DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 30 January 2026, with respect to the claims, the specification, and the drawings have been entered. Therefore, the objections to the specification, the drawings, and claim 13, and the rejections of claims 4 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In this case, Schleifer discloses a “base” method comprising measuring a property of the gas supplied to the outlet aperture (column 12, lines 21-24); and determining a position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture based on the measured property (column 12, lines 18-21). The only limitation of claim 1 which Schleifer does not disclose is that the “measured property” is a flow rate of the gas.
However, Schleifer does disclose that the capillary position has a predictable relationship with the gas flow rate. For example, Schleifer discloses that “the fluid mechanics-related conditions in the fluid interaction region 170A…[include] the flow rates of the liquid sample and the nebulizing gas” (column 11, lines 38-46, emphasis added), wherein “[t]he fluid mechanics in the fluid interaction region 170A are influenced by the presence of the first conduit [capillary] 108 in the fluid interaction region 170A” (column 11, lines 47-49). Schleifer further specifically discloses that the gas back pressure across the exit orifice (as one example of said fluid mechanics in the fluid interaction region 170A; another example is the flow rate of the nebulizing gas as discussed above) “varies with the position of the first conduit 108…That is, the gas back pressure…varies with the axial distance between the first conduit 108 (and thus the first conduit outlet 134) and the exit orifice 172” (column 11, lines 50-54).
Furthermore, the disclosure of Takada shows a known technique that is applicable to the base method disclosed in Schleifer, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system as discussed below. See MPEP 2143 I (D).
Takada discloses controlling a flow rate of the gas supplied to the outlet aperture, wherein the flow rate of the gas is dependent on the flow rate of the sample solution (page 4, paragraph 3: “A mechanism for measuring the flow rate of the sample solution is provided, and…the flow rate of the spray gas…[is] controlled according to the flow rate [of the sample solution]”), and controlling a position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture, wherein the position of the liquid capillary is also dependent on the flow rate of the sample solution (page 4, paragraph 3: “A mechanism for measuring the flow rate of the sample solution is provided, and…the position of the spray capillary…[is] controlled according to the flow rate [of the sample solution]”). Controlling the flow rate of the gas and the position of the capillary inherently involves determining the gas flow rate and the capillary position, because the initial flow rate and position affects the magnitude and direction of change required to achieve a desired position.
Therefore, the disclosure of Takada demonstrates that the steps of determining the flow rate of the gas supplied to the outlet aperture of a nebulizer (FIG. 1, outlet aperture at element 13) and determining a position of the liquid capillary (FIG. 1, capillary 11) relative to the outlet aperture are a known technique, applicable to the base method of nebulizer operation disclosed in Schleifer, with predictable results comprising the achievement of desired or optimal operating conditions in the nebulizer (see, e.g., page 4, paragraphs 2-3; page 8, paragraph 4). Furthermore, the application of the known technique of Takada would result in an improved system due to enabling operation at high flow rates (Takada, page 4, paragraph 1).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from the combined teachings of Schleifer and Takada that there is a known relationship with a known function between the gas flow rate and the position of the capillary, and would have found it obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the flow rate of the gas as the measured property used to determine the position of the liquid capillary in the base method of Schleifer. The combined teachings of Schleifer and Takada show that substituting the flow rate of the gas for another fluid-mechanics related condition yields a predictable result with respect to determining the position of the capillary due to the known dependence between the various fluid-mechanics related conditions (including pressure, gas flow rate, sample flow rate, etc.) and the position of the capillary (Schleifer, column 11, lines 37-67; and Takada, page 4, paragraphs 2-3). “[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schleifer in view of Takada to include measuring a flow rate of the gas supplied to the outlet aperture; and determining a position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture based on the measured flow rate, because it is not inventive to substitute one known element for another which yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I (B).
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleifer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,673,032 B1), hereinafter Schleifer, in view of Takada et al. (JP Patent No. 2003203599 A), hereinafter Takada (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 1, Schleifer discloses a method of operating a nebuliser that comprises an outlet aperture (FIG. 1C, element 172) and a liquid capillary (FIG. 1C, element 108), the method comprising:
supplying a gas to the outlet aperture (column 8, lines 31-32);
measuring a property of the gas supplied to the outlet aperture (column 12, lines 21-24); and
determining a position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture based on the measured property (column 12, lines 18-21).
Schleifer fails to disclose that the measured property is a flow rate of the gas.
However, Takada discloses determining a flow rate of the gas, the flow rate of the gas being dependent on the flow rate of the sample solution (page 4, paragraph 3: “A mechanism for measuring the flow rate of the sample solution is provided, and…the flow rate of the spray gas…[is] controlled according to the flow rate [of the sample solution]”); and
determining a position of the liquid capillary, wherein the position of the liquid capillary is also dependent on the flow rate of the sample solution (page 4, paragraph 3: “A mechanism for measuring the flow rate of the sample solution is provided, and…the position of the spray capillary…[is] controlled according to the flow rate [of the sample solution]”).
Controlling the flow rate of the gas and the position of the capillary inherently involves determining the gas flow rate and the capillary position, because the initial flow rate and position affects the magnitude and direction of change required to achieve a desired position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schleifer to include measuring a flow rate of the gas; and determining a position of the liquid capillary based on the measured flow rate, based on the teachings of Takada that this enables the apparatus to operate at high flow rates (Takada, page 4, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 2, Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1, including determining the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture based on the measured flow rate.
In addition, Schleifer discloses that determining the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture comprises:
determining a distance between an outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture (column 12, lines 18-21) in an axial direction that extends along a length of the nebuliser and/or along a length of the liquid capillary (FIG. 1C, axial direction 186; column 11, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 3, Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1, including determining the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture based on the measured flow rate.
In addition, Schleifer discloses that determining the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture comprises:
determining either that (i) the liquid capillary is in a first position relative to the outlet aperture; or that (ii) the liquid capillary is other than in the first position relative to the outlet aperture (column 11, lines 28-31; the first position being the “desired axial position”).
Regarding claim 4, Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1, including determining the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture based on the measured flow rate.
In addition, Schleifer discloses supplying the gas to the outlet aperture at a first pressure (column 8, lines 31-32);
comparing the measured property to a first measured property, wherein the first property is a property that is indicative of the liquid capillary being in a first position relative to the outlet aperture when gas is supplied to the outlet aperture at the first pressure (column 11, lines 50-57); and
determining that the liquid capillary is in the first position when the measured property is equal to the first measured property; and/or
determining that the liquid capillary is other than in the first position when the measured property is unequal to the first measured property (column 12, lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 7, Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 3 discloses the method of claim 3, including determining the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture based on the measured flow rate.
In addition, Schleifer discloses, when it is determined that the liquid capillary is other than in the first position, altering the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture (column 11, lines 5-31).
Regarding claim 8, Schleifer discloses a method of operating a nebuliser that comprises an outlet aperture (FIG. 1C, element 172) and a liquid capillary (FIG. 1C, element 108), the method comprising:
supplying a gas to the outlet aperture (column 8, lines 31-32);
measuring a property of the gas supplied to the outlet aperture (column 12, lines 21-24); and
altering the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture based on the measured property (column 12, lines 18-21).
Schleifer fails to disclose that the measured property is a flow rate of the gas.
However, Takada discloses measuring a flow rate of the gas, the flow rate of the gas being dependent on the flow rate of the sample solution (page 4, paragraph 3: “A mechanism for measuring the flow rate of the sample solution is provided, and…the flow rate of the spray gas…[is] controlled according to the flow rate [of the sample solution]”); and
altering a position of the liquid capillary, wherein the position of the liquid capillary is also dependent on the flow rate of the sample solution (page 4, paragraph 3: “A mechanism for measuring the flow rate of the sample solution is provided, and…the position of the spray capillary…[is] controlled according to the flow rate [of the sample solution]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schleifer to include measuring a flow rate of the gas; and altering a position of the liquid capillary based on the measured flow rate, based on the teachings of Takada that this enables the apparatus to operate at high flow rates (Takada, page 4, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 9, Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 8 discloses the method of claim 8.
In addition, Schleifer discloses that altering the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture comprises:
altering a distance between an outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture in an axial direction that extends along a length of the nebuliser and/or along a length of the liquid capillary (FIG. 1C, axial direction 186; column 11, lines 17-19).
Regarding claim 13, Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Schleifer discloses that the nebuliser is configured such that an outlet of the liquid capillary is withdrawn within the nebuliser and/or other than protrudes beyond the outlet aperture (FIG. 1C: the outlet at the rightmost end of the capillary is internal to sprayer tip 116 of the nebuliser).
Regarding claim 14, Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
In addition, Schleifer discloses supplying a liquid to the liquid capillary (column 6, lines 26-30) and nebulising the liquid using the nebuliser (column 3, lines 56-60); and
ionising the liquid (column 2, lines 52-55).
Regarding claim 15, Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 14 discloses the method of claim 14.
In addition, Schleifer discloses a method of mass and/or ion mobility spectrometry (column 16, lines 13-15), the method comprising producing ions by ionizing a liquid sample (column 2, lines 52-55), and analysing the ions (column 2, lines 56-59).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Canals et al. (WO Patent No. 2016087694 A1), hereinafter Canals (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 6, Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 3 discloses the method of claim 3.
Schleifer in view of Takada fails to disclose that the first position is a position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture that corresponds to flow blurring nebulisation.
However, Canals discloses that the first position is a position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture that corresponds to flow blurring nebulisation (page 5, paragraph 3, lines 6-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schleifer in view of Takada to include that the first position is a position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture that corresponds to flow blurring nebulisation, based on the teachings of Canals that flow blurring nebulisation is beneficial for pneumatic nebulizer applications (Canals, page 5, paragraph 3).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0141083 A1), hereinafter Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 10, Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 9 discloses the method of claim 9, including determining the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture based on the measured flow rate.
Schleifer in view of Takada fails to disclose determining that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is greater than a first distance when the measured flow rate is greater than a first flow rate; and/or determining that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is less than the first distance when the measured flow rate is less than the first flow rate; and/or determining that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is equal to the first distance when the measured flow rate equal to the first flow rate.
However, Hasegawa discloses determining that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is greater than a first distance when a measured property of the gas is greater than a first value; and/or
determining that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is less than the first distance when a measured property of the gas is less than a first value; and/or
determining that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is equal to the first distance when a measured property of the gas equal to the first value (paragraph 0058: the measured property, i.e., current, determines whether the capillary is at a "normal" position, i.e., L, with respect to the outlet aperture; FIG. 7 shows that as the current increases, the position L also increases; therefore, a higher current corresponds to a greater distance and vice versa).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schleifer in view of Takada to include determining that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is greater than a first distance when the measured flow rate is greater than a first flow rate; and/or determining that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is less than the first distance when the measured flow rate is less than the first flow rate; and/or determining that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is equal to the first distance when the measured flow rate equal to the first flow rate, based on the teachings of Hasegawa that this determination prevents analysis from being performed in a state in which the apparatus is contaminated due to improper positioning of the capillary (Hasegawa, paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 11, Schleifer in view of Takada and Hasegawa as applied to claim 10 discloses the method of claim 10, including determining the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture based on the measured flow rate.
In addition, Hasegawa discloses when it is determined, based on the measured property, that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is greater than the first distance, reducing the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture; and/or
when it is determined, based on the measured property, that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is less than the first distance, increasing the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture (paragraph 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schleifer in view of Takada and Hasegawa to include when it is determined, based on the measured flow rate, that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is greater than the first distance, reducing the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture; and/or when it is determined, based on the measured flow rate, that the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture is less than the first distance, increasing the distance between the outlet of the liquid capillary and the outlet aperture, based on the additional teachings of Hasegawa that this adjustment prevents analysis from being performed in a state in which the apparatus is contaminated due to improper positioning of the capillary (Hasegawa, paragraph 0048).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirabayashi et al. (JP Patent No. 2001291487 A), hereinafter Hirabayashi (English machine translation provided in a prior office action).
Regarding claim 16, Schleifer in view of Takada as applied to claim 1 discloses the method of claim 1.
Schleifer in view of Takada fails to disclose providing a gas flow controller having a gas flow meter, wherein said step of measuring the flow rate of the gas supplied to the outlet aperture comprises measuring the flow rate of the gas using the gas flow meter, and wherein the gas flow controller adjusts the flow rate of gas to the outlet aperture based on a gas flow rate measured by the gas flow meter.
However, Hirabayashi discloses providing a gas flow controller (FIG. 1, element 4) having a gas flow meter (page 6, paragraph 0025), wherein said step of measuring the flow rate of the gas supplied to the outlet aperture comprises measuring the flow rate of the gas using the gas flow meter (page 6, paragraph 0025), and wherein the gas flow controller adjusts the flow rate of gas to the outlet aperture based on a gas flow rate measured by the gas flow meter (page 5, paragraph beginning “FIG. 1 is a block diagram…” through paragraph ending “200 m / s or more”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schleifer in view of Takada to include providing a gas flow controller having a gas flow meter, wherein said step of measuring the flow rate of the gas supplied to the outlet aperture comprises measuring the flow rate of the gas using the gas flow meter, and wherein the gas flow controller adjusts the flow rate of gas to the outlet aperture based on a gas flow rate measured by the gas flow meter, based on the teachings of Hirabayashi that maintaining a particular flow rate is important to avoid fragmentation of the sample at the capillary tip (Hirabayashi, page 4, paragraph beginning “when the characteristic value F / S…”).
Claims 17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleifer in view of Hirabayashi.
Regarding claim 17, Schleifer discloses a nebuliser apparatus comprising:
a nebuliser comprising an outlet aperture (FIG. 1C, element 172) and a liquid capillary (FIG. 1C, element 108), wherein the nebuliser is configured such that an outlet of the liquid capillary is withdrawn within the nebuliser (FIG. 1C: the outlet at the rightmost end of the capillary is internal to sprayer tip 116 of the nebuliser), and wherein the apparatus is configured such that the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture can be altered (FIG. 1C, axial direction 186; column 11, lines 17-19);
a gas supply configured to supply gas to the outlet aperture (column 8, lines 31-32); and
a sensor configured to measure a property of the gas supplied to the outlet aperture (column 12, lines 18-26);
wherein the apparatus is configured such that the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture can be determined based on the property measured by the sensor (column 12, lines 18-21).
Schleifer fails to disclose that the sensor is a flow meter; and that the measured property is a flow rate of the gas.
However, Hirabayashi discloses a flow meter configured to measure a flow rate of the gas supplied to the outlet aperture (page 6, paragraph 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schleifer to include a flow meter configured to measure a flow rate of the gas supplied to the outlet aperture, based on the teachings of Hirabayashi that maintaining a particular flow rate is important to avoid fragmentation of the sample at the capillary tip (Hirabayashi, page 4, paragraph beginning “when the characteristic value F / S…”).
Regarding claim 20, Schleifer in view of Hirabayashi as applied to claim 17 discloses the apparatus of claim 17.
In addition, Hirabayashi discloses a gas flow controller (FIG. 1, element 4) that comprises the flow meter (page 6, paragraph 0025), wherein the gas flow controller is configured for adjusting the flow rate of gas to the outlet aperture based on a gas flow rate measured by the flow meter (page 5, paragraph beginning “FIG. 1 is a block diagram…” through paragraph ending “200 m / s or more”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schleifer in view of Hirabayashi to include a gas flow controller that comprises the flow meter, wherein the gas flow controller is configured for adjusting the flow rate of gas to the outlet aperture based on a gas flow rate measured by the flow meter, based on the additional teachings of Hirabayashi that maintaining a particular flow rate is important to avoid fragmentation of the sample at the capillary tip (Hirabayashi, page 4, paragraph beginning “when the characteristic value F / S…”).
Regarding claim 21, Schleifer in view of Hirabayashi as applied to claim 17 discloses the nebulizer apparatus of claim 17.
In addition, Schleifer discloses an ion source comprising the nebulizer apparatus (column 2, lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 22, Schleifer in view of Hirabayashi as applied to claim 21 discloses the ion source of claim 21.
In addition, Schleifer discloses an analytical instrument comprising the ion source (column 2, lines 32-37), wherein the analytical instrument comprises a mass and/or ion mobility spectrometer (column 16, lines 13-15).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schleifer in view of Hirabayashi as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 18, Schleifer in view of Hirabayashi as applied to claim 17 discloses the apparatus of claim 17, including determining the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture based on the measured flow rate.
Schleifer in view of Hirabayashi fails to disclose information indicative of a first flow rate, wherein the first flow rate is a flow rate that is indicative of the liquid capillary being in a first position relative to the outlet aperture; wherein the apparatus is configured such that the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture can be determined by comparing the measured flow rate to the first flow rate.
However, Hasegawa discloses information indicative of a first measured property, wherein the first measured property is a measured property that is indicative of the liquid capillary being in a first position relative to the outlet aperture (paragraph 0066, the first measured property being the value of the current when the capillary is at the “normal position”);
wherein the apparatus is configured such that the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture can be determined by comparing the measured property to the first measured property (paragraph 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Schleifer in view of Hirabayashi to include information indicative of a first flow rate, wherein the first flow rate is a flow rate that is indicative of the liquid capillary being in a first position relative to the outlet aperture; wherein the apparatus is configured such that the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture can be determined by comparing the measured flow rate to the first flow rate, based on the teachings of Hasegawa that this determination prevents analysis from being performed in a state in which the apparatus is contaminated due to improper positioning of the capillary (Hasegawa, paragraph 0048).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12 is allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach “determining, based on the measured flow rate, whether the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture is stable” in combination with the additional limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 12 depends.
The closest prior art of record, Schleifer, teaches determining the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture. However, Schleifer fails to teach the position of the capillary being stable or unstable. Therefore, the prior art of record fails to teach “determining, based on the measured flow rate, whether the position of the liquid capillary relative to the outlet aperture is stable” as currently claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALINA R KALISZEWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881