DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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: flow generating and stopping device in claim 1-20.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim 1-20 are 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. Specifically, the examiner fails to find a clearly disclosed structural link between the “flow generating and stopping device” and a corresponding series of structures that would perform the claimed function. As such the claim lacks a sufficient written description on the corresponding structure of the noted nonce terms.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “flow generating and stopping device” of claim 1, invokes 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. The examiner failed to find any disclosure as to what structures or class of structures would fall within out outside of the noted device. 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. Claims 2-20 are rejected for their dependence on instant claim 1.
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.
The phrase “or around” in claim 13 is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “or around” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner fails to find any clear recitation in the instant disclosure to enable a person having ordinary skill in the art to determine what amount of variance from the disclosed wavelengths would fall within or outside of the phrase “or around”. As such the examiner has no way to determine what the scope of the actual limitation encompasses. For examination purposes the examiner is interpreting any wavelengths that are capable of imaging the sample under test as “or around” the claimed wavelengths. The lack of clarity is further compounded by the phrase “where the index of refraction is higher/lower”. As applicant fails to claim with respect to what is the index of refraction higher or lower. For example is applicant referring to the index of refraction of the cells, the fluid, the sample holder, the medium with which the light goes through outside of the noted parts? All of which have indices of refraction. As such the examiner is interpreting the index of refractive to be inherently higher/lower based on the sample/medium under test since no relative link is made.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0039093 A1) in view of Galiano (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0116349 A1).
As to claim 1, Jones discloses and shows in figures 1, 3 and 4, a method of optically analyzing a blood cell from a blood sample with a device for optically analyzing a blood cell from a blood sample, the device comprising ([0013], ll. 7-12)
a microfluidic chamber (fluid pathways in figure 4; where the examiner is interpreting the fluid pathway as microfluidic in having at least one dimension in the micron scale as disclosed) with at least one fluidic flow-through channel (403) ([0021], ll. 7-10; [0069], ll. 1-7),
a first inlet port (407) configured to introduce at least a part of the blood sample into the fluidic channel ([0069], ll. 1-11),
a first outlet port (port at end of tube 403 or outlet port of 405, explicitly shown but not labeled, could both be interpreted as an “outlet port”) configured to discharge at least a part of the blood sample from the fluidic channel ([0069], ll. 1-11), and
a flow generating and stopping device (240, where the examiner is interpreting the vacuum/pressure pump as a structural equivalent for performing the same function) configured to generate a flow of the sample through the channel ([0067], ll. 1-10; [0094], ll. 33-39; where the examiner notes that “positioned in” implies that the sample is stopped within the imaging chamber where sedimentation would naturally occur, however for compact prosecution the examiner has added Galiano below to further explicitly show the stopping function of the fluid under test);
wherein cells sedimented (as modified in below, further as implied by the cells settled out at the bottom) within the first area of the lower surface (i.e. bottom) can be optically analyzed in the chamber ([0019], ll. 5-25),
wherein the channel has a height between 20 micrometers and 100 micrometers ([0019], ll. 12-13; 10-200 encompasses many channel heights within applicant’s range), and
wherein the first area of the lower surface has a size of at least 50 square mm ([0021], ll. 7-10; [0022], ll. 25-30, the dimensions as disclosed create a size of 250-1250 mm squared, falling within applicant’s claimed range),
the method comprising:
i) providing a blood sample obtained from a patient, wherein the sample has been obtained from the patient prior to performing any step of the method ([0014], ll. 1-6; where by the very nature of being a cartridge as shown in figure 3, explicitly the blood measured as disclosed is obtained prior),
ii) introducing at least a part of the blood sample into the channel via the first inlet port ([0069], ll. 1-11),
iii) generating a flow of the sample in the channel ([0067], ll. 1-10; [0094], ll. 33-39; where the examiner notes that “positioned in” implies that the sample is stopped within the imaging chamber where sedimentation would naturally occur, however for compact prosecution the examiner has added Galiano below to further explicitly show the stopping function of the fluid under test
iv) waiting until at least one cell has been sedimented and is in contact with the lower surface of the channel within the first area ([0020], ll. 4-11; where the examiner has directly address sedimentation below, however Jones also again implies this with cells settling at the bottom of the imaging chamber), and
v) optically analyzing, in the chamber, cells sedimented within the first area of the lower surface, wherein the blood sample comprises at least one red blood cell in a liquid medium and wherein optically analyzing cells in step v) comprises determining hemoglobin (as disclosed Jones measures hemoglobin) contents or volume of the red blood cell in the liquid medium using quantitative phase information and quantitative amplitude information obtained from the sample ([0020], ll. 4-11; [0069], ll. 1-11; [0084], ll. 16-19; [0087], ll. 13-17; where absorbance is a quantitative measure of amplitude intensity measurement of the optical reaction with the sample under test, likewise so is a fluorescence measurement for compact prosecution the examiner notes that Jones also discloses calculating MCV/MCH in [0088] which teaches the “or volume” option of claim 1).
Jones does not explicitly disclose where the and stopping the sample flow with the flow generating and stopping device while at least a part of the sample comprising at least one blood cell is situated within the channel and wherein after stopping the flow the sample is only influenced by gravity and inertial forces such that blood cells within the sample sediment on a first area of a lower surface of the channel or stopping the sample flow with the flow generating and stopping device while at least a part of the sample comprising at least one blood cell is situated within the channel and wherein after stopping the flow the sample is only influenced by gravity and inertial forces such that blood cells within the sample sediment on a first area of a lower surface of the channel.
However, Galiano does disclose in ([0031]; [0044]; [0104]; [0163]) the use of stopping sample flow in a similar microfluidic blood analysis device. Further that doing so obviously results in gravity/inertial forces being the overwhelming force on the blood. As such by definition sedimentation covers a first area (i.e. the lower surface where the cells fall as a function of gravity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones where the and stopping the sample flow with the flow generating and stopping device while at least a part of the sample comprising at least one blood cell is situated within the channel and wherein after stopping the flow the sample is only influenced by gravity and inertial forces such that blood cells within the sample sediment on a first area of a lower surface of the channel or stopping the sample flow with the flow generating and stopping device while at least a part of the sample comprising at least one blood cell is situated within the channel and wherein after stopping the flow the sample is only influenced by gravity and inertial forces such that blood cells within the sample sediment on a first area of a lower surface of the channel in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility and accuracy as explicitly noted by Galiano in the citations above using a stopped flow provides for the ability to taking a precise erythrocyte sedimentation rate measurement, and as also noted a more precise measurement of viscosity of the blood sample, as such obviously one can be more informed about the blood sample under test.
As to claim 2, Jones disclose a method, wherein the channel has a width between 1 and 3 mm ([0021], ll. 7-10; where .5-2.5 mm falls within applicant’s range).
As to claim 3, Jones does not explicitly disclose a method, wherein the channel has length between 20 mm and 100 mm.
However Jones does disclose in ([0020], ll. 1-15; ;[0021], ll. 7-10; claim 88 of Jones) the use of a length to width ratio of 2:1, greater than 10:1 or about 400:1) assuming a width of .5mm to 2.5 mm as disclosed, obviously many of the outputs of many of the potential claimed ratios would fall within the range 20-100mm for length. Since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones does not explicitly disclose a method, wherein the channel has length between 20 mm and 100 mm in order to provide the advantage of expected results and reduction in size as obviously making the channel 20-100 mm instead of 500 as disclosed in Jones could result in a more compact chip to use with a lower requirement for sample volume, and is one predictable length as obviously disclosed in conjunction with the ratio’s as taught by jones.
As to claim 5, Jones discloses and shows in figure 4 a method, wherein the inlet or outlet ports are connected to a fluidic system via one or more valves (i.e. rotary valve 415) ([0069], ll. 7-14).
As to claim 6, Jones discloses a method, wherein an inner surface of the channel is modified such that attachment of cells of certain cell types is decreased or increased (this is the inherent result of having diluent/reagents preloaded as disclosed where inherently some are on the inner surface of the channel) ([0034], ll. 1-3).
As to claim 9, Jones discloses and shows in figure 7 a below a method, wherein the chamber comprises a bottom part forming a bottom wall of the channel, wherein the bottom wall has a thickness not greater than compensable with a coverglass correction in standard microscope objectives ([0068], ll. 1-2, inherently the thickness is not greater than a correction requirement or the microscope used in Jones would not function).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, Jones discloses a method, wherein the chamber consists partially or completely of a transparent material ([0018], ll. 1-4; [0068], in order for the light to go through the cartridge as shown in figure 3, the chamber inherently has to be at least partially transparent in material design).
As to claim 11, Jones as modified by Galiano disclose a method, wherein at least one white blood cell has been sedimented and is in contact with the lower surface of the channel within the first area in step iv) ([0087], ll. 13-17; [0091], ll. 1-3; where if the fluid is stopped as modified in above for the same motivation and reasons above inherently the white blood cells as disclosed in Jones would be in contact with the lower surface as a function of gravity).
As to claim 12., Jones disclose a method, wherein optically analyzing the cells in step v) comprises imaging the cells ([0087]).
As to claim 14, Jones discloses a method, wherein the liquid medium contains or exists in a dilution medium and contains a dye type acid (Acridine Orange as known in the art is a dye type used in an acidic pH) ([0034], ll. 1-6).
As to claim 15, Jones discloses and shows in figure 3, a hematology analyzer comprising a device for optically analyzing a blood cell from a blood sample according to claim 1 and a control device (290) which is configured to execute a method according to claim 1 on the analyzer ([0012], ll. 1-4; [0068], ll. 8-11).
As to claim 16, Jones discloses a hematology analyzer wherein: the channel has a height between 40 and 60 micrometers (i.e. between 10-200 shows 40-60) ([0019], ll. 12-13); and
the first area of the lower surface has a size of at least 100 square mm ([0021], ll. 7-10; [0022], ll. 25-30, the dimensions as disclosed create a size of 250-1250 mm squared, falling within applicant’s claimed range).
As to claim 17, Jones discloses a hematology analyzer wherein the liquid medium contains or exists in a dilution medium (diluent/reagent) and contains a dispersive dye (i.e. stain) with regard to refractive index ([0017], ll. 1-16; [0034]; where the examiner is interpreting any of the noted stain/dyes inherently are dispersive to some degree and inherently they have different refractive indices).
As to claim 18, Jones in view of Galiano does not explicitly disclose a hematology analyzer, wherein the channel has length between 40 mm and 60 mm.
However Jones does disclose in ([0020], ll. 1-15; ;[0021], ll. 7-10; claim 88 of Jones) the use of a length to width ratio of 2:1, greater than 10:1 or about 400:1) assuming a width of .5mm to 2.5 mm as disclosed, obviously many of the outputs of many of the potential claimed ratios would fall within the range 20-100mm for length. Since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones does not explicitly disclose a method, wherein the channel has wherein the channel has length between 40 mm and 60 mm in order to provide the advantage of expected results and reduction in size as obviously making the channel 40-60 mm instead of 500 as disclosed in Jones could result in a more compact chip to use with a lower requirement for sample volume, and is one predictable length as obviously disclosed in conjunction with the ratio’s as taught by jones.
As to claim 20, Jones disclose and shows in figure 4, a hematology analyzer, wherein the inlet or outlet ports are connected to a fluidic system via one or more rotary valves (i.e. rotary valve 415) ([0069], ll. 7-14).
Claim(s) 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. in view of Galiano in view of Oberhardt (U.S. Patent No. 6,251,615 B1).
As to claim 4, Jones in view of Galiano does not explicitly disclose a method, wherein the microfluidic chamber comprises more than one fluidic flow-through channel, wherein the channels are arranged parallel to each other and are homogeneous or, wherein the microfluidic chamber comprises three or more fluidic flow-through channels arranged parallel to each other.
However, Oberhardt does disclose and show in figures 1 and 3 and in (col. 13, ll. 28-36) the use of two homogenous parallel channels in place of one in order to allow for analysis of two streams under varying conditions. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. As such using three or more channels is also considered obvious.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones in view of Galiano with a method, wherein the microfluidic chamber comprises more than one fluidic flow-through channel, wherein the channels are arranged parallel to each other and are homogeneous or wherein the microfluidic chamber comprises three or more fluidic flow-through channels arranged parallel to each other in order to provide the advantage of increased versatility and efficiency in using more than one (e.g. 3 or more) sample flow-through channel one can sample one type of sample under varying conditions (and a greater number with 3 or more) allowing for a more detailed analysis of the sample under test.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. in view of Galiano in view of Mian et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2002/0137218 A1).
As to claims 7-8, Jones in view of Galiano does not explicitly disclose a method, wherein the inner surface is modified by chemical or mechanical means, wherein the inner surface is modified by applying a cationic polyethylenimine or polyethyleneglycol (PEG) coating to the inner surface.
However, Galiano does disclose in ([0142], ll. 17-30) a teaching that chemical modification of substrates used in fluid flow with a PEG coating is well known in the art. Obviously this can be applied to the inner surface of Jones as disclosed by Mian in doing so one can create a substrate resistant to water/hydrophilic that allows for a wide variety of chemistry combinations that could be analyzed by the microfluidic device.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones in view of Galiano with a method, wherein the inner surface is modified by chemical or mechanical means, wherein the inner surface is modified by applying a cationic polyethylenimine or polyethyleneglycol (PEG) coating to the inner surface in order to provide the advantage of increased durability as using a PEG layer known in the art allows for a resistant water layer to coat the substrate that is also hydrophilic and results in an overall more durable channel surface.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. in view of Galiano in view of Mir et al. (NPL: Blood testing at the single cell level using quantitative phase and amplitude microscopy).
As to claim 13, Jones does disclose a method wherein imaging the cells comprises acquiring images at a first wavelength at or around 680 nm (where the examiner is interpreting 880 as “about” 680), where the index of refraction is higher, and at a second wavelength at or around 460 nm (where the examiner is interpreting 502 as “about 460”, where the index of refraction is lower (based on the 112b, above the examiner is interpreting the index of refraction as claimed is an inherent result of the wavelengths used) ([0031], ll. 1-4).
Jones in view of Galiano does not explicitly disclose wherein the images are further post processed for obtaining quantitative phase information.
However, Mir does disclose in (Abstract) the use of quantitative phase based imaging of red blood cells to yield unprecedented detail and sensitivity. Further, Mir even does so relative to bright field microscopy such as used in Jones.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jones in view of Galiano wherein the images are further post processed for obtaining quantitative phase information in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy, as explicitly disclose in Mir using the noted measurement technique results in a high amount of detail and sensitivity resulting in a more accurate measurement of the blood under test.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877