DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a Reply on 24 July 2026 that
Amended the title to a non-descriptive, generic title that does not overcome the title objection;
Amended the specification and drawings in the most minimal manner possible by merely replacing the word “correction” with “calibration” which does not address the low-quality English translation that was the source of the specification objections as well as the requirement for a substitute specification; and
Did not add any structural element to the claims thus inviting a reiteration of the 112(f) claim interpretation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., see below) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In particular, Applicant argues that Zhang’s cameras A-C do not have a predetermined/fixed magnification ratio but are adjusted. In response, the claims do not recite a predetermined/fixed magnification ratio but instead “a first magnification ratio” and “a second magnification ratio”.
Applicant also argues that Zhang’s variable/adjustable magnification ratio fails to disclose that the magnification ratio of any one of the cameras is lower than the other two. In response, claim 1 only recites two cameras (first and second image capture units) not the three argued. Further, Zhang’s Camera A, Camera B and Camera C are disposed on a carrier platform to capture images and have different magnification ratios for coarse and fine alignment for an overlapping image-capture region. Note also that the claims do not specify when or under what conditions the magnification ratio of the first image capture unit is less than the second magnification but instead broadly recite a “less than” relationship that is satisfied by Zhang.
In regards to Lee, Applicant admits that Lee’s multiple sensors have the same viewpoint which is tantamount to admitting that the image capturing regions broadly “overlap” as recited in claim 1. Applicant also admits that these sensors have different magnification ratios. See pg. 15. Such admissions strengthen the prior art rejections rather than rebut them.
Applicant further admits that Zhang “discloses that alignment is performed in view of the cameras A-C in sequence” but states, in direct contradiction, that Zhang fails to disclose that the image capture regions overlap to provide a common calibration region. Moreover, the image capture regions overlap at the object area in order to successfully perform the alignment based on the images of these (overlapping) regions. Indeed, Applicant appears to recognize this fact in their admission that the cameras commonly view (same viewpoint of) the object and thus the region around the object.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The arguments directed to the alleged different “purposes” of the applied art is an individual attack on the references and, like the arguments focusing on unclaimed features, is not considered persuasive.
In regards to claims 2-9, Applicant argues that Lee does not disclose the technical process of the present invention—referring to the controlling step. In response, Zhang is applied to teach the controlling step, not Lee and claims 2-9 are rejected based on a combination of references that is not squarely addressed by the arguments.
In regards to claim 10, Applicant argues that Sasaki’s coarse and fine adjustment units are disposed above and face the substrate which differs from the first/second image capture units that are disposed along different axes. In response, claim 10 does not recite disposition of the first and second image capturing units along different axes. Further, Sasaki is applied to teach highly conventional CCD, CMOS implementations and specific magnification ratios and the rejection is based on a combination of Zhang, Lee and Saskai which the arguments fail to address.
Specification
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
The instant specification and the substitute specification filed are both poor translations into the English language. A recurrent theme is the mistranslated word “calibration” used throughout the amended claims and specification including the “calibration and capture method”.
“Calibration” for image capturing is a process that estimates the camera’s intrinsic, extrinsic and lens-distortion parameters to establish a precise geometric relationship between the 3D real world and 2D images captured by the camera. See Matlab, What Is Camera Calibration?, downloaded 02 September 2026 from https://www.mathworks.com/help/vision/ug/camera-calibration.html
As best as can understood from the poor English translation of the specification, the disclosed process relates to positional alignment and not calibration.
It is noted in particular that the substitute specification filed 24 July 2026 is wholly insufficient because it merely replaces words rather than engaging in a wholesale retranslation by a skilled human being into an intelligible English lanauge document. Unless and until such a retranslation is performed and filed as a substitute specification with corresponding changes made to the drawings, the objections thereto will persist. Likewise, the related 112(b) rejections are most effectively addressed by a retranslation into proper English using terms that are consistent with their accepted meaning.
The amended 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.
The following title is suggested: Biological Particle 3-Axes Image Capture At Different Magnification Ratios Using Mechanical Arm To Move Lenses To Common Positioning Reference Point
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: first, second and third image capture units in claims 1-10. Instant specification [0015] and claim 10 disclose the corresponding structure.
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 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 1-10 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.
All of the pending claims have been amended to recite “a calibration and capture method” but the term “calibration” is not accurately applied to the disclosed invention. See above specification objection which addresses the same issue in the spec. As best as can understood from the poor English translation of the claims, the disclosed process relates to positional alignment and not calibration. Moreover, the claims use the term “calibration” in a manner inconsistent with its accepted meaning thus rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang {Z. Zhang, J. Zhang and D. Xu, "Design of microassembly system and research on coarse-to-fine alignment strategy in combination with active zooming," 2013 IEEE Workshop on Robot Vision (WORV), Clearwater Beach, FL, USA, 2013, pp. 76-81, doi: 10.1109/WORV.2013.6521917} and Lee {Seok Joo Lee, Kyunghwan Kim, Deok-Ho Kim, Jong-Oh Park and Gwi Tae Park, "Recognizing and tracking of 3D-shaped micro parts using multiple visions for micromanipulation," MHS2001. Proceedings of 2001 International Symposium on Micromechatronics and Human Science (Cat. No.01TH8583), Nagoya, Japan, 2001, pp. 203-210, doi: 10.1109/MHS.2001.965246}.
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Zhang discloses a calibration and capture method for a
disposing a first image correction unit and at least one second image correction unit on a carrier platform to take images, wherein a first magnification ratio of the first image correction unit is less than a second magnification ratio of the at least one second image correction unit, and an image-capture region of the first image correction unit overlaps with an image-capture region of the at least one second image correction unit
{see title, abstract, Figs. 1, 7, Sections 2, 4.2, and 4.3 including three cameras (Camera A, Camera B and Camera C) disposed on a carrier platform to take images and having different magnification ratios for coarse and fine alignment for an overlapping image-capture region
Further, Zhang’s Camera A, Camera B and Camera C are disposed on a carrier platform to capture images and have different magnification ratios for coarse and fine alignment for an overlapping image-capture region. Note also that the claims do not specify when or under what conditions the magnification ratio of the first image capture unit is less than the second magnification but instead broadly recite a “less than” relationship that is satisfied by Zhang.
Moreover, the image capture regions overlap at the object area in order to successfully perform the alignment based on the images of these (overlapping) regions.}; and
controlling a particle capture tool to move relative to the first image correction unit and the at least one second image correction unit and driving a capture portion of the particle capture tool to enter the image-capture region of the first image correction unit and the image-capture region of the at least one second image correction unit
{see Fig. 2 in which the terminal structure of the Si arm is a capture tool that captures the shell assembly. As to controlling the particle capture tool to move relative to the first and second image units see Table 1 showing the DOF (degrees of freedom) for the cameras and tool. See Fig. 4 and Section 4 for alignment flowchart for the controlling the relative movement}.
Although Zhang discloses an optical capture and particle capture tool relative positioning system for microassembly, Zhang does not specifically mention applying this system to capturing biological particles such as cells.
Lee is an analogous reference from the same field of microscopy imaging and includes recognizing and tracking micro parts using plural cameras. See abstract, Section 2, Figs. 1-3.
Lee also teaches that such a vision system is applicable to both micro-parts and biological cells in section 2.4.
It 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 to have modified Zhang which already discloses an optical capture and particle capture tool relative positioning system for microassembly such that this system is applied to capturing biological particles such as cells as taught by Lee because both environments involve similar issues of magnified images and tracking the micro-objects (e.g. microtools and micro-parts), because Lee teaches the equivalency of applying such multi-camera, multi-magnification imagery to both micro parts and microbiological cells, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 3
In regards to claim 3, Zhang discloses
wherein the at least one second image capture unit comprises two second image capture units,
one of the two second image capture units and the first image correction unit are set on a horizontal datum plane and located above the carrier platform;
the horizontal datum plane faces the carrier platform;
a camera axis of the first image capture unit and a camera axis of the second image capture unit are equivalent to an X-axis direction of the horizontal datum plane and a Y-axis direction of the horizontal datum plane;
the other of the two second image capture units faces the horizontal datum plane for taking images;
a camera axis of the other second image capture unit, which is perpendicular to the camera axis of the first image capture unit and the camera axis of the second image capture unit, is equivalent to a Z-axis direction of the horizontal datum plane;
a camera focus of the first image capture unit overlaps with a camera focus of the second image capture unit and a camera focus of the other second image capture unit to form a positioning reference point
{see title, abstract, Figs. 1, 7, Sections 1, 2, 4.2, and 4.3 including three cameras (Camera A, Camera B and Camera C) having camera axes respectively disposed orthogonal to each other along the X, Y, and Z-axis directions and having a common focus/overlap}.
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Zhang discloses wherein when the particle capture tool is activated and operated, the particle capture tool is controlled to move to a position coordinate pre-set in the capture platform coordinate system; the position coordinate is the positioning reference point where the capture portion correspondingly falls onto and which is formed by the camera focus of the first image capture unit overlapping with the camera focus of each of the two second image capture units {see Fig. 4 including Si focus steps which moves the Si arm into view of each camera A-C and moves the Si arm to achieve a common focus position (pre-set position coordinate} .
Claim 5
In regards to claim 5, Zhang discloses wherein when the particle capture tool is located at the position coordinate and the capture portion is deviated from the positioning reference point, a terminal device determines a deviation distance between the capture portion and the positioning reference point of the image of the first image capture unit and the image of each of the two second image capture units and calculates the deviation distance to form a deviation compensation value, so that the terminal device correspondingly adjusts the position coordinate of the particle capture tool in accordance with the deviation compensation value {see Fig. 4 including computing the relative angles and edges of the AI shell which are “deviation distances” in order to adjust the position coordinate of the tool in accordance with deviation compensation values}.
Claim 6
In regards to claim 6, Zhang discloses wherein when the first image capture unit detects that a deviation is generated between the capture portion of the particle capture tool and the positioning reference point in the image-capture region of the first image capture unit, the terminal device calculates the deviation distance between the capture portion and the positioning reference point according to the image taken by the first image capture unit, and a calculation result is used as the deviation compensation value of the particle capture tool corresponding to a second X axis of
S. Lee also discloses the capture platform defines a capture platform coordinate system and the particle capture tool is controlled by a mechanical arm to move relative to the carrier platform within an area covered by the capture platform in accordance with the capture platform coordinate system {see Section 31. Image space definition, Fig. 3 which defines a capture platform coordinate system. Further as to control, see section 4, Figs. 5}.
It 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 to have modified Zhang which already discloses an optical capture and particle capture tool relative positioning system for microassembly including a particle capture tool is controlled by a mechanical arm to move relative to the carrier platform within an area covered by the capture platform and wherein when the first image capture unit detects that a deviation is generated between the capture portion of the particle capture tool and the positioning reference point in the image-capture region of the first image capture unit, the terminal device calculates the deviation distance between the capture portion and the positioning reference point according to the image taken by the first image capture unit, and a calculation result is used as the deviation compensation value of the particle capture tool corresponding to a second X axis such that this system includes wherein the capture platform defines a capture platform coordinate system and the particle capture tool is controlled by a mechanical arm to move relative to the carrier platform within an area covered by the capture platform in accordance with the capture platform coordinate system as taught by S. Lee because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 7
In regards to claim 7, Zhang discloses wherein when the two second image capture units detect that a deviation is generated between the capture portion of the particle capture tool and the positioning reference point in the image-capture regions of the two second image capture units, the terminal device calculates the deviation distance corresponding to the image taken by the second image correction unit as the deviation compensation value of the particle capture tool corresponding to a second Y axis of the capture platform coordinate system; the terminal device calculates the deviation distance corresponding to the image taken by the other second image capture unit as the deviation compensation value of the particle capture tool corresponding to a second Z axis adjust the position coordinate of the tool in accordance with deviation compensation values corresponding to the X, Y and Z axes}.
S. Lee also discloses the capture platform defines a capture platform coordinate system and the particle capture tool is controlled by a mechanical arm to move relative to the carrier platform within an area covered by the capture platform in accordance with the capture platform coordinate system {see Section 31. Image space definition, Fig. 3 which defines a capture platform coordinate system. Further as to control, see section 4, Figs. 5}.
It 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 to have modified Zhang which already discloses an optical capture and particle capture tool relative positioning system for microassembly including a particle capture tool is controlled by a mechanical arm to move relative to the carrier platform within an area covered by the capture platform and wherein when the first image capture unit detects that a deviation is generated between the capture portion of the particle capture tool and the positioning reference point in the image-capture region of the first image capture unit, the terminal device calculates the deviation distance between the capture portion and the positioning reference point according to the image taken by the first image capture unit, and a calculation result is used as the deviation compensation value of the particle capture tool corresponding to a second X axis
such that this system includes wherein the capture platform defines a capture platform coordinate system and the particle capture tool is controlled by a mechanical arm to move relative to the carrier platform within an area covered by the capture platform in accordance with the capture platform coordinate system as taught by S. Lee because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 8
In regards to claim 8, Zhang discloses wherein the particle capture tool is adjusted respectively through the images of the first image capture unit and the two second image capture units, so that the capture portion of the particle capture tool is positioned at the positioning reference point {see Fig. 4 including using images from respective first and second cameras to compute the relative angles and edges of the AI shell which are “deviation distances” in order to adjust the position coordinate of the tool in accordance with deviation compensation values corresponding to the X, Y and Z axes}.
Claim 9
In regards to claim 9, Zhang discloses wherein the capture portion of the particle capture tool is firstly controlled to enter the image-capture region of the first image capture unit with the first magnification ratio; then the capture portion of the particle capture tool is adjusted, by moving the mechanical arm, to be aligned with the camera focus of the first image capture unit, so that the capture portion is located at a center of a field of view of the image-capture region of the first image capture unit; then, the capture portion of the particle capture tool is controlled to enter the image-capture region of each of the two second image capture units with the second magnification ratio, and the capture portion is adjusted, by moving the mechanical arm, to be aligned with the camera focus of each of the two second image correction units {see Fig. 4 including progressively/successively moving the mechanical arm to be aligned with the field of view and focus of each of the three cameras A-C}.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki (JP-2007207926-A)
Claim 10
In regards to claim 10, Zhang is not relied upon to disclose the conventional details of CCD, or CMOS based sensors with the specified magnification ratios
Sasaki is analogous art from the same field of microscopy imaging and solves an analogous problem of coarse/fine imaging using plural cameras. See abstract, technical filed and cites below.
Sasaki also teaches wherein the first image capture unit is selected from the group consisting of a charge-coupled device (CCD), a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor device (CMOS), and combinations thereof; the first magnification ratio of the first image capture unit is between 1.5 times and 5 times; the at least one second image capture unit is selected from the group consisting of a charge-coupled device (CCD), a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor device (CMOS), and combinations thereof; the second magnification ratio of the at least one second image capture unit is between 5 times and 20 times {see pgs. 7-9 discussing CCD sensors, coarse imaging unit 6 with first magnification between 0.5 and 2.0, transfer robot, fine-tuning image unit 7 with second magnification between 5 and 10 times}.
It 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 to have modified Zhang which already discloses an optical capture and particle capture tool relative positioning system for microassembly including plural cameras having different magnification ratios such that wherein the first image capture unit is selected from the group consisting of a charge-coupled device (CCD), a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor device (CMOS), and combinations thereof; the first magnification ratio of the first image capture unit is between 1.5 times and 5 times; the at least one second image capture unit is selected from the group consisting of a charge-coupled device (CCD), a complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor device (CMOS), and combinations thereof; the second magnification ratio of the at least one second image capture unit is between 5 times and 20 times as taught by Sasaki because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
F. Sadak, M. Saadat and A. M. Hajıyavand, "A Vision-guided Methodology for the Automation of Biological Cell Injection," 2020 2nd International Conference on Electrical, Control and Instrumentation Engineering (ICECIE), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2020, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1109/ICECIE50279.2020.9309654 disclosed a computer vision based system for automating microinjection of cells including automatically positioning the cell within the FOV of the optical system.
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 Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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 ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights