cross permeation of liquid.
Claim 6 recites “…for preventing damages to the membrane due to radiolysis of emitted alpha, beta and gamma particles generated by the emanation process…”. It is unclear whether this is intended to limit ‘radiation hardened’, or merely be a recitation of intended use. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, and in accordance with the above discussions, this claim is interpreted as ‘…wherein the gas permeable membrane is radiation hardened, and the radiation hardening is configured to prevent damage to the gas permeable membrane due to radiolysis of emitted alpha, beta, and gamma particles generated by an emanation process of the quantity of 220Rn from the quantity of the parent isotope.’.
Claim 7 recites “…wherein the exchange chamber comprises a recirculation air change path to force air exchange between the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber…”. It is unclear how ‘a recirculation air change path’ can ‘force air exchange’ between the two chambers, because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ‘recirculation air change path’ is merely a path for air. The claim does not require any air source or structural means for causing airflow in the path. Providing such a recirculation air change path could reasonably facilitate air exchange, however, it is unclear how ‘forcing’ would occur by a recirculation air change path merely being present. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the ‘to force…’ limitation is merely a recitation of intended use, a recitation of a method step, or an attempt to limit the functionality of the exchange chamber and recirculation air change path. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein the exchange chamber comprises a recirculation air change path to facilitate air exchange between the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber…’.
Claim 9 recites “…wherein the parent isotope is Thorium-228 (228Th), which spontaneously decays into 224Ra in the parent-isotope chamber…”. In accordance with the above discussions, this portion is interpreted as ‘…wherein the parent isotope is Thorium-228 (228Th), which spontaneously decays into 224Ra in the parent-isotope chamber…’. However, this portion is further unclear, because, it is unclear how ‘the parent isotope’ can be 228Th, when claim 1 requires the parent isotope chamber being configured to allow a quantity of the parent isotope to naturally decay into 220Rn. For the natural decay of a quantity of parent isotope to produce 220Rn, it must be an isotope that can decay into 220Rn, i.e., 224Ra. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein a parent isotope for the quantity of parent isotope is Thorium-228 (228Th), a quantity of which spontaneously decays into a quantity of 224Ra in the parent-isotope chamber…’.
Claim 10 recites “…wherein the 212Pb eluate collected in the collection container comprises…”. However, claim 1 does not require collecting 212Pb eluate, and rather requires the capability to collect such eluate, as claims 1 and 10 pertain to an apparatus, not a method. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein the isotope generator is configured to collect 212Pb eluate in the collection container with greater than 90% of…’.
Claim 11 recites “…wherein the eluent is Hydrochloric acid, Nitric acid, or any other suitable acid solution to capture the 212Pb daughter isotope in an aqueous solution.” It is unclear what would be required by an acid solution to be ‘suitable’, and whether the ‘to capture…’ limitation is intended to be a recitation of intended use for the eluent, is intended to limit each of the acids, or is intended to specify what defines ‘suitable’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as limiting what defines suitable, namely, as ‘…wherein the eluent is Hydrochloric acid, Nitric acid, or any other acid solution that is suitable to capture the quantity of the 212Pb daughter isotope in an aqueous solution.’.
Claim 12 recites “…comprising an eluent filter located downstream of the outlet port further, to filter the fluid resulting from an elution process and provide a high-purity 212Pb daughter isotope and to minimize any bioburden in the fluid.” First, it is unclear what is intended by ‘further’, which could be reasonably interpreted as ‘further downstream’ or ‘comprising further’. In the former, it is unclear what ‘further downstream’ would be relative to, and in the latter case, rephrasing would be necessary to clarify. Second, ‘the fluid’ lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Additionally, the term “high-purity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-purity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. While the specification and claims discuss collecting greater than 90% pure 212Pb daughter isotope, it does not discuss “high-purity” in the context of the eluent filter. In fact, the eluent filter is disclosed as only having any bearing on the bioburden, and is explicitly disclosed to not filter other possible radioactive contaminants. Finally, it is unclear what is required by ‘minimize any bioburden’, as no discussion of what degree of ‘minimization’ of bioburden would be required by the claim. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as ‘…comprising an eluent filter located downstream of the outlet port, wherein the eluent filter is configured to filter fluid resulting from an elution process and decrease bioburden in the fluid.’.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the radiation shielded housing is sized and configured to be transportable and provide adequate radiation shielding protection during a transportation process.” It is unclear what is required by ‘sized and configured to be transportable’, and what constitutes ‘adequate’ radiation shielding protection. The specification provides no limits on the size of the housing, nor on what would be required for the housing to be transportable, and merely recites similar language. The specification’s discussion of ‘adequate’ radiation shielding protection is limited to protecting a user from alpha particle radiation, however, this is not claimed, and Examiner is not permitted to read limitations from the specification into the claims. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘wherein the radiation shielded housing is transportable and provides radiation shielding protection during a transportation process.’.
Claim 16 suffers from similar issues to claim 1 with respect to general references to parent/daughter isotope and specific (i.e., quantity) references to the particular portion of parent/daughter isotopes, and as such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, claim is similarly interpreted as the specific instances reciting ‘a quantity of…’. For example, ‘a parent-isotope chamber, divided into a lower zone initially loaded with a quantity of the parent isotope onto…’ and ‘a daughter-isotope chamber for collecting a quantity of 212Pb daughter isotope…’, etc.
Claim 16 recites “…wherein the controllable eluent duct is configurable between a loading configuration fluidly connecting the first end to the third end to fill the daughter-isotope chamber with the eluent and to elute in a liquid form the212Pb daughter isotope generated in a gaseous form, and a mix configuration fluidly connecting the second end to the third end to allow remaining 220Rn to circulate from the daughter-isotope chamber to the parent-isotope chamber…”.
In accordance with the above discussions this is interpreted as ‘…wherein the controllable eluent duct is configurable between a loading configuration fluidly connecting the first end to the third end to fill the daughter-isotope chamber with the eluent and to elute in a liquid form the quantity of the 212Pb daughter isotope generated in a gaseous form, and a mix configuration fluidly connecting the second end to the third end to allow a remaining quantity of 220Rn to circulate from the daughter-isotope chamber to the parent-isotope chamber…’.
However, this portion is further unclear, as it appears to contain limitations that are either not further limiting or requiring a method step in an apparatus claim. In particular, it is unclear if the “to fill..” and “to elute…” limitations in ‘…a loading configuration fluidly connecting the first end to the third end to fill the daughter-isotope chamber with the eluent and to elute in a liquid form the quantity of the 212Pb daughter isotope generated in a gaseous form…’ are merely recitations of the intended use of the controllable eluent duct in the loading configuration or if these limitations are recitations of method steps. See MPEP 2173.05(p).II. It is unclear how the “to fill…” and “to elute…” limitations can limit ‘a loading configuration’, which merely requires the relative positioning of the connections between the ends of the controllable eluent duct.
Additionally, the limitation that the mix configuration “allows” a quantity of remaining 220Rn to circulate could similarly be interpreted as an active method step, which results in similar issues.
Finally, it is unclear what ‘remaining 220Rn’ refers to, as the claim is directed to an apparatus, and as such, no particular amount of 220Rn is required in the claim from which a remainder can exist.
As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein the controllable eluent duct is configurable between a loading configuration fluidly connecting the first end to the third end, and a mix configuration fluidly connecting the second end to the third end, wherein the loading configuration allows filling of the daughter-isotope chamber with the eluent and allows elution, in a liquid form, the quantity of the 212Pb daughter isotope generated in a gaseous form from the daughter-isotope chamber, and wherein the mix configuration allows circulation of a quantity of 220Rn from the daughter-isotope chamber to the parent-isotope chamber…’. Accordingly, the following limitation “…a collection container…configured to collect the 212Pb daughter isotope eluted in a liquid form from the daughter-isotope chamber…” is interpreted as ‘…a collection container…configured to collect the quantity of the 212Pb daughter isotope eluted in the liquid form from the daughter-isotope chamber…’.
Claim 16 recites “…wherein when actuated…” in two locations (i.e., for each of the first and second actuators), however, this is a conditional limitation, and there is no requirement in the claim that the actuator actually be actuated. As such, it is unclear whether the conditional limitations based on the first and second actuators being actuated are required by the claim. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘…wherein, in response to being actuated…’.
Claim 16 recites “…wherein the parent-isotope chamber further comprises a first actuator for creating a vortex, wherein when actuated, the vortex created initiate generation of 220Rn in a gaseous form, the 220Rn naturally decaying from 224Ra, and force the 220Rn in a gaseous form to circulate in the upper zone of the parent-isotope chamber through the gas outlet port, to the controllable gas duct in the open configuration, to the gas inlet port and then to the daughter-isotope chamber…”. In accordance with the above discussions this is interpreted as ‘…wherein the parent-isotope chamber further comprises a first actuator, comprising a stir pellet or bar and a magnetic stir plate, for creating a vortex, wherein, in response to being actuated, the vortex created initiates generation of a quantity of 220Rn in a gaseous form, the quantity of 220Rn naturally decaying from 224Ra, and forces the quantity of 220Rn in the gaseous form to circulate in the upper zone of the parent-isotope chamber through the gas outlet port to the controllable gas duct in the open configuration, to the gas inlet port, and then to the daughter-isotope chamber…’. However, there are additional issues. First, ‘the vortex created’ is indefinite, because no vortex is required to actually be generated. Second, it is unclear whether the recitation of ‘initiating generation’ is merely a recitation of intended use or if this is a method step. See MPEP 2173.05(p).II. Additionally, it is unclear whether ‘the vortex…forces…’ is merely a recitation of intended use or if this is a method step, similar to the above discussions. Finally, it is not clear what is required by ‘in the open configuration’, as the claim does not previously require disposing the gas duct in an open configuration. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘…wherein the parent-isotope chamber further comprises a first actuator, comprising a stir pellet or bar and a magnetic stir plate, for creating a vortex, wherein, in response to the controllable gas duct being configured in the open configuration and the first actuator being actuated, the first actuator is configured to create a vortex that initiates generation of a quantity of 220Rn in a gaseous form via natural decay from 224Ra, and wherein the vortex further forces the quantity of 220Rn in the gaseous form to circulate in the upper zone of the parent-isotope chamber through the gas outlet port to the controllable gas duct, to the gas inlet port, and then to the daughter-isotope chamber…’.
Claim 16 has similar issues with the clause pertaining to the second actuator in the daughter-isotope chamber, and is similarly rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘…wherein the daughter-isotope chamber further comprises a second actuator, comprising a stir pellet or bar and a magnetic stir plate, for creating a vortex, wherein, in response to the controllable gas duct being configured in the closed configuration and the second actuator being actuated, the second actuator is configured to create a vortex that initiates generation of the quantity of the 212Pb daughter isotope in a gaseous form via natural decay from the quantity of 220Rn , whereby the isotope generator is further configured to extract and carry the quantity of the 212Pb daughter isotope in the gaseous form, via the eluent, to the collection container through the outlet port…’.
Claim 17 recites “…wherein the first and second actuators for creating vortex comprises: a stir pellet or a bar located in a bottom of the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber, and a magnetic stir plate located outside and below the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber, wherein when the magnetic stir plate is activated, the stir pellet or the bar is engaged in a rotation.” In accordance with the above discussions, this claim is interpreted as ‘…wherein the first and second actuators for creating vortex comprises: the stir pellet or the bar located in a bottom of the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber, and the magnetic stir plate located outside and below the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber, wherein when the magnetic stir plate is activated, the stir pellet or the bar is engaged in a rotation.’ However, the claim is further unclear as the claim has similar conditional limitation issues and method step issues to claim 16, as well as issues with matching the number of elements required by the claim (i.e., two actuators require respective stir pellets/bars/plates). As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…wherein the first and second actuators for creating respective vortices comprise: the respective stir pellets or bars being located in respective bottoms of the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber, and the respective magnetic stir plates being located outside and below each of the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber, wherein in response to the respective magnetic stir plates being activated, the respective stir pellets or bars are engaged in rotation.’.
Claim 20 recites “A method for producing terminally sterilized pure alpha-emitting daughter isotope…”. It is unclear what is intended by ‘terminally sterilized…daughter isotope’, as the specification only discusses terminal sterilization in terms of the apparatus for forming the daughter isotope being terminally sterilized, not the daughter isotope itself. Furthermore, it is unclear how one could terminally sterilize such a daughter isotope without affecting the purity/yield of the isotope. Additionally, it is dubious as to whether ‘pure’ alpha-emitting daughter isotope can actually be produced. Applicant’s specification does not appear to support truly ‘pure’ daughter isotope, and rather provides disclosure of ‘high-purity’ daughter isotope, defined as greater than 90% pure, greater than 95% pure, and potentially as high as 99% pure. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘A method for producing high-purity alpha-emitting daughter isotope’.
Claim 20 suffers from similar issues to claims 1 and 16 with respect to general references to parent/daughter isotope and specific (i.e., quantity) references to the particular portion of parent/daughter isotopes, and as such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, claim is similarly interpreted as the specific instances reciting ‘a quantity of…’. For example, ‘…delivering a quantity of a parent isotope into a parent-isotope chamber…’ and ‘generating a quantity of a 212Pb daughter isotope…’, etc.
Claim 20 recites “…delivering a parent isotope into a parent-isotope chamber of a closed retainer assembly for initiating a 220Rn emanation process by natural decay of the parent isotope in the parent-isotope chamber…”, which, in accordance with the above discussions, is interpreted as ‘…delivering a quantity of a parent isotope into a parent-isotope chamber of a closed retainer assembly for initiating a 220Rn emanation process by natural decay of the parent isotope in the parent-isotope chamber…’. It is unclear whether ‘for initiating a 220Rn emanation process by natural decay of the parent isotope in the parent-isotope chamber’ is intended to provide an additional method step, or is merely a recitation of the intent of the method step of ‘delivering a quantity of a parent isotope’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…delivering a quantity of a parent isotope into a parent-isotope chamber of a closed retainer assembly and thereby initiating a 220Rn emanation process to produce a quantity of 220Rn in a gaseous form via natural decay of the quantity of the parent isotope in the parent-isotope chamber…’. Examiner notes ‘to produce a quantity of 220Rn’ was included to ameliorate an issue later in the claim (see below paragraph) regarding ‘the’ 220Rn, which appears to lack antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 20 recites “…transferring the 220Rn in a gaseous form into a daughter-isotope chamber, through a gas permeable membrane separating the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber, the gas permeable membrane allowing the220Rn to passively pass therethrough under an action of gravity or diffusion…”. In accordance with the above discussions, this portion is interpreted as ‘…transferring the quantity of 220Rn in the gaseous form into a daughter-isotope chamber through a gas permeable membrane separating the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber, the gas permeable membrane allowing the quantity of 220Rn to passively pass therethrough under an action of gravity or diffusion…’. However, this portion is additionally unclear because it is unclear whether ‘the gas permeable membrane allowing the quantity of 220Rn to passively pass therethrough under an action of gravity or diffusion’ is intended to recite an additional method step or whether this is merely a recitation of the capability of the gas permeable membrane. Additionally, it is unclear what is required by ‘transferring’ if the 220Rn passes passively through the gas permeable membrane. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…allowing the quantity of 220Rn in the gaseous form to passively pass through a gas permeable membrane under an action of gravity or diffusion, the gas permeable membrane separating the parent-isotope chamber and the daughter-isotope chamber, thereby transferring the quantity of 220Rn into the daughter-isotope chamber…’.
Claim 20 recites “…generating a 212Pb daughter isotope by natural decay of 220Rn in the daughter-isotope chamber…”. In accordance with the above discussion, this portion is interpreted as ‘…generating a quantity of 212Pb daughter isotope by natural decay of the quantity of 220Rn in the daughter-isotope chamber…’. However, this portion is further unclear, because it is unclear whether ‘generating…by natural decay’ is intended to require an additional method step, as it does not appear to require taking any action that would constitute ‘generating’ in any active sense. Furthermore, the claim does not require merely waiting for the natural decay to occur. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…allowing the quantity of 220Rn in the daughter-isotope chamber to naturally decay, thereby generating a quantity of 212Pb daughter isotope in a gaseous form in the daughter-isotope chamber…’.
Examiner notes that ‘in a gaseous form’ was added to ameliorate an issue later in the claim, namely, the following clause, which refers to ‘the 212Pb daughter isotope generated in a gaseous form’. The lead daughter isotope is not previously required in the claim to be generated in a gaseous form. Accordingly, the following clause is interpreted as ‘…circulating an eluent in the daughter-isotope chamber to elute, in a liquid form, the 212Pb daughter isotope generated in the gaseous form…’.
Examiner notes that ‘in a liquid form’ was added to ameliorate an issue later in the claim, namely, the following clause, which refers to ‘the 212Pb daughter isotope eluted in a liquid form’. The lead daughter isotope is not previously required to be eluted in a liquid form. Accordingly, the following clause is interpreted as ‘…collecting the quantity of 212Pb daughter isotope eluted in the liquid form from the daughter-isotope chamber into a collection container…’.
Claim 20 recites “…sealing the collection container filled of the 212Pb daughter isotope with a daughter isotope cap plug, to ensure sterilized collection container and maintain closed collection container integrity.”. In accordance with previous discussions, this portion is interpreted as ‘…sealing the collection container filled of the quantity of 212Pb daughter isotope with a daughter isotope cap plug, to ensure a sterilized collection container and maintain closed collection container integrity.’ However, this portion is additionally unclear. First, the claim does not previously require ‘filling’ the collection container. Additionally, it is unclear how sealing the container ‘ensures a sterilized collection container’, as the claim does not make any previous reference to sterilizing any portion of the elements used to produce the daughter isotope. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…sealing the collection container having the quantity of 212Pb daughter isotope therein with a daughter isotope cap plug to maintain closed collection container integrity and prevent introduction of contaminants therein.’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As discussed above, the claim does not further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art identified (see citations below) are Norman (or equivalently Wrasidlo, which is NPL related to Norman), Boldyrev’2018, and Speth.
Norman and Wrasidlo disclose a 212Pb generation system that includes parent and daughter chambers separated by a gas permeable membrane that allows diffusion of intermediate isotope 220Rn from the parent chamber after emanating from a parent isotope. The emanated gaseous 220Rn subsequently decays into 212Pb in the daughter chamber. However, in Norman/Wrasidlo, the system does not include any form of elution system, and rather the chamber is opened and moved to a separate procedure area to elute/extract the daughter isotope.
Speth discloses an elution system that reads on the load, inlet, and outlet ports, as well as the parent isotope dispenser and eluent dispenser. Speth also discloses capping elements for each of the ports. However, Speth pertains to different isotopes, and does not have parent and daughter chambers (only a single chamber), nor a gas permeable membrane separating such chambers.
Boldyrev’2018 discloses a system for producing 212Pb from a parent isotope, including the use of an elution system. Boldyrev discloses the use of a gas permeable membrane in the parent isotope chamber to prevent solid from flowing out of the chamber, however, the membrane does not separate parent and daughter chambers, as the collector vessel is the item that collects the 212Pb.
While these references individually teach the physical elements of the apparatus required by claim 1, they do so individually (i.e., each teaches some limitations, none teaches all) and they do not provide any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the structures therein to include the elements of the other references. For instance, there is no prior art provided teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the elution systems of either Speth or Boldyrev’2018 into the generator of Norman/Wrasidlo. While a nominal combination of the limitations of these references would likely reach each and every limitation of claim 1, it would not be obvious to combine the references without some prior art provided reason to do so, else the combination would rely on impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Conversely, it would wholly change the principle of operation of either Speth or Boldyrev’2018 to include the generator of Norman/Wrasidlo, and neither expresses reason/need to modify/improve their generator, let alone in the manner of Norman/Wrasidlo. As such, it is Examiner’s opinion that, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, claim 1 achieves distinction over the prior art of record and that searched.
Claim 20, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, similarly achieves distinction over the prior art and that searched due to a lack of prior art device that can perform the method claimed in claim 20. Because the prior art lacks such a structure, performing a method that requires such structural capabilities would not be possible via a combination of the above prior art. In other words, impermissible hindsight reconstruction would be required to combine such prior art documents to achieve a structure capable of performing such a method.
Nevertheless, the claims stand as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed above.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 16, the closest identified prior art documents include O’Hara’474, O’Hara’654, Bond, Boldyrev’2018, and Speth.
The prior art discloses embodiments with two chambers, one loaded with parent isotope and another for collecting daughter isotope. The prior art separately teaches such a controllable gas duct and controllable eluent duct, such as Boldyrev’2018 and O’Hara’654, which teach some or all of the limitations regarding these elements. The prior art also discloses the use of magnetic stir rods/plates for stirring a solution containing parent isotope.
However, the prior art fails to teach each and every limitation in the combination required by the claim. For instance, the documents disclosing such dual chamber systems do not disclose the proper connectivity to both the controllable gas duct and the controllable eluent duct (or in most cases simply do not have one or both of these elements). These documents also do not discuss any need or desire to improve upon the fluid/gas handling systems disclosed therein. Additionally, the prior art disclosing such vortex creation means lack the controllable gas and eluent ducts, and thus the functionality achieved by the combination of these elements is not present in the prior art. Furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in these prior art to combine the separate teachings thereof in order to reach the apparatus required by claim 16, absent impermissible hindsight reconstruction, and the various combinations that would be required to reach the apparatus of claim 16 would also likely change the principle of operation of the elements disclosed in the prior art, which are largely specific to the systems in which they are disclosed. As such, it is Examiner’s opinion that, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, claim 16 achieves distinction over the prior art of record and that searched.
Nevertheless, the claim stands as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Norman (US 5038046 A);
O’Hara’474 (US 20180047474 A1);
O’Hara’654 (US 20210188654 A1);
Kelly (US 20240339237 A1),;
Bond (US 20030127395 A1);
Horwitz (CN 1658938 A);
Boldyrev’2012 (DOI: 10.1007/s10512-012-9513-x);
Wrasidlo (DOI: 10.1016/S0927-7757(00)00768-8);
Boldyrev’2018 (DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1099/1/012003);
Hassfjell (DOI: 10.1016/S0969-8043(00)00372-9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881