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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-7, and 22-30 are pending and under examination.
Claims 8-21 have been canceled.
Claims 22-30 were added by amendment.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the drawings, received on 07/20/2026, have overcome the disclosure objections. Therefore, the objections to the disclosure have been withdrawn.
The claim amendments have overcome the previous claim objection(s) and 112(b) rejection(s). Accordingly, the claim objections and 112(b) rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Based on the amended claims and remarks, received 07/20/2026, the prior art rejection over McNeil has been modified to address the amended claims (see below).
Claim Objections
Claims 22 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 22 and 23 must be in one sentence form. The examiner request applicant include a period “.” at the end of each dependent claim.
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 7 and 22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
13. Claim 1 lines 9-11 recite “one or more devices associated with the planar motor transport and configured to operationally engage with at least one of the one or more movers and execute the automated laboratory function … for processing, handling, and moving laboratory samples”. Claim 1 lines 5-8 also recite “one or more movers … configured to execute the automated laboratory function”. How do the movers execute the functions in the second clause, but then the “devices” engage with the movers (devices are separate from movers) and execute the function in the third clause. In other words, the structures performing the functions appear to conflict with, and contradict, each other. The mover and device of the second and third clause, respectively, are different structures but are each recited as performing the function. How can two different structures perform the same function. Are these structures all part of the same structure that are performing the function or are these structures different structures that are performing different functions? Claims 2-7, and 22-30 are also rejected by their dependency from claim 1.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 & 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McNeil (US 2002/0146347; already of record – hereinafter “McNeil”).
Regarding claim 1, McNeil disclose a system (McNeil; fig. 1, #1, [0052]), comprising:
a planar motor transport comprising a planar motor surface, the planar motor transport configured in a laboratory environment in which multiple laboratory functions are automatically executed (McNeil disclose a track system 6 in a laboratory environment in which automated laboratory functions including plate washing, pipetting, reading, liquid or dry sample handling, sample detection, and sample transferring, are automatically executed; figs. 1, 6, 7 & 15, step 150, step 245, step 235, [0016, 0045, 0050, 0057, 0067, 0069, 0081, 0093, 0097-0098, 0100-0101, 0113]). The track system 6 may be a magnetic propulsion system; [0077]);
one or more movers positioned on the planar motor surface and configured to execute the automated laboratory functions in x, y, and z directions defined by the planar motor transport (McNeil disclose robot 3 configured to move on the track 6 to execute the automated laboratory functions; figs. 1, 6, 7 & 15, step 150, step 245, step 235, [0016, 0045, 0050, 0057, 0067, 0069, 0093, 0097, 0100-0101, 0113]. The robot 3 is configured to perform the functions in the x, y, and z directions defined by the track 6, figs. 3, 11A-B & 14, [0054, 0057-0058, 0084, 0104]), the one or more movers configured for processing, handling, and moving laboratory samples (McNeil disclose the robots 3 comprise carrying plate 13 for transporting samples/cargo from one location to another, where devices 8 interact or perform some function on the samples/cargo such as transferring liquid, measuring fluorescence or optical density, lifting and holding a lid, plate washing, plate reading, etc.,. The devices 8 may be configured on the robot 3 or at workstations 4; [0050, 0057, 0074, 0097-0098, 0100-0103]. The robots 3 comprise controller 44 that performs functions including moving forward, activating the micro positioning system, activating the robot identification process, operating the collision avoidance system, operating the error correction system, lighting or turning off indicator lamp(s), providing an audible signal via the speaker, etc., [0081]);
one or more devices associated with the planar motor transport and configured to operationally engage with at least one of the one or more movers and execute the automated laboratory function (McNeil disclose the robots 3 comprise carrying plate 13 for transporting samples/cargo from one location to another, where devices 8 interact or perform some function on the samples/cargo such as transferring liquid, measuring fluorescence or optical density, lifting and holding a lid, plate washing, plate reading, etc.,. The devices 8 may be configured on the robot 3 or at workstations 4 associated with the planar motor transport to automatically execute the laboratory function; fig. 6, Step 150, [0050, 0057, 0067, 0074, 0097-0098, 0100-0103]); and
a distributed control architecture that controls an operation of the one or more movers along the x, y and z directions defined by the planar motor transport, and an operation of the one or more devices is configured with the one or more movers (McNeil disclose each workstation 4 comprises an identification and communications system 70 which provide the robot 3 with instructions when docked at a station 4. Microprocessor 78 determines if the robot 3 is at the correct location 4, and based on the comparison activates the device 8 or sends a new set of navigational instructions to the robot 3; fig. 12, [0088, 0091]. The devices (i.e. robot 3 and device 8) themselves can communicate with each other and a central control system 30 by standard networking technologies, such as TCP/IP. When identification between the robot 3 and the device 8 is established, the device 8 is activated to perform some function or manipulation on the sample 9 contained in the sample holding device 13; [0093]), the distributed control architecture having an autonomous execution layer that coordinates individual workflow instances in the automated laboratory functions that are performed by one or more workflow agents (McNeil also disclose microprocessor 31 of the central controller 30 generates the routing information, performs tracking and other processing functions, schedules the operation of the devices [0069, 0072, 0091], microprocessor 78 at the workstation 4 determines if the robot 3 is at the correct location, and based on the comparison activates the device 8 to begin interaction with the robot thereby performing some function or manipulation on the sample, and sends a new set of navigational instructions to the robot 3; [0091, 0093], and the processor 44 is configured to perform autonomous navigation upon receiving a set of navigational instructions; [0080, 0091]. Note: The processor 31 configured to schedule operations is a computer-programming code that plans time-based events and actions. The system 70 comprises microprocessor 78 which determines if the robot 3 is at the correct location 4, and based on the comparison activates the device 8 to interact with the robot 3 thereby performing some function or manipulation on the sample 9 contained in the sample holding device 13 and sends a new set of navigational instructions to the robot 3; [0090-0091, 0093]. The processor of each device (microprocessor 78 of device 8, controller 44 of robot 3, and processor 31 of central control 30), is being interpreted as a workflow agent, where each workflow agent is configured with computer-programming instructions to perform automated laboratory functions and workflow instances; [0069, 0072, 0091]), and a time-based reservation management layer that performs a temporal conflict check, and creates temporal reservations for the one or more movers configured for processing, handling, and moving the laboratory samples (McNeil disclose stacker-like queuing to perform the workflow instructions at one or more stations 4 for near 100% device utilization; fig. 2, [0009, 0012, 0047, 0051, 0068]. McNeil also disclose microprocess 31 of the central controller 30 schedules the operation of the devices and performs tracking and other functions; [0069, 0072], microprocessor 78 of the system 70 sends a new set of navigational instructions to the robot 3 and activates each device 8 to perform a function on the sample; [0091, 0093], and the controller 44 of the robot 3 performs autonomous navigation to the next device 8; fig. 6, step 150, [0066-0067, 0080]. Note: The processor 31 configured to generate the routes and schedule operations is a computer-programming code that plans time-based events and actions),
wherein each workflow agent in the one or more workflow agents operates as an autonomous controller for the individual workflow instances within specific recipe workflow batches for recipe-based execution control, resource acquisition, and timing coordination within the temporal reservations (McNeil disclose the processor 44 is configured to perform autonomous navigation upon receiving a set of navigational instructions; [0080, 0091], the microprocessor 78 at the workstation 4 determines if the robot 3 is at the correct location, and based on the comparison activates the device 8 to begin interaction with the robot thereby performing some function or manipulation on the sample, and sends a new set of navigational instructions to the robot 3; [0091, 0093], and the microprocess 31 of the central controller 30 generates the routing information, performs tracking and other processing functions, schedules the operation of the devices [0069, 0072, 0091]. Accordingly, each workflow agent/processor operates as an autonomous controller for the individual workflow instances to process samples based on scheduled operations).
Regarding claim 3, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the distributed control architecture includes a queue priority manager that integrates input data from a device manager and a mover manager, the input data at least including an order, device information, mover information, and temporal information for the order for the one or more workflow agents (McNeil disclose the robots 3 have stacker-like queuing to perform the workflow instructions; fig. 2, [0009, 0012, 0019, 0047, 0050-0051, 0068, 0080-0081]. The robots wait in lines 11b/11c for a device to be free [0047, 0050-0051]. Identification information of the robot 3 and cargo is transmitted to a station 4 to verify the location is correct; fig. 15, [0112]. The system is controlled by a central controller 30 with a scheduler that schedule the operations of the devices; fig. 7, [0072]).
Regarding claim 4, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the autonomous execution layer comprises workflow agent execution logic and a transport and execute process that identify the individual workflow instances for each order and control the performance of the one or more workflow agents (McNeil disclose microprocessor 31 of the central controller 30 generates the routing information, performs tracking and other processing functions, schedules the operation of the devices [0069, 0072, 0091], microprocessor 78 at the device 8 determines if the robot 3 is at the correct location, and based on the comparison activates the device 8 to begin interaction with the robot thereby performing some function or manipulation on the sample, and sends a new set of navigational instructions to the robot 3; [0091, 0093], and the processor 44 is configured to perform autonomous navigation upon receiving a set of navigational instructions; [0080, 0091]. Note: Each processor has computer programming instructions to perform the instances and functions).
Regarding claim 5, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the automated laboratory functions include in-situ pipetting of the laboratory samples contained in a sample carrier mounted on at least one of the one or more movers, and the in-situ pipetting is performed by at least one of the one or more devices comprising a multi-channel pipetting system including a multi-channel pipetting head (McNeil; figs. 12 & 13A, #80, [0097, 0099-0101]).
Regarding claim 6, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the automated laboratory functions include dispensing of a bulk reagent into the laboratory samples contained in a sample carrier mounted on at least one of the one or more movers and the dispensing is performed by one of the at least one or more devices comprising a multi-channel bulk reagent system including a multi-channel dispenser head (McNeil; figs. 12 & 13A, #80, [0097, 0099-0101]).
Regarding claim 25, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the automated laboratory functions of at least one of the one or more devices includes one or more liquid handling operation (McNeil; figs. 12 & 13A, #80, [0097, 0099-0101]).
Regarding claim 26, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the one or more liquid handling operations comprise a pipetting operation, a reagent dispensing operation, or a plate washing operation (McNeil; figs. 12-13, [0050, 0076, 0097, 0099-0102]).
Regarding claim 27, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the automated laboratory functions of at least one of the one or more devices includes one or more sample access operations (McNeil disclose robots 3 move sample 9 on plate 13 from one location 4 to another location 4, and to devices 8 and bulk storage 90; figs. 1, 12, 13, 14, [0057, 0100-0110]).
Regarding claim 28, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the one or more sample access operations comprise a lidding and de-lidding operation, a capping and de-capping operation, a sealing and de- sealing operation, a stacking and de-stacking operation, or any combination thereof (McNeil; [0098]).
Regarding claim 29, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the automated laboratory functions of at least one of the one or more devices includes one or more sample processing and storage operations (McNeil disclose robots 3 move sample 9 on plate 13 from one location 4 to another location 4, and to devices 8 and bulk storage 90; figs. 1, 12, 13, 14, [0057, 0100-0110]).
Regarding claim 30, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the one or more sample processing and storage operations comprise an incubation operation, a storage operation, or any combination thereof (McNeil disclose robots 3 move sample 9 on plate 13 from one location 4 to another location 4, and to devices 8 and bulk storage 90; figs. 1, 12, 13, 14, [0057, 0100-0110]).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeil and further in view of Uchida et al. (US Patent No. 6,045,319; already of record – hereinafter “Uchida”).
Regarding claim 2, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the track system may be a magnetic propulsion system (McNeil; [0077]).
McNeil does not explicitly teach wherein the planar motor transport is driven by one or more planar motor stators and a series of magnets that enable the one or more movers to magnetically levitate above the planar motor surface and operate the one or more movers in the x, y, and z directions.
However, Uchida teach the analogous art of a system comprising planar motor transport and one or more movers positioned on a planar motor surface (Uchida teach a table “T” with a surface 1 on which carriers “C” move; figs. 1 & 2, col. 2 line 43 though col. 3 line 35), wherein the planar motor transport is driven by one or more planar motor stators (Uchida; fig. 1, #4, col. 2 lines 43-65) and a series of magnets (Uchida; fig. 1, #2, col. Lines 43-49) that enable the one or more movers to magnetically levitate above the planar motor surface and operate the one or more movers in the x, y, and z directions (Uchida; figs. 1-3, col. 3 line 21 though col. 4 line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the planar motor transport and the one or more movers of McNeil, with the planar motor transport driven by one or more planar motor stators and a series of magnets that enable the one or more movers to magnetically levitate above the planar motor surface and operate the one or more movers in the x, y, and z directions, as taught by Uchida, because Uchida teach the magnetic system comprising stators and magnets to operate the movers enables transport of the movers quickly and stop reliably at a predetermined location with a simple design (Uchida; col. 9 lines 14-17). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since McNeil and Uchida both teach magnetic transport systems for transporting one or more movers.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeil and further in view of Malinowski et al. (US 2016/0282378; already of record – hereinafter “Malinowski”).
Regarding claim 7, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1 above, wherein the automated laboratory functions include recovery of the one or more workflow agents (McNeil disclose recovery of robot 3 to a charging station periodically for recharge or battery swap; [0060]).
McNeil does not teach the automated laboratory functions include cleanup and removal of dry and liquid waste and debris using at least one of the one or more movers.
However, Malinowski teach the analogous art of a planar motor transport configured in a laboratory environment in which automated laboratory functions are automatically executed (Malinowski; fig. 1, #100, [0033-0037]) and one or more movers positioned on a planar motor surface and configured to execute the automated laboratory functions (Malinowski; figs. 1 & 2, #200, [0039]), the automated laboratory functions include cleanup and removal of dry and liquid waste and debris using at least one of the one or more movers (Malinowski; [0040-0042]) and recovery of the one or more workflow agents following the cleanup (Malinowski teach the control device can be configured to control movement of sample carriers to have priority over the cleaning function to allow for an uninterrupted operation of the laboratory system such that the throughput and fast transport of samples may not be disturbed by the operation of the cleaning device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify at least one of the one or more moves and automated laboratory functions of McNeil to comprise the at least one or more movers configured to perform cleanup and removal of dry and liquid waste and debris using at least one of the one or more movers, as taught by Malinowski, because Malinowski teach the at least one or more movers configured for cleanup and removal of liquid waste and debris collects dust or other contaminants as well as spray and wipe cleaning fluid to clean the transport surface without the need to stop operation of the automated laboratory system (Malinowski; [0014, 0040, 0042]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since McNeil and Malinowski both teach magnetic transport systems for transporting one or more movers.
Regarding claim 22, Modified McNeil teach the system of claim 7 above, wherein each of the at least one of the one or more movers are attached with a brush, a shovel, a pusher, a squeegee, a vacuum, a blower, a magnetic pad, an adhesive pad, a mopping pad (The modification of at least one of the one or more moves and automated laboratory functions of McNeil to comprise the at least one or more movers configured to perform cleanup and removal of dry and liquid waste and debris using at least one of the one or more movers, as taught by Malinowski, has previously been discussed in claim 7 above. Malinowski additionally teach the at least one of the one or more moves are attached with a brush/pusher/squeegee/adhesive pad/mopping pad; fig. 2, #220, [0015-0018, 0040]).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNeil and further in view of Imai et al. (US 2021/0270858 – hereinafter “Imai”).
Regarding claim 23, McNeil disclose the system of claim 1 above, comprising the planar motor surface of the planar motor transport.
McNeil does not teach wherein the planar motor surface of the planar motor transport comprises one or more catchment devices used to assist in the removal of materials, items, debris, liquids, or other impediments to processing.
However, Imai teach the analogous art of a system (Imai; fig. 1, #101, [0034]) comprising a planar motor surface of a planar motor transport (Imai; figs. 1 & 13, “floor of the automatic analysis area 101”, [0079]) comprising one or more catchment devices used to assist in the removal of materials, items, debris, liquids, or other impediments to processing (Imai; figs. 1 & 5, #109, [0034, 0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system and planar motor surface of the planar motor transport of McNeil to comprise one or more catchment devices, as taught by Imai, because Imai teach the catchment device allows one or more moves of the system to dispose of used products (Imai; [0046]).
Regarding claim 24, McNeil disclose the system of claim 23 above, wherein the one or more catchment devices include one or more aspirator ports, one or more waste receptacle, or a combination thereof (The modification of the system and planar motor surface of the planar motor transport of McNeil to comprise one or more catchment devices, as taught by Imai, has previously been discussed in claim 23 above. Imai teach the one or more catchment devices include one or more waste receptacle; figs. 1 & 5, #109, [0034, 0046]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/20/2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10 of applicant’s remarks, with respect to the disclose objection(s) and 112(b) rejection(s) were found persuasive. Therefore, the previously objections and 112(b) rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-13 of their remarks that McNeil cannot be a proper anticipatory reference under 35 U.S.C. 102 because it does not disclose either of the autonomous execution layer or the one or more workflow agents, as contemplated by the present invention. The examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because they are directed towards the amended claims and not the current grounds of rejection. However, because the Examiner is using the same prior art in the rejection, then the examiner will address applicant’s remarks in order to promote compact prosecution.
Applicant argues that McNeil’s robotic equipment is not the same as a workflow agent within a distributed control architecture as the present invention utilizes artificial intelligence-based workflow agents to manage the events. Applicant further argues that the other cited references do not teach all of the elements of applicant’s claims.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s written description states “The present invention is performed within one or more systems and/or methods, that include several processing elements each of which define distinct activities and functions that together integrate a planar motor system with a distributed control architecture and processes for performing the workflow agent execution logic and transport and execute of workflows and workflow agent that are embodied therein.”, see paragraph [0022] of Applicant’s printed publication. With respect to the prior art, McNeil disclose microprocessor 31 of the central controller 30 generates the routing information, performs tracking and other processing functions, schedules the operation of the devices [0069, 0072, 0091], microprocessor 78 at the workstation 4 determines if the robot 3 is at the correct location, and based on the comparison activates the device 8 to begin interaction with the robot thereby performing some function or manipulation on the sample, and sends a new set of navigational instructions to the robot 3; [0091, 0093], and the processor 44 of robot 3 is configured to perform autonomous navigation upon receiving a set of navigational instructions; [0080, 0091]. Note: The processor 31 configured to schedule operations and generate routing information is a computer-programming code that plans time-based events and actions. The system 70 comprises microprocessor 78 which determines if the robot 3 is at the correct location 4, and based on the comparison activates the device 8 to interact with the robot 3 thereby performing some function or manipulation on the sample 9 contained in the sample holding device 13 and sends a new set of navigational instructions to the robot 3; [0090-0091, 0093]. The processor of each device (microprocessor 78 of device 8, controller 44 of robot 3, and processor 31 of central control 30), are being interpreted as a workflow agent, where each workflow agent is configured with computer-programming instructions to perform automated laboratory functions and workflow instances; [0069, 0072, 0091]. Accordingly, McNeil disclose several processing elements each of which define distinct activities and functions (i.e. central control 30, device control 78, autonomous navigation 44) that together integrate a planar motor system with a distributed control architecture and processes for performing the workflow agent execution logic and transport and execute of workflows and workflow agent that are embodied therein (i.e. computer-programming instructions for automatically processing samples).
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.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
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 at 571-270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights