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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are pending in this application. Claims 3, 5-13, and 15-17 were amended by preliminary amendment.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various rejections seen below in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-2, 14, and 17-18 recite a “pallet”, supported by but not formally defined in the instant specification and identified with reference character 10 in fig. 1. This structure is plainly not a conventional warehouse pallet but rather appears to be a table on which containers Z for holding samples may be installed in sockets or installation portions 11 (as seen in fig. 3), per paragraphs [0034] and [0040] of the instant specification. We therefore generalize the usual interpretation of “pallet” to include any sort of transportable structure capable of carrying the claimed sample containers. Thus, tables, platforms, racks, trays, and various other structures known to the art may be considered pallets.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-11, and 17-18 recite the term “pick-up order”. Per paragraph [0008] of the instant specification, we interpret this term as a sequential ordering or priority list, and not in the sense of the word “order” as a command or in the word’s other sense as a list of goods required by a customer.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-12, and 15-18 recite the term “container information”. We interpret this term as information associated with a sample container, not necessarily information that is actually affixed to a container. For example, a bar code on a container may index container information stored in a computer system.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-5, 6, 8, 11-12, and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims recite “a sensor” or “the sensor” when in fact the sensor is one of a plurality of sensors in “one-to-one” correspondence with a plurality of sample container holding portions. While applicant’s meaning can be determined from careful reading, the singular usages are often confusing. We suggest that the currently singular sensor should be introduced in the independent claims as a “plurality of sensors”. Subsequently, individual sensors may be identified as being one of the plurality. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 and 18 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 10 recites the term “sampling time”, stating that it is “a time at which the sample has been sampled in the container”. However, no definition of “sampled” or “sampling” is provided in the instant specification. It is unclear whether a “sampling time” is a time at which the sample was originally extracted (before any aspect of applicant’s invention is engaged), for example the time at which a blood sample is extracted from a patient via phlebotomy, or is instead a time at which a sample is analyzed by applicant’s invention, which may also be considered an act of “sampling”. While we suspect the former alternative is most likely the correct one, we are sufficiently uncertain whether this interpretation is accurate that this question becomes a point of indefiniteness. For purposes of examination on the merits in this office action, we take the claimed “sampling time” to be the time of sample extraction from a source, which is typically long before its introduction to an analysis system such as applicant’s invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the conveyance unit” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The word “the” should be “a”.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwano, et al., US 2010/0248293 (hereinafter Kuwano) in view of Wu, Yong-kang, CN 210279246 (hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 1,
Kuwano discloses:
A conveyance device (sample transport unit 4: fig. 6) that conveys a container (sample container T: fig. 2; conveyed in sample rack L: fig. 3) accommodating a sample to an analysis device (measurement units 2, 3: fig. 1A),
the conveyance device comprising:
a pallet (rack holding section 41: fig. 1A) in which a plurality of installation portions is provided, the container being installed in the installation portions;
a conveyance unit (belts 431, 432: fig. 6) that picks up the container installed in the pallet, and conveys the container to the analysis device (conveyance, [0042], [0057]);
and a conveyance control unit (information processing unit 5: fig. 1A, controlling sample transport unit: [0039]) that causes the conveyance unit to pick up the container in accordance with a pick-up order determined on a basis of the container information.
However, Kuwano does not disclose:
a sensor that is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, and acquires container information that is information obtained when the container is installed;While Kuwano discloses a sensor acquiring container information in [0089], this sensor is not in a one-to-one correspondence with the installation portions.
Wu, an invention in the same field as the instant application, teaches:
a sensor (sensor 4: fig. 2) that is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, and acquires container information that is information obtained when the container is installed;Wu teaches sensors 4 for each of the test-tube holders in the test-tube rack (“pallet”) of fig. 2. Thus there is a one-to-one correspondence with the installation portions. In [0012] Wu teaches that on the basis of detecting the presence of a test tube using the sensor, that further information regarding a bar-code affixed to the test-tube is then acquired. In combination with Kuwano, Wu’s sensors would be deployed in Kuwano’s racks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Kuwano with a sensor that is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, and acquires container information that is information obtained when the container is installed, as taught by Wu, because detecting the presence of a test-tube enables both anomaly detection (e.g. a test tube not present when one is expected, and vice versa) and the active scanning of the test-tube for bar-code information, while acquiring a test-tube bar-code enables the identification and verification of test tube sample contents for analysis, both plainly advantageous benefits.
Regarding claim 2,
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein, when a new container is installed in one of the installation portions of the pallet after conveyance of the container to the analysis device by the conveyance unit is started, the conveyance control unit determines a pick-up order of the new container on a basis of the container information about the new container. Wu teaches this method in [0089] and figs. 10-11. A container is detected in step S101, and after other analysis stages ending in step S105, based on the information gathered from the container, it may be conveyed for further analysis in steps S113-S115 or steps S106-112. The claimed pick-up order is seen in the priority list of samples in fig. 11 and step S112.
Regarding claim 3,
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
further comprising, in addition to the sensor, a second sensor that acquires analysis-related information including at least information regarding the sample or information regarding a condition for analysis of the sample. Wu teaches that each tube groove (installation portion) is equipped with a multiple sensors in [0011]. Per [0012] one of these sensors may be a pressure sensor and another an optical sensor. The extraction of a bar-code obtains the claimed information.
Regarding claim 4,
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 3 and also:
wherein the second sensor is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, or is shared by a plurality of the containers. Wu teaches in [0011] the second sensor like the first, as one of multiple sensors per tube groove (installation portion), is in one-to-one correspondence as claimed.
Regarding claim 5,
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the container information includes an analysis condition corresponding to the sample accommodated in the container. Kuwano discloses sample analysis condition information in fig. 11 and [0089].
Regarding claim 6,
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the sensor is one of a reading unit that acquires the container information by reading an identification code attached to the container, or an imaging unit that acquires the container information by imaging the container. Wu teaches reading barcodes by its optical sensors in [0012]. Barcode reading units and imaging units (both optical sensors) are the two types of sensors capable of reading barcodes known to the art.
Regarding claim 9,
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
wherein the conveyance control unit acquires position information indicating a position of the installation portion at which the sensor is provided, together with the container information obtained by the sensor, and controls the conveyance unit, using the pick-up order determined on a basis of the container information, and the position information. Wu teaches in [0049] positioning codes and positions associated with test tubes in its rack, in [0056]-[0057] the use of its plurality of sensors to detect and determine these positions, and in [0059] the registration of the data with a control device. In combination with Kuwano, which teaches the transportation of sample containers by a conveyance unit in [0039] and [0064]-[0065] according to different sensors, having replaced Kuwano’s external non-one-to-one sensors with Wu’s in the combination of the parent claim 1, all the limitations of the claim are taught.
Regarding claim 13,
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 and also:
and an analysis device (Kuwano, measurement devices 2, 3: fig. 1) that analyzes physical properties of the sample.
Regarding claim 14,
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 13 and also:
wherein the conveyance device and the analysis device start operating when the container is installed in one of the installation portions of the pallet. Kuwano discloses in [0062] first the placement of sample racks in a before-analysis rack holding section 42 (installation in the pallet), then the transport of the racks by rack transport section 43 (conveyance device) and then the use of the measurement devices 2 or 3 (analysis device).
Regarding claim 15,
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 13 and also:
comprising a plurality of the analysis devices, wherein the container information includes device information for identifying the analysis device to which the container is to be conveyed, and the conveyance unit conveys the container to the analysis device indicated by the device information. Kuwano discloses in [0037] that its two measurement units 2 and 3 are different and largely perform different types of analysis (with the exception of CBC+DIFF per [0046]) and so samples may be analyzed by one unit or the other or both depending on the types of analysis required. Kuwano further discloses container information in fig. 11 regarding which analyses must be performed on which samples. Thus the container information necessarily includes device information used by the system to control conveyance of the sample (per [0042] for measurement unit 2 and per [0057] for measurement unit 3) to one or the other of the analysis units.
Regarding claim 17,
Kuwano discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium (hard disk 51d: fig. 9) storing a program to be used in a conveyance device (sample transport unit 4: fig. 6) that conveys a container (sample container T: fig. 2; conveyed in sample rack L: fig. 3) accommodating a sample to an analysis device (measurement units 2, 3: fig. 1A),
the conveyance device including:
a pallet (rack holding section 41: fig. 1A) in which a plurality of installation portions is provided, the container being installed in the installation portions;
and a conveyance unit (belts 431, 432: fig. 6) that picks up the container installed in the pallet, and conveys the container to the analysis device;
the program causing a computer to execute a function as a conveyance control unit (information processing unit 5: fig. 1A, controlling sample transport unit: [0039]) that causes the conveyance unit to pick up the container in accordance with a pick-up order determined on a basis of the container information (conveyance, [0042], [0057]).
However, Kuwano does not disclose:
a sensor that is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, and acquires container information that is information obtained when the container is installed;While Kuwano discloses a sensor acquiring container information in [0089], this sensor is not in a one-to-one correspondence with the installation portions.
Wu, an invention in the same field as the instant application, teaches:
a sensor (sensors 4: fig. 2) that is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, and acquires container information that is information obtained when the container is installed;Wu teaches sensors 4 for each of the test-tube holders in the test-tube rack (“pallet”) of fig. 2. Thus there is a one-to-one correspondence with the installation portions. In [0012] Wu teaches that on the basis of detecting the presence of a test tube using the sensor, that further information regarding a bar-code affixed to the test-tube is then acquired. In combination with Kuwano, Wu’s sensors would be deployed in Kuwano’s racks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Kuwano with a sensor that is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, and acquires container information that is information obtained when the container is installed, as taught by Wu, because detecting the presence of a test-tube enables both anomaly detection (e.g. a test tube not present when one is expected, and vice versa) and the active scanning of the test-tube for bar-code information, while acquiring a test-tube bar-code enables the identification and verification of test tube sample contents for analysis, both plainly advantageous benefits.
Regarding claim 18,
Kuwano discloses:
A conveyance method for conveying a container (sample container T: fig. 2; conveyed in sample rack L: fig. 3) accommodating a sample to an analysis device (measurement units 2, 3: fig. 1A), Kuwano’s invention is a sample analyzer method (see title) which comprises a conveyance method as disclosed in [0006]-[0008].
the conveyance method comprising:
installing the container in one installation portion of a plurality of installation portions provided in a pallet (rack holding section 41: fig. 1A, samples installed in sample rack, [0040]);
and causing the conveyance unit (belts 431, 432: fig. 6) to pick up the container installed in the pallet in accordance with a pick-up order determined on a basis of the container information, and convey the container to the analysis device (conveyance, [0042], [0057]).
However, Kuwano does not disclose:
acquiring container information with a sensor that is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, the container information being information obtained when the container is installed;While Kuwano discloses a sensor acquiring container information in [0089], this sensor is not in a one-to-one correspondence with the installation portions.
Wu, an invention in the same field as the instant application, teaches:
acquiring container information with a sensor (sensors 4: fig. 2) that is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, the container information being information obtained when the container is installed;Wu teaches sensors 4 for each of the test-tube holders in the test-tube rack (“pallet”) of fig. 2. Thus there is a one-to-one correspondence with the installation portions. In [0012] Wu teaches that on the basis of detecting the presence of a test tube using the sensor, that further information regarding a bar-code affixed to the test-tube is then acquired. In combination with Kuwano, Wu’s sensors would be deployed in Kuwano’s racks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Kuwano with acquiring container information with a sensor that is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, the container information being information obtained when the container is installed, as taught by Wu, because detecting the presence of a test-tube enables both anomaly detection (e.g. a test tube not present when one is expected, and vice versa) and the active scanning of the test-tube for bar-code information, while acquiring a test-tube bar-code enables the identification and verification of test tube sample contents for analysis, both plainly advantageous benefits.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwano in view of Wu and further in view of Suzuki, et al., US 2021/0239721.
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not:
which has an interrupt function of preferentially conveying a container different from the container to be picked up in accordance with the pick-up order, to the analysis device regardless of the pick-up order. Neither reference teaches this interrupt or override feature.
Suzuki, an invention in the same field as the instant application, teaches:
which has an interrupt function of preferentially conveying a container different from the container to be picked up in accordance with the pick-up order, to the analysis device regardless of the pick-up order.In the situation in which an “urgent” sample is introduced, as perhaps by operator intervention, Suzuki teaches the interruption of the planned analysis in favor of the new sample and the switching from one sample to the other in [0140]-[0147].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Kuwano and Wu, with an interrupt function of preferentially conveying a container different from the container to be picked up in accordance with the pick-up order, to the analysis device regardless of the pick-up order, as taught by Suzuki, because first of all, it is commonly acknowledged in the art (per Kuwano, for example) that some samples have higher priority than others, and secondly as Suzuki explains in [0147], its method of handling interruptions due to priority or urgency avoids wasting analysis cycles and maintains high throughput, providing an obvious benefit to efficiency.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwano in view of Wu and further in view of Lin, et al., US 2007/0059207 (hereinafter Lin).
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein the container information includes a file name to be used when a result of analysis of the sample accommodated in the container is saved. Neither reference teaches the use of file names.
Lin, an invention in the same field as the instant application, teaches:
wherein the container information includes a file name to be used when a result of analysis of the sample accommodated in the container is saved. Lin teaches in [0027] the use of file names associated with samples as determined from a table looked up from a barcode found on a sample container.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Kuwano and Wu, wherein the container information includes a file name to be used when a result of analysis of the sample accommodated in the container is saved, as taught by Lin, because storing data according to file names has been a standard practice for computer systems for generations and is a well-known alternative to the use of a database.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwano in view of Wu and further in view of Hvidtfeldt, et al., US 2003/0029254 (hereinafter Hvidtfeldt).
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein the container information includes a sampling time that is a time at which the sample has been sampled in the container, and the conveyance control unit determines the pick-up order so that the container is picked up in chronological order of the sampling time. Neither reference teaches the claimed chronological order. However, as Kuwano does not disclose how it arrives at a default priority list or ordering for the analysis of its samples, it is at least compatible with chronological ordering.
Hvidtfeldt, an invention in the same field as the instant application, teaches:
wherein the container information includes a sampling time that is a time at which the sample has been sampled in the container, and the conveyance control unit determines the pick-up order so that the container is picked up in chronological order of the sampling time. Hvidtfeldt teaches a chronological sample processing order according to the sampling time of the sample in [0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Kuwano and Wu, wherein the container information includes a sampling time that is a time at which the sample has been sampled in the container, and the conveyance control unit determines the pick-up order so that the container is picked up in chronological order of the sampling time, as taught by Hvidtfeldt, because in the absence of some other overriding reason for setting a conveyance priority, conveyance systems such as Kuwano’s and the applicant’s will naturally convey samples in a first-in-first-out order, which is a chronological order. Moreover, as regards sampling time as the basis for the order, there may be time-sensitive limits on samples which exceeded invalidate analysis of the sample, and a chronological ordering on this basis ensures the most timely analysis of the oldest samples.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwano in view of Wu and further in view of Akutsu Masashi, JP 2017053829 (hereinafter Akutsu).
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1, but not:
wherein the container information includes a detection time that is a time at which the container has been detected by the sensor, and the conveyance control unit determines the pick-up order so that the container is picked up in chronological order of the detection time. Neither reference teaches the claimed chronological order. However, as Kuwano does not disclose how it arrives at a default priority list or ordering for the analysis and conveyance of its samples, it is at least compatible with chronological ordering.
Akutsu, an invention in the same field as the instant application, teaches:
wherein the container information includes a detection time that is a time at which the container has been detected by the sensor, and the conveyance control unit determines the pick-up order so that the container is picked up in chronological order of the detection time. Akutsu teaches chronological ordering for sample analysis in [0056] based on time of placement in a buffering mechanism upstream of the analyzer; this placement in the buffering mechanism, within the context of the system of Kumano and Wu, occurs after detection but before sampling and so is in chronological order of the detection time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Kuwano and Wu, wherein the container information includes a detection time that is a time at which the container has been detected by the sensor, and the conveyance control unit determines the pick-up order so that the container is picked up in chronological order of the detection time, as taught by Akutsu, because in the absence of some other overriding reason for setting a conveyance priority, conveyance systems such as Kuwano’s and the applicant’s will naturally convey samples in a first-in-first-out order, which is a chronological order. Further, since sample detection naturally occurs upstream of conveyance to an analysis device (or the samples would not be conveyed) the chronological order will be in order of detection as the conveyance flow is linear in the absence of some overriding priority.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwano in view of Wu further in view of Guo, et al., CN 205269744 (hereinafter Guo).
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 1 but not:
further comprising a reporting unit that is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, and reports whether the sensor has acquired the container information. While Wu teaches one-to-one correspondence of sensors and sample containers and also teaches reporting container information, it does not teach such a correspondence of reporting units.
Guo, an invention in the field of test-tube racks, teaches:
further comprising a reporting unit (alarm 12: fig. 2) that is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, and reports whether the sensor has acquired the container information. Guo teaches in [0022] a plurality of audible and visible alarms (reporting units) in its rack corresponding to the test-tube (container) locations just as Wu’s sensors correspond to container locations. In combination with Wu, where Wu teaches reporting container information in [0075] to an operator, the means of reporting would be using Guo’s alarms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Kuwano and Wu, further comprising a reporting unit that is provided for each of the installation portions in one-to-one correspondence, and reports whether the sensor has acquired the container information, as taught by Guo, because illuminating a position of a test tube or sample container provides a clear indicator of an issue with the container at that position that can plainly be more rapidly understood than (for example) reporting in the form of text or graphics sent to an operator’s portable device or displayed on a computer screen, and because the use of indicator lamps associated with container positions is widespread and of long standing in many related article-handling arts.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwano in view of Wu further in view of Wissman, et al., US 2020/0166405 (hereinafter Wissman).
Kuwano in view of Wu teaches the limitations of claim 13 but not:
wherein the analysis device analyzes the sample accommodated in the container, to switch mode to a learning analysis mode in which an analysis condition used in the analysis is stored as the container information.The two references do not teach a learning mode.
Wissman, an invention in the field of specimen analysis and machine learning, teaches:
wherein the analysis device analyzes the sample accommodated in the container, to switch mode to a learning analysis mode in which an analysis condition used in the analysis is stored as the container information.Wissman’s invention is generally concerned with using machine learning techniques to analyze samples such as sera. Wissman teaches in [0105]-[0107] a training mode for its learning system in which categorized samples are provided to the system. Since the samples (carried in containers) are analyzed and categorized and this data stored as part of the training method, the stored information is container information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system and method of Kuwano and Wu, wherein the analysis device analyzes the sample accommodated in the container, to switch mode to a learning analysis mode in which an analysis condition used in the analysis is stored as the container information, because first of all the use of machine learning as part of biological or chemical sample analysis is now commonplace in the art, and secondly because in the absence of a training mode, a machine learning system cannot improve or adapt to change over time, and so training modes are likewise commonplace for such systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,492,831 and US 2012/0141326 are examples of art teaching the interruption of a planned or scheduled sequence of sample analysis operations in favor of an urgent or higher priority sample introduced by an operator. US 2019/0212233 and US 2021/0213486 are examples of art teaching the use of machine learning in sample analysis operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830-1700.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at (571) 270-5565. 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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
LAURENCE RAPHAEL BROTHERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3655A
/L.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights