DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Applicant's submission filed on January 28, 2026 has been entered.
Any previous objection/ rejection not repeated herein has been withdrawn. New and/or modified grounds for rejection, necessitated by the amendments, are discussed. In addition.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “detector included in the immunoassay analyzer” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
“coagulation time detecting portion” in claim 1;
“immunoassay analyzer/ section” in claims 1 and 4;
“reagent heating function” in claims 5 and 8 (which has been interpreted as a heating element or structural equivalents thereof, as described in para [0110] et seq. of applicant’s ‘186 specification); and
“biochemical analysis section” in claim 7, has been interpreted as a reaction disk, a sample dispensing mechanism, a first reagent dispensing mechanism, and a first photometer or structural equivalents thereof, as discussed in para [0087] of applicant’s ‘186 specification.
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.
The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts. In this case, it is expected that “portion to”, “part to” and “section configured to”, would also be considered reasonably generic placeholders that does not invoke sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
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.
In addition, the instant amendment to claim 1 now includes “a controller configured to” perform the functional language. Therefore, the functional/process language following the controller has now received patentable weight by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-8 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim 1 now recites wherein “the controller is configured to control the reaction vessel transfer mechanism to hold and transfer the disposable reaction vessel from the sample dispensing position to the coagulation time detecting portion and start a blood coagulation time measurement of the sample mixed with a reagent contained in the disposable reaction vessel placed on the coagulation time detecting portion.” This does not find support in the disclosure as filed. Specifically, the examiner cannot find support for the “start” of a blood coagulation time measurement of the sample mixed with a reagent contained in the disposable reaction vessel placed on the coagulation time detecting portion reads like the sample is already mixed with the reagent and then the blood coagulation time is measured. However, as shown in Fig. 3e, the reaction starts upon addition of a reagent. Thus, there is no “start” of a blood coagulation time measurement until after the addition of the reagent, which happens after the move of the reaction vessel to the blood coagulation time detecting part (see para [0080] and Figs. 3a-m of applicant’s disclosure). The claim recites a sample mixed with a reagent in contained in the disposable reaction vessel. The claim does not require the “start” to be linked to the addition of the reagent. Rather, as best understood, the reagent is already present in the disposable reaction vessel. Also, there is no previous step to introduce the reagent into disposable reaction container. Thus, this is considered new matter.
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 and 4-8 remain 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 imitations “coagulation time detecting part” and “immunoassay section” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. That is, no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
As to claim 1 now recites “start a blood coagulation time measurement of the disposable reaction vessel in which the sample measured by the blood coagulation time measurement section after the disposable reaction vessel is held and transferred by the reaction vessel transfer mechanism from the sample dispensing position to the coagulation time detecting part”. This merely recites including a sample into the disposable reaction vessel. It is not clear how the addition of sample without a reagent starts a blood coagulation time measurement. This is confusing and indefinite.
Claim 1 now recites “an immunoassay analyzer including a detector’. Claim 4, depends from claim 1, and recites “the immunoassay section includes a detecting section”. It is not clear if the immunoassay analyzer and detector are the same of different from the immunoassay section and detecting section. This is confusing and indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will assume these are the same element. Nevertheless, this should be clarified by applicant in the next response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4, as best understood, remain rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)/(e) as being anticipated by Mimura et al., (WO 2010/117045; see corresponding US Patent Pub. No. 2012/0048036 for citations below; hereinafter "Mimura").
As to claim 1, Mimura teaches an automatic analyzer comprising:
a blood coagulation time measuring section 30a-c configured to analyze a blood coagulation time of a sample (Mimura teaches at para [0021] et seq., in blood coagulation tests, measurement is carried out a plurality of times at certain interval during reactions, para [0067] recites the flow analysis mechanisms 30a to 30c are capable of suitably selecting and carrying out the tests of publicly-known items, in which flow analysis such as immunoserological tests, blood coagulation tests, and electrolyte tests can be carried out, in accordance with requested contents);
an immunoassay analyzer including a detector (Mimura teaches the flow analysis mechanisms (test mechanisms) 30a to 30c are provided in the apparatus front side with respect to the intermediate disk 20 (see para [0062] et seq.); thus it is expected that the immunoassay analyzer 30a-c includes a “detector” Mimura teaches FIGS. 27A and 27B are explanatory diagrams each explaining an operation example in the biochemical test, FIGS. 28A to 28D are explanatory diagrams each explaining an operation example in the immunoserological test, and FIGS. 29A to 29C are explanatory diagrams each explaining an operation example in a case that the biochemical test and the immunoserological test are combined) and (Mimura also teaches in the flow-based analysis such as the immunoserological test, the operations of FIGS. 3A to 4A are similar to those of the biochemical test which requires the pretreatment except that a test reagent for the flow-based analysis instead of the pretreatment liquid is dispensed and mixed with the sample. And, after the reaction of the sample with the flow-based analysis reagent, as shown in FIG. 6, the reaction liquid is suctioned by the flow-based analysis mechanism 30b in the drawing example; see para [0112] et seq.); and
a reaction vessel supply unit 50 configured to store a plurality of disposable reaction vessels 21 (note: any reaction vessel is considered disposable); see para [0086] et seq.
a reaction vessel transfer mechanism (reads on intermediate disk 20 and/or vessel gripper 55) configured to transfer the disposable reaction vessel, see para [0135] et seq.;
a sample dispensing mechanism 15 configured to dispense a sample in the disposable reaction vessel 21 (see para [0086] et seq. and Fig. 3b); and
a sample dispensing position (reads dispensing position located in the vessel which is held on the intermediate disk 20, see para [0086] et seq. and Fig. 3b),
Mimura teaches a controller (see para [0060] et seq.) configured to control the disposable reaction vessel transfer mechanism 20 which holds and transfer the disposable reaction vessel from the sample dispensing position to the coagulation time detecting part and start a blood coagulation time measurement of the disposable reaction vessel in which the sample measured by the blood coagulation time measurement section starts after the disposable reaction vessel is held and transferred by the reaction vessel transfer mechanism 20 from the sample dispensing position thereon to in front of the coagulation time detecting part 30a-c (see para [0096] et seq.)
As to claim 4, Mimura teaches the immunoassay analyzer is configured to perform heterogeneous immunoassay for heterogeneous immunoassay item measurement and a B/F separating mechanism (the flow-based analysis mechanisms 30a to 30c can arbitrarily select and carry out a test for a publicly-known item in which the flow-based analysis (the test for the item having the relatively small number of test requests) can be carried out such as the immunoserological test, the blood coagulation test, and the electrolyte test, in accordance with a content of the test request. The number of the flow-based analysis mechanisms may be arbitrarily increased, decreased, or eliminated in accordance with the content of the test request. In this manner, the device can be further simplified. Also, since the number of patterns of the sample-conveying path is decreased, the control becomes easy, and a test efficiency can be improved (see para [0084] et seq.) Mimura teaches B/F separation (i.e., B/F separator) can be added to the automated analyzer apparatus (see para [0004] et seq.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-8, as best understood, remain rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Yoshikawa et al., JP 2011-99681; hereinafter "Yoshikawa", see machine-generated English translation included in parent case 14/402,906, see Final rejection filed May 20, 2016).
As to claims 5 and 8, Mimura does teach the blood coagulation time measurement section includes a coagulation time detection part 30a-c in which a disposable reaction vessel in which a sample has been dispensed is transferred by the reaction vessel transfer mechanism 20 (see para [0066] et seq.), a reagent dispensing mechanism 66a, 66b, and a reagent is dispensed in the disposable reaction vessel transferred to the coagulation time detection part.
However, Mimura does not explicitly disclose the a reagent dispensing mechanism has a reagent heating function.
In the relate art of automatic analyzers, Yoshikawa teaches an automatic analyzer comprising:
a reagent dispensing mechanism 300 that dispenses one or more reagents to the reaction cells 106 and dispenses reagent to the disposable reaction vessel, wherein the reagent dispensing mechanism includes a heating function 304; and
a blood coagulation time measuring section 200 that irradiates a reaction solution in the disposable reaction vessel with light to thereby detect transmitted light or scattered light.
Yoshikawa teaches the reagent dispensing mechanism 300 with the reagent heating function (heating means 304) suctions one of the reagents from the reaction cells 106 and dispenses the suction one of the reagents to the disposable reaction vessel 206 at the one of the blood coagulation time detectors, see para [0041] and [0047]-[0048]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to have included in Mimura the reagent dispensing mechanism with a reagent heating function, as taught by Yoshikawa, in order to prevent cooled reagent from being dispensed into a heated sample thereby causing the temperature of the sample to drop and the blood coagulation reaction to not proceed normally (see para [0041]).
As to claim 6, Yoshikawa teaches a disk of reagent 107 of heterogeneous immunoassay storing a reagent for measuring a heterogeneous immunoassay item is disposed in an operation range of the reagent dispensing mechanism (see Mimura- para [0117] et seq.) The reagent dispensing mechanism with a reagent heating function is taught by Yoshikawa (as set forth above). Note: the “wherein the reactions disk is configured to preheat the reagent dispensing in the reaction cell” has not received patentable weight as this is process and/or functional recitation, which does not further limit the system type claim.
As to claim 7, modified Mimura teaches a biochemical analysis section 62; a reaction disk 60 that is rotatable and holds a plurality of reaction cells 61 arranged on a circumference; wherein the sample dispensing mechanism 16 is configured to dispense a sample in the reaction cell held by the reaction disk, and the sample measured by the biochemical analysis section 62 is a sample dispensed in the reaction cell held by the reaction disk (Mimura-see para [0063] et seq.) Yoshikawa teaches the first reaction unit 100 is connected to a constant temperature water supply device 109, and functions as a constant temperature tank by the constant temperature water supplied from the constant temperature water supply device 109, (see Yoshikawa- para [0028] et seq.).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 4-8 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,696,329, claims 1-14 of US Patent No. 10,416,179 and claims 1-6 of US Patent No. 11,209,448 and claims 1-7 of US 12,000,849. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all recite an automatic analyzer comprising: a blood coagulation time measuring section having a light detection system to irradiate a reaction solution including one of the samples, immunoassay section; and a reaction vessel supply. Thus, considering the open transitional phrase “comprising” used in the instant claims, all of the elements of the invention recited in the instant claims are encompassed by the claims of US 12,000,849, 11,209,448, 10,416,179, and US 9,696,329. Applicant’s assertion that the instant amendment overcomes this rejection is not convincing for the reasons delineated here.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the rejection over Mimura ‘038, applicant argues that Mimura does not disclose “wherein the controller is configured to control the reaction vessel transfer mechanism to hold and transfer the disposable reaction vessel from the sample Page 2 of 10 dispensing position to the coagulation time detecting part portion and start a blood coagulation time measurement of the sample mixed with a reagent contained in the disposable reaction vessel placed on the coagulation time detecting portion.
Respectfully, as best understood, the examiner asserts that Fig. 6 of Mimura shows operation flows from the disposable reaction vessels 21 to 30a-c flow analysis mechanisms (see para [0060]). The intermediate disk 20 is provided in a lateral side of the sample disk 10 to carry out not only pretreatment of samples by pretreatment liquid, but also reactions between the samples and a flow analysis reagent (see para [0065] et seq.) In addition, Mimura teaches at least at para [0067] that the flow analysis mechanisms 30a to 30c are capable of suitably selecting and carrying out the tests of publicly-known items, in which flow analysis such as immunoserological tests (where serological tests are a specific type of immunological test that focuses on identifying antibodies in the blood serum, which reads on the claimed immunoassay analyzer/ section with a detector), blood coagulation tests (which reads on the claimed blood coagulation time measurement section) in accordance with requested contents (see para [0067] et seq.) For these reasons the claims remain rejected over the prior art.
The examiner does not find that the double patenting rejection has been overcome by the claims as presently amended, for the reasons delineated above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am-7:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (571) 270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights