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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 08, 2026 been thoroughly reviewed and entered. Any previous objection/ rejection not repeated herein has been withdrawn.
New and/or modified grounds for rejection, necessitated by the amendments, are discussed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 09, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language, specifically, #4 Korean Official Action dated June 01, 2026. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 08, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
In the patentability analysis of instant apparatus claims 1-6 and 8-13, aspects or limitations examiner interprets as functional/process/intended use/ and/or not positively recited as part the claimed apparatus have been generally italicized whereas aspects interpreted as positively recited structural components are normally bolded. The bold font and italics are shown when the structure and function are initially introduced though not necessarily repeated, particularly in dependent claims. The examiner applies this formatting for both the examiner and applicant’s convenience. However, absent the referenced typestyles, the patentability analysis will still be clear regarding which limitations the examiner interprets as structural versus functional/process/intended use and/or not positively recited structure. Also note that it has been held that recitations in which an element is "adapted to/for", “configured to/for”, “positionable”, “moveable/immovable”, etc., only requires the ability to so perform (i.e., functional/process/intended use). The functional/process/intended use/ and/or elements not positively recited as part of the apparatus do not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense with respect to the prior art.
Please note these recitations have not been ignored by the examiner. All of the claimed recitations in applicant’s claims have been considered by the examiner and afforded the appropriate amount of patentable weight. In most cases, it is improper to construe elements that are functional/process/ and/or not positively recited in a way that would make infringement or validity turn on their presence in the invention.
In certain instances during prosecution, the examiner’s current interpretations regarding the patentable weight of these limitations might change based on the facts of the case.
The examiner's patentability analysis below provides one or more interpretations and claim mappings of the claimed structures although other interpretations may be possible. In the patentability analysis, the Office applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification and specific limitations from the specification have not been read into the claims.
See at least MPEP §2111.02, 2173.01 I 2114, and 2173.05(g).
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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(s) at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The new wherein clauses in claim 1, specifically, the recitation “wherein the contraction force of the elastic film is obtained by injecting the fluid into the first space so that the elastic film is filled with the fluid and the elastic film is stretched and expanded into the interior of the chamber body,” does not find support in the specification as originally filed. The examiner notes that in applicant’s outstanding “Remarks” on the last paragraph of page 8, applicant cites for support piecemeal portions of the specification. That is, applicant cites support for the amendment is found in the specification, for example at page 7, lines 18-29, which refers to "the work of injecting a fluid (F) into the interior of the container structure 100", page 11, lines 12-13, which states that "the elastic thin film 150 may be stretched to the maximum inside the container body 110" and page 12, lines 1-2, which recites "[w]hen the hollow needle 300 penetrates the stopper 300, the elastic thin film 150 contracts, and the fluid (F) in the first space 111a may be discharged to the outside."
Respectfully, the examiner does not agree that the filling process is clearly disclosed in the specification. It appears the specification only discloses the use of a hollow needle to discharge the fluid in the first space to the outside of the container. There is no discussion of filling the fluid container. There is no recitation of “the first space is initially closed to the space outside of the container”. See for example para [0072] of applicant’s corresponding US 2025/0122002, which discloses that the initial state of the container as shown in FIG. 7, wherein the first space 111a may be filled with the fluid (F), and the elastic thin film 150 may be stretched to the maximum inside the container body 110′. In this case, the elastic thin film 150 may close all of the plurality of through-holes 113 formed on the container body 110′. This does not describe how the fluid is introduced by way of injection or how this creates “the contraction force of the elastic film”.
Likewise, claim 6 now recites wherein the plurality of through holes are distributed in the container from the closed end to the open end so that they are sequentially opened by the release of the contraction force that allows the elastic film to retract and to sequentially uncover the plurality of holes, thereby allowing outside air to be increasingly 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 a discharge speed of the fluid is controlled. There is no recitation in the specification that supports controlling the pressure drop rate of the second space so that a discharge speed of the fluid (to the outside) is controlled. Applicant’s ‘002 para [0081], recites the pressure drop speed of the second space 111b may vary depending on the amount of outside air flowing into the second space 111b through the through-hole 113. In addition, as the pressure drop speed of the second space 111b varies, the contraction force weakening speed of the elastic thin film 150 may vary. In addition, as the contraction force weakening speed of the elastic thin film 150 varies, the discharge speed of the fluid discharged from the first space 111a may vary. The recitation of varied speed of the fluid discharged from the first space does not indicate any type of “control” based on the contraction force of the elastic film. The number (and cross-sections) of each of the through holes would influence different rate/amounts of outside air into the container that would influence elastic materials differently. Furthermore, even if there was support in the specification, all of the “wherein clauses” are completely functional/process/intended use language, which does not further limit the invention for the reasons discussed above.
Any future attempt to include language from the new wherein clauses in the specification by amendment will be 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 “a contraction force of the elastic film”. Again, the “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 contraction force of the elastic film is not clearly defined because structure and/or properties (e.g., thickness) 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 ‘022, 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. Also, claim 1 now recites “the chamber body”. This lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 now recites wherein the plurality of through holes are distributed in the container from the closed end to the open end so that they are sequentially opened by the release of the contraction force that allows the elastic film to retract and to sequentially uncover the plurality of holes, thereby allowing outside air to be increasingly 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 a discharge speed of the fluid is controlled. As discussed above, the number (and diameter) of each of the through holes is undefined in the claims, as are the properties of the elastic film. The number and diameter of the through holes would influence the amount of air introduced into the container which would affect the speed of the fluid being discharged therefrom. However, it is not clear how this would be capable of controlling the discharge speed of the fluid. Also, it is not clear from the wording of the claim how the plurality of through holes are distributed in the container from the closed end to the open end. I would make sense if applicant define these holes disposed though the container body to the space outside the container.
In general, the claims are rife with use/functional/process/ and not positively recited limitations that do provide any structural limitation which would limit the claimed container in any meaningful way. This is confusing and indefinite. In other words, this is an apparatus type claim, and 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. The language/scope of the instant 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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, wherein the container body as a closed end and an open end 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.)
wherein the contraction force of the elastic film is obtained by injecting the fluid into the first space so that the elastic film is filled with the fluid and the elastic film is stretched and expanded into the interior of the chamber (container) body, thereby increasing a volume of the first space and decreasing a volume of the second space,
wherein the first space is initially closed to the space outside the container, and
wherein opening the first space to the space outside the container allows the contraction force stored in the elastic film to be released and to discharge the fluid in the first space to the space outside the container.
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 of the container body (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).
However, even if the wherein clauses were not considered functional/process/use language, since it has been determined that the structure recited in the reference (rubber/latex-balloon) is substantially identical to that recited in applicant’s specification (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” properties (see 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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-7, as best understood, remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manoussakis in view of Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (JP 2018052531; hereinafter “Nippon”- first cited in the IDS filed June 09, 2026).
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.
Nippon teaches a container structure for dispensing liquid therein using an elastic film and a plurality of through holes in the container body. Specifically Nippon teaches liquid supplier 10 includes an outer shell container 11, a suction mouth 12, a liquid storage tank 13, a liquid feeding part 14, a fixed part 15. The outer shell container 11 includes a main body portion 21, a bottom portion 22, and a neck portion 23. The main body 21 is formed in a cylindrical shape. The bottom part 22 closes the lower part of the main body part 21. The neck portion 23 has a smaller diameter than the main body portion 21 and protrudes upward from the main body portion 21. The outer shell container 11 is formed with an introduction hole 24 through which outside air (atmospheric pressure or the like) enters. The introduction hole 24 introduces an external air pressure into the outer shell container 11 and causes the air pressure to act on the liquid storage tank 13. Fig. 2 shows a plurality of introduction holes 24 (three in the example in the figure) may be formed instead of one. One advantage Nippon recognizes is that the use of a plurality of through holes aides in pushing the liquid from the liquid storage tank 13 using atmospheric pressure acting through the introduction holes 24, and the capacity of the liquid storage tank 13 decreases sequentially.
Accordingly, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed to have included a plurality of vents in the container body of Manoussakis since Nippon recognizes that the use of through holes aides in emptying the fluid in the elastic film using atmospheric pressure which is easy to provide and removes the need for a pump. Moreover, 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 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).
As to claim 6, modified Manoussakis does not specifically teach the plurality of through holes are distributed in the container from the closed end to the open end, wherein in an initial state, all of the plurality of through-holes are closed by the elastic film being stretched to cover the plurality of holes from inside the container, and wherein in a fluid discharge state where the fluid stored in the first space is discharged to the outside the container due to the contraction force of the elastic film, the elastic film contracts, wherein the plurality of through holes are distributed in the container from the closed end to the open end so that they are sequentially opened by the release of the contraction force that allows the elastic film to retract and to sequentially uncover the plurality of holes, thereby allowing outside air to be increasingly 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 a discharge speed of the fluid is controlled. However, the modification to determine the appropriate location of the 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.
Claims 8-13, as best understood, remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olivier et al., (US 2017/0021355; hereinafter “Olivier”) in view of Manoussakis or vice versa.
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, as discussed above, 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 an attachment member (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 diameter than an adjacent flow path portion, and the attachment member 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 July 08, 2026 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 recitations in the claims clearly distinguish 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 clauses 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 of the container 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 clauses were not considered functional/process/use 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.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is hereby made of record. Although the prior art is not relied upon it is considered it cited because it is pertinent to the applicant’s invention and may be used in a future prior art rejection and/or as general background information related to Applicant’s field of endeavor.
Sekiya (US 2018/0361749) teaches a liquid container including: an inner bag that is made from a film-shaped member and reserves a liquid therein; and an outer container that accommodates the inner bag therein and includes a first opening communicating with a mouth of the inner bag and a second opening for supplying a fluid into a space between the inner bag and an inner wall of the outer container. The inner bag with the liquid reserved therein is deformed by supplying the fluid, to thereby feed out the liquid from the inner bag to an outside.
Fangrow (US 2008/0249498) teaches at least with respect to 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 fluid 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 fluid 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.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
In this case, the examiner does not find any currently claimed and/or unclaimed elements in the specification that would possibly result in a patent in the future. The container structure art is well-known and crowded. The examiner strongly advises against further prosecution of this application. The examiner invites applicant to schedule an interview to discuss the case prior to the close of prosecution (e.g., before a Final rejection could be issued).
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