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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 9, 11-15 and 17) in the reply filed on June 24, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions in Group I and II overlap in scope and it would not be a serious burden for the examiner to examine both groups. This is not found persuasive because applicant’s instant amendment to Group II now includes new elements, including processing circuitry operatively linked to the digital microscope with control steps, which further distinguishes Group II from the invention of Group I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Request for Information under 37 CFR 1.105
No IDS was filed for this application. The applicant and/or the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application (see MPEP §§ 704.10 - 704.13). In response to this requirement, please provide a copy of any related and pertinent information, such as non-patent literature, published application(s) or patent(s) (U.S. or foreign), that was used to assist in the drafting of this application. The applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose information that is material to patentability (see 37 CFR § 1.56). A complete reply to the instant Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the instant Office action.
Claim Interpretation
In the patentability analysis of applicant’s apparatus claims 9, 11-15 and 17, aspects or limitations the 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 that these recitations have not been ignored by the examiner. All of the recitations in applicant’s claims 9,11-15 and 17 have been considered by the examiner and afforded the appropriate amount of patentable weight. In certain instances during prosecution, the examiner’s current interpretations regarding the patentable weight of these limitation may change based on the facts of the case.
Note: the claimed “processing circuitry” has been interpreted by the examiner as a computer and equivalents thereof. That is, the “processing circuitry” has been interpreted in the context of the underlying specification and field of the art (see MPEP 2111.01) Looking to applicant’s specification in parent case (US publication 2025/0354905) at para [0052] et seq.), the “processing circuitry” has been defined as a computer (or structural equivalents thereof) rather than a mechanical type of controller (e.g., switch). This interpretation is consistent with applicant’s specification shown in Fig. 10. Thus, the claimed processing circuitry cannot be reasonably interpreted as a mechanical type controller, such as valve or a discrete electronic device (e.g., solenoid, transistor,…).
The examiner's below patentability analysis provides one or more interpretations and claim mappings of the claimed structures and steps 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 MPEP at least §2111.02, 2173.01 I 2114, and 2173.05(g).
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.
Claims 9, 11-15, and 17 are 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 9 includes the term “clean”, which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “clean” 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. The specification does not define what applicant considers a “clean” portion of the first slide. Nor has the claim positively recited a slide with a clean portion and portion with the monolayer of cells. Thus, the scope of the claims cannot be determined.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the digital image is an image of a monolayer of cells”. The relationship between the “slide positioner”, “slide dispenser”, and “a monolayer of cells” has not been established in the claim. It is not clear if the “smear of sample on the first slide” corresponds to the “monolayer of cells”. In addition, it is not clear from the claims as to how the “monolayer” of cells is determined without some previous step of measuring the thickness of the smear. The sample smear created by the second slide contacting the upper surface of the first slide to smear a sample on the first slide does not necessarily result in a monolayer of cells. Specifically, Kendall et al. (US 2011/0151502; hereinafter “Kendall”) teaches even if the same volumes of blood samples were used to form blood smears, the areas being evaluated for counting cells would differ from sample to sample. The principal factor for determining the thickness and length of a blood smear would likely be the overall viscosity of the sample, which, in turn, is likely to be determined primarily by the concentration of hemoglobin in the sample (see para [0013] et seq.) This is confusing and indefinite. Same deficiency was found in claim 14.
Furthermore, with respect to claim 9, it is unclear if applicants are attempting to claim the “sled” since it is not clear and positively recited as part of the apparatus. In this case, the examiner as interpreted the “sled” as positively recited. Please clarify which structures are required in the claim. The relationship between the slide positioner and slide dispenser is undefined in terms of the sled.
Claim 11 recites that the processing circuity is further configured to cause the digital microscope to locate the monolayer of cells based on a location at which the measured light passing through the first slide and the sample (i.e., monolayer) is a predefined percentage of the measured light passing through the clean portion of the first slide. It is not clear how the locating the monolayer of cells can be based on both the steps in claim 9 and 11, since claim 9 already recites steps of locating the monolayer of cells. In other words, claim 11 measures the location of the monolayer relative to measuring light passing through the clean portion of the first slide a second time, which does not seem to find support in the specification.
In addition, it is not clear from claim 11 what applicant means by “locating the monolayer of cells based on a location at which the measured light passing through the first slide and the sample is a predefined percentage of the measured light passing through the clean portion”. It is unclear if “a location at which the measured light passing through the first slide and sample” is referring to the previous location as recited in claim 9. Also, it unclear what (if anything) is done with respect to the “predefined percentage” and how that would locate the monolayer.
Claim 15 recites “the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the digital microscope to locate the monolayer of cells automatically.” Claim 15 not recite any structure that would locate the monolayer of cells automatically. This is vague and indefinite. It is not clear how this structurally limits claim 9.
Claim 17 recites further comprising a jet nozzle configured to dispense a micro-stream of a treatment fluid on the first slide. The specific structure of the “jet nozzle” is undefined and specific limitations from the specification have not been read into the claim. Also the treatment fluid and size are considered an intended use. Clarification as to the specific structure of the nozzle, (diameter, length, etc.) that would provide a micro-stream of fluid on the first slide is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 9 and 17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Ryper et al., (US 2008/0020128; hereinafter “van Ryper”) in view of Ojima et al., (US 4,319,542; hereinafter “Ojima”) and [Takayama et al., (US 2014/0292813; hereinafter “Takayama”) or Kendall].
As to claim 9, Van Ryper teaches an apparatus for processing microscope slides (van Ryper; Title), comprising:
a slide positioner 24 comprising a surface (a slide clamps 38, 39) configured to receive and adjust/move a first slide, the slide positioner configured to obtain a slide supporting a sample on an upper surface, the slide positioner configured to adjust positioning of the slide (van Ryper teaches a positioner/gripper with two gripping arms to grip slide and linearly transfer slide from carousel/carriage to the imaging system; [14, 49]. Van Ryper teaches the gripper acts as a stage holding the slide between the lens and light source for imaging, where the light source is below the objective 45/46 and cameras 29 which produce a digital image; Fig. 4-7 [49-52]); and
a digital microscope (van Ryper teaches at para [0050] and FIG. 7, a microscope subsystem which includes two microscopes 26 and 27 on a tower 28. The microscopes are in two parts. The upper part is fixed to the tower 28. The lower part consists of the objective carriage 44 and objectives 45 and 46 and is stabilized by a linear cross bearing 51. At the top of each microscope there are digital cameras 29 to capture images from the microscope slide); and
a processing circuity operatively linked to the digital microscope (corresponds to at least computer 6/44 configured to capture and store a digital image (see para [0047] et seq.) when the slide positioner is configured to position the slide at a third position between the lens and light source (see para [0050] et seq.)
Van Ryper recognizes that the clinical standard is to find blood cells in areas of the smear where the blood cells are evenly dispersed, see para [0062] (where evenly dispersed means to create a monolayer of cells).
Van Ryper does not specifically teach a slide dispenser unit that includes a sled configured to dispense a second slide down a sled to contact an upper surface of the first slide to smear a sample on the first slide, wherein the second position is under the sled.
In the related art of slide processing, Ojima teaches an apparatus for processing microscope slides, comprising:
a slide dispenser unit comprising the sled 8 and configured to dispense a second slide 2 down the sled to contact an upper surface of the first slide 3 to smear a sample on the first slide (see col., 4, line 46 et seq.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed to have included in apparatus of preparing the microscope slide taught in van Ryper, with the slide dispenser comprising a sled, like that taught in the Ojima, since Ojima teaches this particular configuration of slide dispenser or the preparation of blood smear specimens reduces the effects of blood remaining from previous blood application and from the effects of adhesion of proteins and fats (see col. 2, line 3 et seq.) Furthermore, it would have been obvious to use of the slide positioner of van Ryper to hold the slide at the second position under the sled of Ojima for the expected benefit of using a slide clamp to position the slide throughout the different stations of inside the slide processor for streamlining the movement and efficiency.
The combination of Van Ryper and Ojima does not specifically teach processing circuity configured to cause the digital microscope to locate a monolayer of cells based on a comparison of the measured light passing through the first slide and the sample with measured light passing through a clean portion of the first slide.
Modified van Ryper teaches the position of the monolayer of cells is identified. The position of the monolayer of cells is likely determined based on changes (amount or percentage) in light since a light microscope is what is used. However, if not then, Takayama teaches in the analogous art of an image processing device and method for imaging a sample slide (Takayama; Title, abstract) the position of the sample is identified based on the amount of light passing through the slide and the sample, or wherein the amount of light passing through the slide and the sample is compared to an amount of light passing through a clean portion of the slide without the sample to identify the position of the sample, or where the sample is identified when the amount of light passing through the slide and the sample is about a threshold percentage of the amount of light passing through the clean portion of the slide without the sample (Takayama teaches determining where on the slide the sample exists; Fig. 7-8). Takayama teaches that the determination of the focus positions for the sample are determined by an imaging device, where the determination is made based on the amount of light; [71, 105]). Takayama also teaches a pre-measurement unit 220 is a unit configured to perform prior measurement for calculating position information of a specimen on the slide 206, distance information to a desired focus position, and parameters for light amount adjustment due to specimen thickness. By acquiring information with the pre-measurement unit 220 before main measurement (acquisition of picked-up image data), it is possible to carry out imaging without waste. For acquisition of position information on a two-dimensional plane, a two-dimensional imaging sensor having resolution lower than the resolution of the imaging sensor 208 is used. The pre-measurement unit 220 grasps a position on an XY plane of a specimen from an acquired image. For acquisition of distance information and thickness information, a measurement device such as a laser displacement meter is used. The pre-scan detects all light emitted from lighting unit 201 including the light received, which includes that from the portions of the slide which do and do not include sample (i.e., clean portions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to have determined the location of monolayer smear sample of modified van Ryper determining the location based on the amount of light passing through the sample as in Takayama because Takayama teaches that determining the sample position based on light enables imaging without waste (Takayama; [71]), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantage of identifying the sample location to enable efficient imaging as only the portions of the sample are measured and not the blank/clean portions of the slide.
As discussed above, modified van Ryper teaches the position of the monolayer of cells is identified. The position of the monolayer of cells is likely determined based on changes (amount or percentage) in light since a light microscope is what is used. However, if not then, in the related art of processing microscope slides, Kendall teaches providing a sample of whole blood; [0017] (b) depositing the sample of whole blood onto a slide, e.g., a microscope slide; [0018] (c) employing a spreader to create a blood smear; [0019] (d) allowing the blood smear to dry on the slide; [0020] (e) measuring absorption or reflectance of light attributable to the hemoglobin in the red blood cells in the blood smear on the slide; [0021] (f) recording a magnified two-dimensional digital image of the area of analysis identified by the measurement in step (e) as being of suitable thickness for analysis; and [0022] (g) collecting, analyzing, and storing data from the magnified two-dimensional digital image. Kendall teaches processing circuity configured to cause the digital microscope to locate a monolayer of cells based on a comparison of the measured light passing through the first slide and the sample with measured light passing through a clean portion of the first slide. That is, referring to FIGS. 6A, 6B, and 6C, which illustrate an example of a blood smear, a slide is designated by the reference numeral 60, the thick portion of the blood smear is designated by the reference numeral 62, the thin portion of the blood smear is designated by the reference numeral 64 (corresponds to “clean” portion of slide), and the usable portion of the blood smear is designated by the reference numeral 66 (corresponds to monolayer portion of the slide). The entire blood smear is divided into smaller sections 68 by means of, for example, a plurality of grid lines parallel to the X-axis and a plurality of grid lines parallel to the Y-axis. A scan of the slide 60 indicates the optical density of each smaller section 68 of the slide 60. A number representing the optical density of each smaller section 68 is imprinted in each smaller section of FIG. 6C. These numbers range from 0 to 90, these numbers merely represent the optical densities or reflectance units (measured light) of the smaller sections 68. The usable portion of the slide 60 is that portion wherein the values of the measured optical densities of the smaller sections 68 both (a) exceed a low cut-off value and (b) do not exceed a high cut-off value. As shown in FIG. 6C, the low cut-off value is selected to be zero (0) and the high cut-off value is selected to be approximately thirty-eight (38). Therefore, the smaller sections 68 of the usable portion 66 of the slide 60 have optical density values ranging from one (1) to thirty-eight (38), see para [0088] et seq.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to have determined the location of monolayer smear sample of modified van Ryper by determining the location based on the amount of light passing through the various portions of the sample slide, as taught in Kendall, because Kendall recognizes that the digital image of the area of analysis identified by the imaging system provides applicant locations on the slide where suitable thickness for analysis and more reliable results (see para [0052] et seq.)
As to claim 17, Kendall discloses an aspiration/dispensing device for withdrawing a sample of whole blood from the container and depositing the sample of whole blood onto a slide, e.g., a microscope slide; see [0025] et seq. The recitation of “jet” does not distinguish over the implicit nozzles found in the prior art since it is considered nominal.
Claim 14, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Ryper in view of Ojima and [Takayama or Kendall], as applied to claim 9 above, in further view of Soenksen et al., (2013/0162802; hereinafter “Soenksen”).
Modified van Ryper does not explicitly disclose the processing circuitry is further configured to: cause the digital microscope is configured to capture the image of the monolayer of cells at a first resolution; and the processing circuitry is configured to transmit the image to a user computing device at a second resolution/
Soenksen teaches the analogous art of a microscopy, an apparatus 11 that includes a processor 20 and a local user device 58/60, and an interface 40/42 that provides a connection to a remote user device 44/46; Fig. 2, 4, 6, [40-43, 51-52, 69-70, 74]. Soenksen teaches that the operator at computer 44/46 interacts with the imager [69], and where the remote control of the scanner/imager is provided in real-time [70], and that the image is digital [74]; Figs. 4-6. Soenksen teaches that the image can be compressed (such as jpeg) for transfer of a lower resolution image to the remote operator interface; [44, 68, 70]. Soenksen also teaches processing circuity configured to able to change the image and resolution shown to the display; [71, 73, 75], Fig. 4-6). Soenksen teaches that the digital high spatial resolution images are stored; [37, 44, 68, 70, 71, 73, 75]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the control processor in modified van Ryper to change the resolution of an image on a local computer to a remote user via compressed file (such as jpeg) which results in a different resolution image sent to the remote operator interface; [44, 68, 70]. Soenksen teaches that an interface that enables a remote user to control the system from a remote location (Soenksen; [70]). It is known that compressing a file before sending it to a remote computer reduces its size/resolution, which makes it faster to transfer, easier to store, and more efficient to share.
Prior art
Claims 11-13 and 15 are not being treated with prior art. Note: MPEP 2173.06(II) states, “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” See reasons delineated above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 9, 11-15 and 17, as best understood, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of US Patent No. 12,385,815; claims 1-19 of US 12,436,069; claims 1-21 of US 12,442,733; and claims 1-13 of US 12,584,831.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patents disclose the same elements or structural equivalents of the elements of the instant claims due to the use of open claim language “comprising” of the instant claims such that the scope of the instant claims encompasses those elements of the conflicting patents. Specifically, ‘815 teaches a system for processing microscope slides, comprising: a carriage having a movable surface for supporting a slide; a slide positioner comprising a slide clamp configured to receive and move a slide, the slide positioner configured to obtain a first slide and adjust positioning of the first slide, including from a first position at the carriage to a second position under a sled; a slide dispenser unit comprising the sled, configured to dispense a second slide down the sled to contact an upper surface of the first slide to smear a sample on the first slide; an image capture unit configured to capture a digital image of the first slide via a lens when the slide positioner positions the first slide between the lens and a light source.
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.
Relevant Prior Art
While the following prior art listed below is not specifically discussed in this Official action, the examiner considers the listed prior art relevant to the overall prosecution and may be relied upon during subsequent examination(s) based on applicant’s future response(s). The prior art considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include:
Molnar et al (US 20130063583; hereinafter “Molnar”) teaches searching for the sample location based on the amount of light sensed; [26].
Matsumoto et al (US 20050142654; hereinafter “Matsumoto”) teaches that it is conventional/normal to image and focus on the upper surface of the slide glass; [197].
Che, D (US 6140653; hereinafter “Che”) teaches stops to position the upper surface of the slide in focus; col. 5 line 64-67.
Nakaya (US 2007/0148046) teaches a sample image obtaining system that can manage a smear slide easily and perform the operation from the preparation of a smear slide to imaging efficiently. The sample image obtaining system comprises: a sample smearing means for smearing a sample on a slide glass; an identification information reading means for reading identification information of the sample smeared on the slide glass, the slide glass having the identification information; a sample image obtaining means for obtaining an image of the sample smeared on the slide glass; a storing means for storing the image obtained by the sample image obtaining means and the identification information read by the identification information reading means; and a slide glass transferring means for transferring the sample smeared slide glass from the sample smearing means to the sample image obtaining means.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 between 9:30am-7pm 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