DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments and remarks, filed on 5/20/2025, has been entered. The claim amendments overcome the previous prior art rejection, and a new prior art rejection is applied to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9, 11-26, 56-59, 61-65 are pending with claims 1-9, 11-14, 56-59, and 61-65 being examined and claims 15-26 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-9, 11-14, 56-61, and 64-65 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a controller configured to execute the automated analysis of the plurality of fluid samples in an order determined by prioritization data for each of the plurality of fluid samples" in 15-16. The limitation is unclear as to how the plurality of fluid samples are determined. Specifically, there are a plurality of fluid sample. However, it is unclear as to where the plurality of fluid samples is comprised. Specifically, the plurality of fluid devices comprises “a fluid sample therein” but that does not require the fluid samples to be different. Therefore, a plurality/multiple of fluid sample may be the same fluid sample. Further, the system processes only a single fluid sample into the master well plate and the into the sample well plate. Thus, it is unclear as to how the prioritization data may be determined if “the plurality of fluid samples” are the same and when only a single fluid sample is processed. Are there fluid samples different from one another? Are there multiple master/sample well plates that can be processed? Claims 2-9, 11-13, and 56-57 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "determining, by a controller, an analysis order for the plurality of fluid samples based on prioritization data for each of the plurality of fluid samples" in 15-16. The limitation is unclear as to how the plurality of fluid samples are determined. Specifically, there are a plurality of fluid sample. However, it is unclear as to where the plurality of fluid samples is comprised. Specifically, the plurality of fluid devices comprises “a fluid sample therein” but that does not require the fluid samples to be different. Therefore, a plurality/multiple of fluid sample may be the same fluid sample. Further, the method processes only a single fluid sample into the master well plate and the into the sample well plate. Thus, it is unclear as to how the prioritization data may be determined if “the plurality of fluid samples” are the same and when only a single fluid sample is processed. Are there fluid samples different from one another? Are there multiple master/sample well plates that can be processed? Claims 58-59, 61, and 64 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 14.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the plurality of fluid devices” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis, thus the limitation is unclear. Claims 58-59, 61, and 64 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 56-59, 61, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al (US 20110143947 A1; hereinafter “Chamberlain”; already of record) in view of Furrer et al (US 20150224497 A1; hereinafter “Furrer”; already of record) in view of Franz et al (US 20180292368 A1; hereinafter “Franz”).
Regarding claim 1, Chamberlain teaches a system for automated analysis of a plurality of fluid samples from a cell processing system (Chamberlain; Abstract), the system comprising:
a plurality of fluid device, each comprising a container and a fluid sample therein (Chamberlain; Fig. 2; para [65]; Each sample rack includes a plurality of sample tube positions (150));
a fluid device docking station configured to receive the fluid device (Chamberlain; Fig. 2; para [65]; The sample rack subassembly includes a housing (110) with a plurality of individual sample rack compartments (120));
a master well plate (Chamberlain; para [10]; an auxiliary plate comprising a plurality of auxiliary wells, the auxiliary well comprising dry assay reagents for use in the assay with the assay test plate);
a sample well plate (Chamberlain; para [9]; a multi-well assay test plate comprising a plurality of assay wells for the assay);
a fluid transfer system configured to transfer the fluid sample from the fluid device to the master well plate, and transfer at least a portion of the fluid sample from the master well plate to the sample well plate (Chamberlain; para [120, 121]; (a) dispensing a sample and/or a reagent into a first auxiliary well of the auxiliary plate; and (b) transferring the sample and/or reagent from the auxiliary well to a first test well of the assay test plate);
an analytical instrument configured to perform an assay on the fluid sample within the sample well plate (Chamberlain; para [131]; an analysis position in which the well is aligned with signal induction and/or detection components, e.g., in the case of instrumentation for ECL assays, an electrical contact mechanism and an ECL imaging component);
a robot configured to move the sample well plate to the analytical instrument (Chamberlain; para [131]; the one, two or more assay test plates are supported on a plate translation stage and the method comprises translating the test plate(s) via the plate translation stage); and
a controller configured to execute the automated analysis (Chamberlain; para [ 233]; the apparatus hardware includes electronic control and data processing circuitry, such as a microprocessor or microcontroller, memory, and non-volatile storage).
Chamberlain does not teach a cap that is releasably couplable with the container.
However, Furrer teaches an analogous art of a sample collection tube (Furrer; Abstract) comprising a cap that is releasably couplable with the tube (Furrer; para [11]; the cap portion can be removed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the container of Park to comprise the releasable cap as taught by Furrer, because Furrer teaches that the cap prevents evaporation, spilling and contamination of the sample or of the environment with the sample and for facilitating storage for later usage (Furrer; para [48]).
Modified Chamberlain does not teach a controller configured to execute the automated analysis of the plurality of fluid samples in an order determined by prioritization data for each of the plurality of fluid samples wherein the prioritization data comprises one or more of: a type of cell product within the fluid sample, an evaluation timing sensitivity of the cell product, a type of analysis for the cell product, or an expected analysis duration for the cell product.
However, Franz teaches an analogous art of an clinical diagnostic device (Franz; Abstract) comprising a plurality of fluid device comprising a fluid sample (Franz; para [22, 29]; processing operations carried out on a sample or a plurality of samples…Sample may be provided, for example, in sample containers such as sample tubes, including primary tubes and secondary tubes, or multi-well plates, or any other sample carrying support) and a controller (Franz; para [42]; The clinical diagnostic system can further comprise a controller), wherein the controller is configured to execute the automated analysis of the plurality of fluid samples in an order determined by prioritization data for each of the plurality of fluid samples wherein the prioritization data comprises one or more of: a type of cell product within the fluid sample, an evaluation timing sensitivity of the cell product, a type of analysis for the cell product, or an expected analysis duration for the cell product (Franz; Fig. 2; para [129, 130]; a clinical diagnostic method and, in particular, a combination of possible workflow paths that, depending on the sample type and/or the analytes of interest in a sample; Examiner notes analysis is determined by the type of sample and the analytes of interest which would result in different analysis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the controller of modified Chamberlain to be configured to prioritize the plurality of fluid samples based on the type of analysis for the cell product as taught by Franz, because Franz teaches that the controller determines the scheduling based on the information to increase efficiency while avoiding conflicts (Franz; para [44, 45]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of fluid device docking stations, each docking station configured to receive a fluid device therein (Chamberlain; para [65]; Each sample rack compartment may optionally include a door (140) through which a sample rack is inserted).
Regarding claim 3, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the fluid device comprises a barcode identifying the fluid sample therein (Chamberlain; para [235]; The sample tube rack may also include two or more additional identifiers, e.g., a barcode, with information specific for individual samples and/or positions within the rack, e.g., information concerning the sample present at a given position in the rack).
Regarding claim 4, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of sample well plates (Chamberlain; para [235]; the assay apparatus uses a plurality of different assay consumables; e.g., a multi-well assay plates), wherein a distribution of fluid within each of the plurality of sample well plates match a distribution of fluid within the master well plate (Chamberlain; para [25]; dispensing step (a) comprises pre-treating the sample and/or reagent in the auxiliary well. Still further, transferring step (b) may comprise dispensing pre-treated sample and/or reagent from the auxiliary well to the well of the test plate).
Regarding claim 5, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the system is enclosed within a sterile environment (Chamberlain; para [64]; a view of the apparatus that includes an optional housing (900)).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the analytical instrument is selected from the group consisting of a flow cytometer, a cell counter, a quantitative thermocycler, a fluorimeter, a flow-based bead reader, digital polymerase chain reaction, cell analyzers, and a microplate reader (Chamberlain; para [117]; a measurement done with the apparatus of the invention may employ electrochemiluminescence-based assay formats, e.g. electrochemiluminescence based immunoassays).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 2, wherein each fluid device contains a different fluid (Chamberlain; para [122]; The method may further comprise repeating steps (a) and (b) in additional auxiliary and test wells. The steps may be repeated using the same sample and/or reagent or different samples and/or reagents). The steps (a) and (b) are discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 7, wherein each fluid is selected from the group consisting of assay controls, assay reagents, and fluid samples (Chamberlain; para [122]; The method may further comprise repeating steps (a) and (b) in additional auxiliary and test wells. The steps may be repeated using the same sample and/or reagent or different samples and/or reagents).
Regarding claim 9, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the assay reagents include buffers, dyes, antibodies, purified proteins, small molecules, or combinations thereof (Chamberlain; para [83]; liquid and/or dry reagents. In certain embodiments, each assay well may be associated with a set of auxiliary wells that may include a combination of liquid or dry reagents. For example, certain reagents, e.g., detection antibodies).
Regarding claim 11, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the fluid device docking station comprises a barcode reader configured to read a barcode associated with the fluid device received therein (Chamberlain; para [235]; The sample tube rack may also include two or more additional identifiers, e.g., a barcode, with information specific for individual samples and/or positions within the rack, e.g., information concerning the sample present at a given position in the rack).
Regarding claim 12, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the fluid device docking station comprises a wash solution reservoir (Chamberlain; para [700]; a well-wash subassembly (700)). The wash subassembly is adjacent of the fluid device docking station as seen in Fig. 1a.
Regarding claim 13, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising an intermediate sample well plate, wherein the fluid transfer device is configured to transfer fluid from the master well plate to the sample well plate via the intermediate sample well plate (Chamberlain; para [33]; repeating steps (a)-(c) with an additional sample and reagents in an additional set of auxiliary wells in the auxiliary plate repeating steps (a)-(c) with an additional sample and reagents in an additional set of auxiliary wells in the auxiliary plate). The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the fluid transfer device, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Chamberlain in view of Furrer and the fluid transfer device of modified Chamberlain is capable of “transfer[ing] fluid from the master well plate to the sample well plate via the intermediate sample well plate”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed fluid transfer device is not differentiated from the fluid transfer device of modified Chamberlain (see MPEP §2114). The examiner interprets the additional auxiliary plates as the intermediate sample well plate.
Regarding claim 14, Chamberlain teaches the method for automated analysis of a plurality of fluid samples from a cell processing system (Chamberlain; Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving the plurality of fluid devices within a fluid device docking station (Chamberlain; Fig. 2; para [65]; The sample rack subassembly includes a housing (110) with a plurality of individual sample rack compartments (120)), the fluid device comprising a container and a fluid sample therein (Chamberlain; Fig. 2; para [65]; Each sample rack includes a plurality of sample tube positions (150));
transferring, by a first fluid transfer device, the fluid sample from the fluid device to a master well plate (Chamberlain; para [120]; (a) dispensing a sample and/or a reagent into a first auxiliary well of the auxiliary plate);
transferring, by a second fluid transfer device, at least a portion of the fluid sample from the master well plate to a sample well plate (Chamberlain; para [121]; (b) transferring the sample and/or reagent from the auxiliary well to a first test well of the assay test plate);
moving, by a robot, the sample well plate to an analytical instrument (Chamberlain; para [131]; the one, two or more assay test plates are supported on a plate translation stage and the method comprises translating the test plate(s) via the plate translation stage); and
executing, by a controller, the automated analysis of the fluid sample (Chamberlain; para [ 233]; the apparatus hardware includes electronic control and data processing circuitry, such as a microprocessor or microcontroller, memory, and non-volatile storage).
Chamberlain does not teach a cap that is releasably couplable with the container.
However, Furrer teaches an analogous art of a sample collection tube (Furrer; Abstract) comprising a cap that is releasably couplable with the tube (Furrer; para [11]; the cap portion can be removed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the container of Park to comprise the releasable cap as taught by Furrer, because Furrer teaches that the cap prevents evaporation, spilling and contamination of the sample or of the environment with the sample and for facilitating storage for later usage (Furrer; para [48]).
Modified Chamberlain does not teach the steps of determining, by a controller, an analysis order for the plurality of fluid samples based on prioritization data for each of the plurality of fluid samples; and executing, by the controller, the automated analysis of the plurality of fluid samples according to the analysis order.
However, Franz teaches an analogous art of an clinical diagnostic device (Franz; Abstract) comprising a plurality of fluid device comprising a fluid sample (Franz; para [22, 29]; processing operations carried out on a sample or a plurality of samples…Sample may be provided, for example, in sample containers such as sample tubes, including primary tubes and secondary tubes, or multi-well plates, or any other sample carrying support) and a controller (Franz; para [42]; The clinical diagnostic system can further comprise a controller) for determining an analysis order for the plurality of fluid samples based on prioritization data for each of the plurality of fluid samples; and executing the automated analysis of the plurality of fluid samples according to the analysis order (Franz; Fig. 2; para [129, 130]; a clinical diagnostic method and, in particular, a combination of possible workflow paths that, depending on the sample type and/or the analytes of interest in a sample; Examiner notes analysis is determined by the type of sample and the analytes of interest which would result in different analysis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the controller of modified Chamberlain to teach the determination/execution steps taught by Franz, because Franz teaches that the controller determines the scheduling based on the information to increase efficiency while avoiding conflicts (Franz; para [44, 45]).
Regarding claim 56, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 1, with the fluid device docking station.
Modified Chamberlain does not teach wherein the fluid device docking station comprises a disassembly instrument configured to decouple the cap from the container of the fluid device.
However, Furrer teaches an analogous art of a sample collection tube (Furrer; Abstract) comprising wherein a fluid device docking station (Furrer; Fig. 9; para [85]; a work cell 200) a disassembly instrument configured to decouple the cap from the container of the fluid device (Furrer; para [85]; the work cell 200 includes a tube opening unit 210 adapted to pivot the cap portion 32 with respect to the sidewall 20 or to separate the cap portion 62 from the base portion 61). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art by the effective filing date to have modified the fluid device docking station to comprise the opening unit as taught by Furrer, because Furrer teaches that the opening unit pivots the cap to allow the tube to withdraw an aliquot of the sample (Furrer; para [85]).
Regarding claim 57, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the cap comprises a coupling feature configured to releasably couple to a coupling feature of the container (Furrer; para [11, 49]; the cap portion can be removed…the elastomeric material of the cap portion can be frictionally engaged with the base portion). Examiner notes that the walls of the cap are interpreted as the coupling features as seen in Fig. 8.
Regarding claim 58, modified Chamberlain teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising decoupling the cap from the container (Furrer; para [11, 49]; the cap portion can be removed) of the fluid device such that the fluid sample is exposed within the container (Park; para [29, 119]; a biological sample tube rack 280 including biological sample tubes 281 putting the biological samples).
Regarding claim 59, modified Chamberlain teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the sample well plate is moved to the analytical instrument after the portion of the fluid sample is transferred from the master well plate to the sample well plate (Chamberlain; para [120, 121]; (a) dispensing a sample and/or a reagent into a first auxiliary well of the auxiliary plate; and (b) transferring the sample and/or reagent from the auxiliary well to a first test well of a the assay test plate).
Regarding claim 61, modified Chamberlain teaches the method of claim 14 (the method of modified Chamberlain is modified to teach the prioritization data steps as taught by Franz discussed above in claim 14), wherein the prioritization data comprises at least one of: a type of cell product within the fluid sample, an evaluation timing a sensitivity of the cell product, a type of analysis for the cell product, an expected analysis duration, or a location of the analysis (Franz; Fig. 2; para [129, 130]; a clinical diagnostic method and, in particular, a combination of possible workflow paths that, depending on the sample type and/or the analytes of interest in a sample; Examiner notes analysis is determined by the type of sample and the analytes of interest which would result in different analysis).
Regarding claim 64, modified Chamberlain teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising dynamically adjusting the analysis order based on updated prioritization data received for at least one of the plurality of fluid samples (Franz; Fig. 2; para [76, 77]).
Claims 62-63 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain et al (US 20110143947 A1; hereinafter “Chamberlain”; already of record) in view of Franz et al (US 20180292368 A1; hereinafter “Franz”).
Regarding claim 62, modified Chamberlain teaches a system for automated analysis of a plurality of fluid samples from a cell processing system (Chamberlain; Abstract), the system comprising:
a fluid device carrying a first fluid sample therein (Chamberlain; Fig. 2; para [65]; Each sample rack includes a plurality of sample tube positions (150));
a fluid device docking station configured to receive the fluid device (Chamberlain; Fig. 2; para [65]; The sample rack subassembly includes a housing (110) with a plurality of individual sample rack compartments (120));
a master well plate configured to receive the plurality of fluid samples therein (Chamberlain; para [10]; an auxiliary plate comprising a plurality of auxiliary wells, the auxiliary well comprising dry assay reagents for use in the assay with the assay test plate);
a sample well plate (Chamberlain; para [9]; a multi-well assay test plate comprising a plurality of assay wells for the assay);
a fluid transfer system configured to:
transfer the first fluid sample to the master well plate, and transfer at least a portion of the first fluid sample from the master well plate to the sample well plate (Chamberlain; para [120, 121]; (a) dispensing a sample and/or a reagent into a first auxiliary well of the auxiliary plate; and (b) transferring the sample and/or reagent from the auxiliary well to a first test well of the assay test plate);
an analytical instrument configured to analyze the first fluid sample (Chamberlain; para [131]; an analysis position in which the well is aligned with signal induction and/or detection components, e.g., in the case of instrumentation for ECL assays, an electrical contact mechanism and an ECL imaging component); and
a controller configured to execute the automated analysis (Chamberlain; para [ 233]; the apparatus hardware includes electronic control and data processing circuitry, such as a microprocessor or microcontroller, memory, and non-volatile storage).
Modified Chamberlain does not teach the controller configured to assign each of the plurality of fluid samples a priority level for the automated analysis based on prioritization data for each fluid sample, and execute the automated analysis for the plurality of fluid samples in an order based on their respective priority levels.
However, Franz teaches an analogous art of an clinical diagnostic device (Franz; Abstract) comprising a plurality of fluid device comprising a fluid sample (Franz; para [22, 29]; processing operations carried out on a sample or a plurality of samples…Sample may be provided, for example, in sample containers such as sample tubes, including primary tubes and secondary tubes, or multi-well plates, or any other sample carrying support) and a controller (Franz; para [42]; The clinical diagnostic system can further comprise a controller) assign each of the plurality of fluid samples a priority level for the automated analysis based on prioritization data for each fluid sample, and execute the automated analysis for the plurality of fluid samples in an order based on their respective priority levels (Franz; Fig. 2; para [129, 130]; a clinical diagnostic method and, in particular, a combination of possible workflow paths that, depending on the sample type and/or the analytes of interest in a sample; Examiner notes analysis is determined by the type of sample and the analytes of interest which would result in different analysis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the controller of modified Chamberlain to teach the determination/execution steps taught by Franz, because Franz teaches that the controller determines the scheduling based on the information to increase efficiency while avoiding conflicts (Franz; para [44, 45]).
Regarding claim 63, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 62, wherein the prioritization data comprises at least one of: a type of cell product within the fluid sample, an evaluation timing sensitivity of the cell product, a type of analysis for the cell product, an expected analysis duration, or a location of the analysis (Franz; Fig. 2; para [129, 130]; a clinical diagnostic method and, in particular, a combination of possible workflow paths that, depending on the sample type and/or the analytes of interest in a sample; Examiner notes analysis is determined by the type of sample and the analytes of interest which would result in different analysis).
Regarding claim 65, modified Chamberlain teaches the system of claim 62, wherein the controller is configured to assign a lower priority level to a first fluid sample having a longer expected analysis duration than that of a second fluid sample (Franz; Fig. 2; para [76, 77]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/25/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made with respect to the amended limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights