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 .
This action is in response to papers filed December 30, 2025. The amendments have been thoroughly reviewed and entered. Any previous objection/ rejection not repeated herein has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been thoroughly reviewed but are deemed moot in view of the amendments, withdrawn rejections and new grounds for rejection. New and/or modified grounds for rejection, necessitated by the amendments, are discussed.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on October 12, 2023. It is noted, in response to the previous Official action, filed September 30, 2025 applicant has now filed a certified copy of the 10-2023-0135920 application on February 20, 2026 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 solid support” as recited in claims 12 and 13, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The solid support is not shown in Fig. 14. 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.
Specification
The amendment filed December 30, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: paragraph on page 3, lines 18-19 of the specification as filed as follows: “[m]eanwhile, in some areas of the flow path, an attachment member may be disposed, to which a specific component contained in the liquid is attached. The attachment member may be a solid support to which the specific component is attached.”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The new claim limitation “solid support” in claims 12 and 13 does not find support in the specification as filed. The specification states at para [0119], “…the liquid moving along the flow path 210 passes the attachment member (K). In this case, the nucleic acid contained in the liquid is attached to the attachment member (K), and only the liquid from which the nucleic acid has been removed may be recovered into the recovery container 500.” The specification lack any properties or structure related to the claimed “solid support” such that it is configured to attach the nucleic acid in the liquid. At the very least, the specification should clearly define the structural/properties of the materials of the solid support capable of performing the claimed intended use (i.e., attach the nucleic acid in the liquid). Furthermore, applicant’s amendment to the specification on page 3, lines 18-19 as filed herewith is considered new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in a new wherein clause “wherein the elastic film is configured so that a liquid stored in the first space is discharged to the outside due to a contraction force of the elastic film”. It is unclear from the claim how the elastic film could be configured to discharge a liquid stored in the first to “the outside” due to the contraction of the force of the elastic film. It is unclear what applicant means by “outside” since inside space of the container merely contains a “first space” and a “second space” established by/divided by an elastic film. It is not clear if “the outside” means discharging the liquid to the “second space” which is outside of the first space or whether “the outside” is referring to outside of the container structure. Moreover, “the outside” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 3 now recites “a stopper body…having a ring shape with an open center” and “a septum disposed in a central opening of the stopper body”. It is not clear how the “open center” differs from the “central opening of the stopper body”. The examiner has interpreted these as referring to the same element. However, clarification in the claim is requested.
The new recitation of “a contraction force of the elastic film” is indefinite since the disclosure does not provide any dimensions or properties related to the claimed elastic film. Applicant’s disclosure is directed to a container structure and a liquid transfer device including the same, and more specifically to a container structure which is configured to transfer a liquid without power and regardless of gravity. The disclosure recites the contraction force of the elastic film is not clearly defined because structure and/or properties of the elastic film itself are not disclosed in the specification. The only disclosure to the material of the elastic film is found in applicant’s corresponding US published (2025/0122022, para [0057]), “[t]he elastic thin film 150 may be made of rubber or latex. However, this is only an example, and the elastic thin film 150 may be made of a known material having elasticity”. This does not provide any particular relationship between the elastic film (maybe rubber or latex) and the contraction force associated with these elastic film examples.
The new claim limitation “solid support” in claims 12 and 13 does not find support in the specification as filed. The specification states at para [0119], “…the liquid moving along the flow path 210 passes the attachment member (K). In this case, the nucleic acid contained in the liquid is attached to the attachment member (K), and the liquid from which the nucleic acid has been removed may be recovered into the recovery container 500.” The new “solid support” limitation is indefinite since the properties and structure of the solid support are not defined in the specification as filed. In addition, the liquid containing nucleic acid is not positively recited as part of the device. That is, it is unclear how an element that is not positively recited limits positively recited structural elements (e.g., attachment member/solid support).
Claims 6 and 7 recite “the plurality of through-holes are sequentially opened”. This is an intended use/functional/process limitation, that does provide any structural limitation that would limit the claimed container in any meaningful way. This is confusing and indefinite. In other words, this is an apparatus type claim, not a method of making or a process of using the apparatus. The process of sequentially opening the plurality of through-holes does not limit the structure.
Claim 7 now recites the plurality of through holes are distributed in a manner such that they are sequentially opened to allow outside air to be gradually introduced into the second space in conjunction with contraction of the elastic film, thereby controlling a pressure drop rate of the second space so that discharge speed of the liquid has a set speed change. This claim is confusing and indefinite. As discussed above, claim 7 is directed to a container structure, not a process of using or a process of making a container structure. It is unclear how distributing a number of through-holes (an active step) in such a manner that they are sequentially opened to allow outside air (outside relative to what?) to be gradually introduced into the second space “in conjunction” with contraction of the elastic film to somehow control a pressure drop rate of the second space so that a “discharge speed of the liquid has a set speed change”. The recitation “in such as way” describes a result, not a structure. It is not clear what the structure actually is required to perform this result (i.e., undefined mechanism). Also, the term “gradually” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what applicant considers a “gradual” rate of allowing the outside air to be introduced into the second space. Also, it is unclear what applicant means that this “in conjunction with contraction of the elastic film”. Furthermore, it is not clear what the phrase “so that a discharge speed of the liquid has a set speed change”. Specifically, how does the “discharge speed of the liquid” relate to “set speed change”. It is not clear how the “discharge speed” is determined and/or controlled and somehow compared to a (predetermined?) set speed change.
In general, the language/scope of the instant apparatus claims does not enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably determine what would fall within the scope of the claims (infringement) versus what falls outside the scope of the claims (freedom to operate).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, as best understood, remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Manoussakis (US 2005/0065454).
Regarding claim 1, Manoussakis discloses a container structure, comprising:
a container body 12c having an internal space formed therein and one end open 16b;
a stopper (includes closure 160 and cap element 56d, see Fig. 14) coupled to the container body so as to close the open end 16b of the container body (see par [0044] et seq.); and
an elastic film (expandable sample bag 150) configured to divide the internal space of the container body into a first space 154 in which a liquid is stored and a second space 20c separated from the first space (see Figs. 9-14 and para [0043] et seq.)
Note that the new wherein clause in claim 1 is considered functional/process language (ex: “wherein the elastic film is configured so that a liquid (not required) stored in the first space is discharged to the (outside?) due to a contraction force of the elastic film”). Manoussakis teaches the elastic film 150 can be made of a balloon material or an expandable bag 150 able to extending into interior chamber 20c (see para [0047] et seq.) Balloons are well known in the art as comprising latex or rubber, which falls well within applicant’s the properties of the claimed elastic film being made of rubber, latex, or “any known material having elasticity” (see para [0057] of applicant’s published specification).
Applicant is respectfully reminded that functional/process language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function or intended use, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g)).
However, even if the wherein clause is not considered functional/process language, it has been determined that when the structure recited in the reference (rubber/latex-balloon) is substantially identical to that of the claims (rubber/latex/and any known material having elasticity) then it is reasonable to presume the material shares the same properties or functions, such as, the same “contraction force”. (MPEP 2112.02).
Regarding claim 2, Manoussakis discloses a fixed end of the elastic film 150 is fixed to at least one of an inner side surface of the open end of the container body and an inner side surface of the stopper facing the internal space (see annular lip portion 158 in Fig. 14, see para [0050] et seq.)
Regarding claim 3, Manoussakis discloses the stopper comprises: a stopper body 160 coupled to an open end of the container body 16a and having a ring shape with an open center 62 or 50 (see Fig. 4); and a septum (area in 50 on one side) disposed in the open center of the stopper body and coupled to the stopper body.
Regarding claim 4, Manoussakis teaches the second space is a closed space 28 (see Fig. 9-10 or closed by stopper 70c see Figs. 11-14).
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.
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.
Claims 5-7, as best understood, remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manoussakis.
Regarding claim 5, Manoussakis discloses the container body 12 includes a vent element at opposing second end 18 thereof such that the second space is connected to outside air. Such a vent element is a physical structure which is adapted for venting of air within interior chamber 20 of tube 12, while maintaining a closed environment, in particular a liquid-tight environment, within interior chamber 20 of tube 12. The vent element may be integrally formed with tube 12 (see para [0029] et seq.). However, Manoussakis does not explicitly disclose providing a plurality of through-holes (vents) formed on the container body. However, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to have included a plurality of vents in the container body of Manoussakis is the since the mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Also, it is obvious that the number of vents and locations on the container body would influence the flow/pressure applied to the internal space and elastic film during use. The modification to determine the appropriate number of vents comes from the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known such as the necessary flow rate of the liquid added or removed from the internal space of the container. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
The applicant is advised that the Supreme Court has 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 formal 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. See KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Sup. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82, USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007), see MPEP 2143).
Claims 6 and 7 are directed to functional/process language as these claims do not add any structural elements to the device beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function or intended use, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims. The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g)).
Claims 8-13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier et al., (US 2017/0021355; hereinafter “Olivier”) in view of Manoussakis.
Regarding claim 8, Olivier discloses a liquid transfer device, comprising:
a container structure (vial 2) having a container body having an internal space formed therein and one end open 2a;
a stopper (presealed opening) coupled to the container body so as to close the open end of the container body (see par [0035] et seq.)
Note: Olivier recites that the container body of vial 2 with a vent and a filter could be provided to allow extraction of the liquid from the reservoir (see para [0035] et seq., the specific details to the vent and filter are not described in detail).
Olivier also discloses:
a base member 3 having a flow path 6 formed therein through which the liquid M moves; and
a hollow needle 4 formed to protrude from one side of the base member, connected to the flow path, and penetrating the stopper of the container structure (see para [0037] and Figs. 1-3).
Although it is believed that the vent and filter in Olivier reads on the claimed container structure of claim 1 (Olivier- see para [0035]). However, if not, in the related art of liquid transfer device discussed above with respect to claim 1, Manoussakis discloses a container structure, comprising:
a container body 12c having an internal space formed therein and one end open 16b;
a stopper (includes closure 160 and cap element 56d, see Fig. 14) coupled to the container body so as to close the open end 16b of the container body (see par [0044] et seq.); and
an elastic film (expandable sample bag 150, i.e., balloon)) configured to divide the internal space of the container body into a first space 154 in which a liquid is stored and a second space 20c separated from the first space (see Figs. 9-14 and para [0043] et seq.) Manoussakis teaches the elastic film 150 can be made of a balloon material or an expandable bag 150 able to extend into interior chamber 20c (see para [0047] et seq.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute the container structure of Olivier with the container structure of Manoussakis, for the expected reason that Manoussakis teaches the particular configuration of the specimen collection container is capable of collecting a blood sample from a patient based on the physiological venous pressure of the patient, without the need for any internal vacuum within the collection container. Also, it is inherent that the elastic film in Manoussakis is configured to discharge a fluid stored in the first space to the outside due to the inherent contraction force of the elastic film (rubber, latex, etc.). Manousakis also discloses the contents of the sample is forced into the interior chamber based on the venous pressure of the patient, such that any air present within the interior of the collection tube will vent to the exterior environment through the vent (see para [0005] et seq.)
Regarding claim 9, Olivier discloses one end of the flow path is connected to the hollow needle 4 (see para [0040] et seq. and Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 10, Olivier discloses a recovery needle 5 protrudingly formed on the other side of the base member 3, and connected to the flow path 6; and a recovery container (vial 1) having a recovery space wherein the liquid from which the nucleic acid (intended use) has been removed may be recovered by the recovery space (see para [0041] et seq.) Note: the recitation that a claimed element “may be” able to perform a function/process/intended use is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. See MPEP 2173.05.
Regarding claim 11, Olivier discloses the other end of the flow path is connected to the recovery needle 5 (see Fig. 1 and para [0041] et seq.)
Regarding claim 12, the liquid containing a nucleic acid has not been positively recited. Thus, these elements do not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Regardless, Olivier discloses in the flow path in which a solid support (membrane 14) is disposed, to which an nucleic acid contained in the liquid is attached (filtered; see para [0045] et seq. and Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13. Olivier discloses the flow path may alternatively be arranged in the form of a maze or a plurality of parallel channels can be provided with relatively equal length connected to a main inlet channel or header and a main outlet channel or header, respectively, in order to more efficiently purge and fill the internal space of the chamber. FIGS. 5A to C show various arrangements of a plurality of channels providing a simultaneous flow from the inlet to the outlet of the device. FIG. 5C, for example, shows radial channels with a central feeding point at the inlet and circular collecting channels at the periphery leading towards the outlet 5, an expanded portion has a larger cross-sectional diameter than an adjacent flow path portion, and the solid support 14 is disposed in the expanded portion (see para [0044] et seq.)
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112 (b) have been modified to address the outstanding amendments to the claims, see above. With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103, Applicant argues that the new recitation “wherein the elastic film is configured so that a fluid stored in the first space is discharged to the outside due to a contraction force of the elastic film” clearly distinguishes over the passive expandable bag 150 of Manousakis, which is not elastic film and therefore does not use contraction force to actively discharge or transfer a fluid.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth above, the new wherein clause in claim 1 is considered functional/process language (ex: “wherein the elastic film is configured so that a liquid (not required) stored in the first space is discharged to the (outside?) due to a contraction force of the elastic film”),see MPEP § 2114 & § 2173.05(g). Moreover, Manoussakis teaches the elastic film 150 may be made of a balloon material or an expandable bag 150 able to extend into interior chamber 20c (see para [0047] et seq.) Balloons are well known in the art as comprising latex or rubber, which falls within applicant’s the properties of the claimed elastic film being made of rubber, latex, or “any known material having elasticity” (see para [0057] of applicant’s published specification). Therefore, even if the new wherein clause was not considered functional/process language, it has been determined when the structure recited in the reference (rubber/latex-balloon) is substantially identical to that of the claims (rubber/latex/and any known material having elasticity) and therefore it is reasonable to presume the material shares the same properties or functions, such as, the same “contraction force”. (MPEP 2112.02).
Therefore, the reasons delineated above, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include:
Fangrow (US 2008/0249498) which discloses at FIG. 27 an embodiment of a vial 1310 comprising a bag 1360 coupled with the adaptor 1000. In some embodiments, the bag 1360 is filled with a medical liquid 1320. A distal end 1362 of the bag 1360 can be hermetically sealed to the cap 214. In some instances, the distal end 1362 is sealed between the septum 216 and a proximal end of the body 212. In certain embodiments, the vial 1310 comprises a venting aperture 1325. The venting aperture 1325 can be located anywhere on the body 212. In some arrangements, the venting aperture 1325 is located at a distal end of the body 212. Accordingly, the bag 1360 does not obstruct the venting aperture 1325 when liquid is withdrawn from the vial 1310 in an upside-down configuration. In some instances, the venting aperture 1325 is covered by a filter or a screen to prevent debris or other items from entering the vial 1310 and possibly puncturing the bag 1360.
Xu et al., (US 2017/0354362) which disclose a blood separation device includes a housing defining a first chamber, a second chamber, and a separation member disposed therebetween. The blood separation device also includes an actuator, wherein actuation of the actuator draws the blood sample into the first chamber and the separation member is adapted to allow the plasma portion to pass through the separation member to the second chamber. The blood separation device matches the plasma chamber volume, the blood chamber volume, and the applied single pressure source so that the correct trans-membrane pressure and shear rate is obtained.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am-7:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (571) 270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights