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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract employs legal phraseology (“comprises”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 "an abutment surface or a stop” (claim 8) 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
Content of Specification
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i)-(p).
The claimed invention is defined by the positively claimed elements, the structural elements listed on separate indented lines listed in the body of the claim after the transitional phrase, “comprising”.
A claim is only limited by positively claimed elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims”. MPEP 2115 Material or Article Worked Upon by Apparatus.
It is noted that the claims are directed to an apparatus. Although the claims mention one or more biological samples, liquid, buffer solution, reagent solution, reagent, and at least one biological sample, but such are not positively claimed as elements of the device. All of the prior are materials and/or articles intended to be, can be worked upon and/or used with device.
It is noted that the various “for” and “to” clauses recited throughout the claims are directed to intended use. For example, the phrases “for collecting…”; “for engaging…”; “to maintain…”; “such that…”; and other similar terms/phrases are directed to possible, intended use. The same is also applicable to the various “can be” clauses recited throughout the claims. There is no requirement for any samples nor anything else to be collected, no collecting and engaging are required to be performed nor any other process steps. Process steps, possibilities, what “can be” and/or is intended to be done are not structural elements.
Furthermore, reciting what an internal shape of a broad unspecified collector element is “designed to maintain” does not provide for any further structure nor provide for any structural connectivity of any positively claimed structures.
It is noted that phrases such as “collector element”, “fixation element”, “parts”, “connector element”, “connector element” and such similar phrases recited throughout the claims are broad phrases/terms and are not defined in the claims as being any specific structures.
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.
It is noted that such phrase as “means of…” in claims 4 and 21 are not interpreted as 112(f).
It is noted that the term “or” provides for alternatives, not requirements.
It is noted that the phrase “one or more” and “at least one” only require one.
It is noted that the phrase “at least two” only requires two.
It is noted that the term “and/or” is only requires “or” which provides for alternatives, not requirements.
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 and 17-27 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 "the passage of liquid" in the first paragraph beginning with “wherein”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No liquid is claimed nor is there any prior mention of a passage of liquid. Furthermore, it is noted that the “collector element” is not defined in the claim as being any specific structure.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what comprises “a first end and a second end” that the collector element extends between because the claim does not clearly recite such. It is noted that the phrase “extends between” does not require nor provide for and structural connectivity. If it is intended for the collector element to comprise a first end and a second end, then the claim should clearly state such.
Claim 1 recites the limitations" the first end of the collector element protruding out of the housing…" and “the second end of the collector element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As noted above, the collector element has not been claimed as comprising a first end and such first end being located in and extending out of the housing and the collector element comprising a second end protruding out of the housing.
It is unclear what is the structural nexus, connectivity of the housing, collector element, fixation element having at least two parts, and connector element because the claim does not provide for such. None of such are claimed as being required to be structurally connected to each other. Therefore, it is unclear how a list of structures that are not claimed as, required to be structurally connected to each other are considered as defining a single device. An arbitrary list of parts/structures that are not structurally connected is just a list a structures/parts that are intended be, can be used with each other.
It is noted that no movement of any broad “parts” of anything is ever required to occur and that the unspecified “at least two parts” (of the broad fixation element) are not required to be structurally connected to each other nor to the broad collector element. The “for engaging” clause is directed to an intended purpose and possible use.
As to claim 1, it is unclear what/which parts are being referenced by “the parts of the fixation element” because the claim previously recites “at least two parts”. If such are the same, then the claims should employ consistent terminology to clearly indicate such.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "their engaged position" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No engaged position(s) has been previously mentioned nor structurally defined in the claim. It is unclear what the pronoun “their” references. However, as noted above, no “engaging” of anything is ever required to be performed.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 17-27 are rejected via dependency upon a rejected claim. Furthermore, it is noted that the dependent claims begin with “Device according to claim….” It appears as if the claims should read as “The device….”
In claim 2, it is noted that the phrase “in contact with” does not provide nor require, nor preclude any specific type of contact. It is unclear if the second end of the collector is actually required to be compressed because the phrase “which compresses” appears to be directed to intended possibility, process step of what can be done. No compressing of the second end of the collector element is ever required to be performed.
As to claim 3, it is unclear what is the structural nexus, connectivity of the “at least one anchor element” (not defined as being specific structure” to the “at least two parts” of the fixation element and the collector element because the claim does not provide for such.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the position of the collector element" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No position of the collector element has been previously mentioned nor is there any structural connection of such to the at least one anchor element provided for in the claim. The “for maintaining…” clause does not provide for nor require and structural connectivity of the broad, at least one anchor element.
As to claim 4, it is unclear what the at least two parts of the fixation element are required to be connected to by at least one hinge element because the claim does not provide for/recite such. It is presumed that it is intended for the device of claim 1 to comprise at least one hinge element. Therefore, it is suggested that the claim be amended to recited such…The device of according to claim 1, comprising at least one hinge element,…and then recite what the at least one hinge element connects and/or is connected to.
As to claim 4, it is unclear what is structurally meant required by the phrase, “such that the collector element can embraced by placing the collector element into one part of the fixation element and by rotating the other part of the fixation element on the collector element” because the phrase appears to be grammatically incorrect. It is presumed that the phrase is intended to be, read as “can be embraced”. However, see remarks, claim interpretations directed to “can be” phrases recited throughout the claims. No placing of the collector element into anything nor anywhere and rotating of any part (nor anything else) is ever required to be performed. See also claim interpretations above.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally meant, required by the term “embraced” because such is not structurally defined in the claim and specification. Also applicable to claim 5.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "one part" and “the other part” of the fixation element. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is the nexus of the "one part" and “the other part” to the “at least two parts” of the fixation element because the claim does not clearly provide for such. It is noted that while “at least two parts” only requires two parts, the phrase allows for the presence of more than two parts. See also Claim Interpretations above.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is the nexus of “one part of the fixation element” and “the other part” to the prior recited “at least two parts” of the fixation element because the claim does clearly recite such.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the two parts" of the fixation unit. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is the structural nexus of “the two parts” to the “at least two parts”. See prior remarks and rejections above.
Furthermore, it is unclear what is structurally required of the phrase “are separate parts” because the claim does not clearly recite such. If such parts are of, define the same fixation element that is an element of the single device being defined. Then, it is unclear how are the parts of a same element of a single device are structurally considered as, required to be “separate”.
As to claim 6, it is unclear what is the structural nexus, connectivity of the “at least two radially extending ribs” to the prior recited “at least two parts” of the fixation element because the claim does not clearly recite such. There is nothing precluding the “at least two radially extending ribs” from being the same as the broad, structurally undefined “at least two parts”. Furthermore, it is unclear what the at two ribs are required to extend “radially” from because no such basis is provide for in the claim, no structural point of reference has been provided for in the claim. It is noted that the broad fixation element has not been defined as, claimed as being as cylinder, nor any structure having any specific circular cross-section, etc. that would clearly provide for what is meant by “radially extending”.
Furthermore, it is presumed that it is intended for the connector element to comprise grooves and for the at least two radially extending ribs to located in/held in the grooves. If so, it is suggested that the claim be amended to clearly recite such.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the main body of the housing” and “the side of the collector element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No main body nor side has been previously claimed.
It is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the connector element and the housing because the “can be” phrase does not clearly provide for such. See Claim Interpretations.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the movement of the collector element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim 9, it is unclear what is the structural nexus, connectivity of the “a container” to prior positively claimed elements of claim 1 because claim 9 does not provide for such. Furthermore, the phrase “for storing liquid”, as state above is directed to the intended use of the container. No liquid is positively claimed as being required to be contained/stored in the container. However, it is unclear what is the nexus of the “liquid” recited in claim 9 to the “liquid” recited in claim 1, if such are the same or different because claim 9 does not provide for such.
It is unclear what is further structurally required by claim 17 because as noted above no liquid is positively claimed as an element of the device.
Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitation "the liquid stored in the container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. No container is previously claimed as containing/storing a liquid. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the channel to the prior positively claimed elements because the claim does not clearly recite such. The “for guiding” clause is directed to intended use and does not provide for nor require any structural connectivity to the container and the collector element.
In claim 19, it is unclear if it is intended for the device/housing to comprise a channel because the claim does not recite such. Reciting that the housing “encloses” a channel (not previously claimed) recites what the house does not what the device and/or comprises. Furthermore, term “encloses” does not provide for nor require any structural connectivity.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the container" and “the channel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No such container nor channel have been previously claimed as structural elements of the device. It is unclear what is the structural nexus/connectivity of the container and the channel to prior positively claimed elements of the device because the claim does not recite such. Furthermore, it is unclear if it is intended for the device to comprise a passage and what is the structural nexus, connectivity of such passage to the channel and container because the claim does not clearly recite such. The examiner fails to locate any labeling (reference numeral) for the passage. It is unclear if the channel and passage are the same or different structures. It is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the recited structures in the claims and that of claim 1 because the claim does not clearly recite such.
It is noted that the “so that…” clause is directed to intended use, purpose and does not provide for any structural connectivity of any structures recited in the claim. There is no container nor any liquid stored in the container positively claimed as elements of the invention. What can be done is not structure. There is no requirement for any opening of any passage nor liquid to enter any channel and reach the collector.
Claim 21 recites the limitations "the container"; “the channel”; and “the valve and or release mechanism”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. None of the prior have been positively claimed elements of the invention and no liquid has been claimed as being stored in the container. However, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of such to each other and the prior positively claimed elements of claim 1 because the claim does not provide for such. Therefore, it is unclear what is further structurally required by the claim because the claim is directed intended, conditional use, and/or process steps as indicated by the “when” clauses. There is no requirement for any opening of any unclaimed valve and/or release mechanism to be opened, passing of any liquid through an unclaimed channel to reach the collector, passing at least part of the liquid through the collector element by means of gravity action on the liquid, nor locating the container vertically above the collector element to ever be performed. Conditional process steps are not structural elements.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the side on which the collector element is arranged". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The housing has not been previously claimed as comprising any side and the collector element has not been claimed as being located on any side. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the cap element to the housing because the “can be” phrase does not provide for nor require any structural connectivity of the cap element and housing.
Claim 23 recites the limitations "the at least one biological sample” and “the cap element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Furthermore, it is noted that the element is not defined as being any specific structure. The “for indicating and/or measuring…” clause is directed to intended use no reaction between any broad, unclaimed at least one biological sample and reagent is ever required to occur.
Claim 24 recites the limitations “the pH value”; "the mixture” of the liquid and “the at least one biological sample”; and “the container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. No container has been previously claimed as an element of the device, and no mixture of any liquid has been claimed as being located in the container. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the container to the prior positively claimed elements of the device because the claim does not provide for such. Furthermore, it is noted that “for indicating…” clause does not provide for any further structure of the element, but is directed to intended use. See also rejection of claim 23. No mixing of anything is required to occur and no measuring of a pH value of the mixture is required to be performed.
Claim 25 recites the limitations “the cap element"; "the mixture” of the liquid and “the at least one biological sample”; and “the container”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. No container has been previously claimed as an element of the device, and no mixture of any liquid has been claimed as being located in the container. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the cap element and the container to each other and the prior positively claimed elements of claim 1 because the claim does not provide for such.
Claim 26 recites the limitations “the cap element"; "the mixture” of the liquid and “the at least one biological sample”; and “the container”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. No container has been previously claimed as an element of the device, and no mixture of any liquid has been claimed as being located in the container. Furthermore, it is unclear what is the structural connectivity of the cap element and the container to each other and the prior positively claimed elements of claim 1 because the claim does not provide for such. Furthermore, it is noted that no releasing of any reagent to any mixture is ever required to be performed.
Claim 27 recites the limitations " the element for indicating and/or measuring a reaction”; “the reagent”; and “the at least one biological sample". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore , it is noted that what a user “can see” is not structure and no reacting of any reagent and unclaimed at least one biological sample is ever required to occur nor is any of the reagent and at least one biological sample to contact the element for indicating.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 17-19, and 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rietveld; Gijsbertus G. et al., US 2017/0023446 and further in view of Maiwald; Dana et al., US 20140301765.
Rietveld discloses a device for collecting a sample comprising
a housing (holder 14); and
a collector element (absorbent probe 18) arranged within the housing (main body) 51, wherein the second end of the collector element is fixed to the housing and the collector element extends between first and second ends; (figures 2-4, 8 and corresponding descriptions).
Rietveld does not disclose a fixating part comprising at least two partes connected to the second end of the collector element, wherein the at least two parts can be moved relative to one another providing for a connection to the second end of the collector element.
The Applicant is advised that the Supreme Court recently clarified that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Sup. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143).
Common sense, predictability, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art may suffice to establish obviousness.
Maiwald discloses a device including an applicator 75, 55, etc. (collector element) attached to housing; wherein a second end of the applicator is attached to the housing via fixation element comprising two moveable parts (47a, 57a, Figures 4A, 5A) employed to grip, compress, anchor, and attach the second of collector element to the housing.
It would have been obvious to and within the common sense, predictability, knowledge, and skill of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that a fixation element comprising at least two moveable parts may be employed to attach the collector element of to the housing as taught by Maiwald as such is a previously known means of attachment.
As to claim 4-5, Maiwald discloses that the parts (claws 47a) are hinged, separate from another, and each can be moved in a relatively rotational movement relative to the hinge point and relative to each other.
As to claims 17-19, both devices of Rietveld and Maiwald t include containers, walls, spaces, etc. in which a reagent/liquid can be held.
As to claims 22-27, Rietveld discloses a cap element (container 40) containing/storing a reagent (20).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PARK; YUN; Boutillette; Michael et al.; Postrel; Richard et al.; Lin; Jiufa et al.; NEMETH; Attila Csaba et al.; LEI; Siyu et al.; KATSIKAS; Georgios et al.; OLMO SEVILLA; Asunción et al.; Cobb; Benjamin David; SIA; Samuel K. et al.; KATSIKAS; Georgios et al.; LEI; Siyu et al.; Schaus; Thomas E. et al.; YAO; Lei et al.; FORSYTHE; Ian et al.; BLACKWELL; Oliver; Feldman; Zvi et al.; LILLIS; Barry et al.; Truitt; Patrick Walter et al.; JOHNSON; Neil Jeremy et al.; KIM; Young Dug et al.; Loudermilk; Alan R. et al.; LEI; Siyu et al.; WRABER; Martin; Nienstedt; Zachary Carl et al.; Bailey; Todd et al.; Henrick; Bethany; OUYANG; Yumeng et al.; Satish; Siddarth et al.; Gao; Ping; Belz; Renato et al.; Nelson; William M. et al.; Kendall; John Kirby et al.; Rietveld; Gijsbertus G. et al.; Frazier; Thomas G.; Rajagopal; Raj et al.; Chen; Shuqi et al.; Salter; Robert S. et al.; Triva; Daniele; Dastane, Ajit N. et al.; Igarashi; Toshinori et al.; DiCesare; Paul C. et al.; Konrad, Franz; andSeymour; Eugene H. disclose sampling devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R GORDON whose telephone number is (571)272-1258. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5:30pm; off every other Friday..
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 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.
/BRIAN R GORDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights