`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
` FILING DATE
`
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`
`13/341,678
`
`12/30/2011
`
`Kevin D. Ness
`
`QLI 317
`
`2111
`
`23581
`
`7590
`
`01/29/2013
`
`KOLISCH HARTWELL, PC.
`200 PACIFIC BUILDING
`520 SW YAMHILL STREET
`PORTLAND,OR 97204
`
`PAJOOHI GOMEZ, TARA $
`
`2886
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`
`
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/29/2013
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`docketing @khpatent.com
`veronica @khpatent.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`
` 13/341 ,678 NESS ET AL.
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`
`2886
`Tara S. Pajoohi Gomez
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY(30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Anyreply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)X] Responsive to communication(s)filed on 07 January 2013.
`2a)X] This action is FINAL.
`2b) This action is non-final.
`3)L]
`Anelection was made bythe applicant in responseto a restriction requirementset forth during the interview on
`___; the restriction requirement and election have beenincorporated into this action.
`4)L] Sincethis application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5) Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-20is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)L] Claims)
`is/are allowed.
`7) Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-20is/are rejected.
`8)L] Claim(s) ____ is/are objected to.
`
`9)L] Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may beeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway
`program ata participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http/www.usoto.qov/patents/init events/pph/index isp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.qov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)] The drawing(s)filed on 30 December 2011 is/are: a)[X] accepted or b)[-] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)[.] Acknowledgmentis made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)LJ All b)L] Some*c)L] None of:
`
`1.] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.L] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.L] Copiesof the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`
`
`Attachment(s)
`1) Cc Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) CT] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 09-12)
`
`3) | Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.
`4) Cc] Other:
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20130123
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/341,678
`Art Unit: 2886
`
`Page 2
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`Acknowledgment is made to the amendmentfiled on 1/7/2013.
`
`The amendmentto the specification, specifically the abstract, was received on 1/7/2013.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This amendmentis acceptable.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Acknowledgment is made to the cancellation of claim 8.
`
`Currently, clatms 1-7 and 9-20 are still pending
`
`Specification
`
`The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of
`
`all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which
`
`applicant may become aware in the specification.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`The following ts a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`
`The specification shall conclude with one or mote claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject
`matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
`
`particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the
`
`invention. The term "generally" in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The
`
`term "generally" 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. Therefore for purposes of examination an elongated cross
`
`section with opposing sides that are generally planar will be examined as an elongated cross section.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`8.
`
`The following ts a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness
`
`rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/341,678
`Art Unit: 2886
`
`Page 3
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section
`102 ofthis title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art ate such that the
`subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the time the invention was madeto a person having ordinary
`skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`9.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 US. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966),
`
`that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
`
`ate summarized as follows:
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4,
`
`Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claimsat issue.
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinentart.
`Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
`nonobviousness.
`
`10.
`
`This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was
`
`commonly ownedat the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the
`
`contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and
`
`invention dates of each claim that was not commonly ownedat the time a later invention was made
`
`in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35
`
`U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
`
`11.
`
`Claims1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Hairston et al. (US 7,423,751).
`
`12.
`
`Considering claim 1, Hairston discloses a method ofdetection for droplets, comprising:
`
`illuminating an examination region of a channel with first pulses oflight interleaved with second
`
`pulses oflight as droplets pass through the examination region (Le., long emitter (402) and short
`
`emitter (408) emit light which is interleaved by reflector (414) so as to illuminate droplets (Le.,
`
`flowing fluid (416), col. 9, lines 32-41) the first pulses being spectrally distinct from the second
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/341,678
`Art Unit: 2886
`
`Page 4
`
`pulses (Le., long emitter (402) emits a long wavelength radiation (404) approximately 340 nm and
`
`short emitter (408) emits a short wavelength approximately 280 nm,col. 9, lines 32-41); and
`
`collecting data representing light detected during illumination of the examination region with the
`
`first pulses and the second pulses (i.e., detector (428)
`
`to receive the long and short wavelength
`
`radiation, col. 9, lines 55-58).
`
`Hairston fails to specifically disclose wherein each dropletis illuminated with a beam oflight
`
`that is narrower than a diameter of the droplets.
`
`However it would have been obvious and well known in the art to illuminate the object with
`
`the optimal size beam width in order to maximize the efficiency of the measurement.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was madeto illuminate the droplet with a beam oflight that is narrower than a diameter of the
`
`droplet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior
`
`att, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further,
`
`selecting the diameter of the light beam with respect to the droplet will depend upon the intended
`
`application. It would have been further obviousto illuminate each droplet with a beam oflight that
`
`is narrower than the diameter of the droplet since a beam oflight having a narrower diameter than
`
`the droplet will increase the sensitivity of the measurement by focusing on a particular type of
`
`droplet and therefore recover the desired background scattering.
`
`13.
`
`Considering claim 2, Hairston discloses wherein the first pulses define a first range of
`
`wavelengths of light and the second pulses define a second range of wavelengths oflight, and
`
`wherein the first range is different from the second range (Le., long emitter (402) emits a long
`
`wavelength radiation (404) approximately 340 nm and short emitter (408) emits a short wavelength
`
`approximately 280 nm are different ranges, col. 9, lines 32-41);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/341,678
`Art Unit: 2886
`
`Page 5
`
`14.
`
`Considering claim 3, Hairston discloses wherein the first pulses are produced by a pulsed
`
`light source (1.e., pulsed emitter, col. 1, lines 35-37).
`
`15,
`
`Considering claim 4, Hairston discloses wherein the first pulses, the second pulses, or both
`
`the first and second pulses are produced byat least one continuouslight beam that is transmitted
`
`intermittently to the examination region (Le., pulsed laser or pulsed LED provides continuous light
`
`that is transmitted intermittently, col. 2, lines 34-37).
`
`16.
`
`Considering claim 5, Hairston discloses wherein overlapping volumes of the examination
`
`region are illuminated by the first pulses and the second pulses (e., first and second pulses
`
`illuminate an overlapping volume,figure 1).
`
`17.
`
`Considering claim 6, Hairston discloses further comprising a step of detecting light from
`
`overlapping volumes of the examination region during the first pulses and the second pulses (Le.,
`
`measurements ate performed in real time, col. 3, lines 43-44).
`
`18.
`
`Considering claim 7, Hairston discloses wherein each droplet is iuminated with at least one
`
`first pulse and at least one second pulse (.e. both long and short emitter illuminate the particles with
`
`the long and short wavelengths, col. 9, lines 65-67).
`
`19.
`
`Considering claim 9, Hairston discloses wherein the first pulses and second pulses contain
`
`light emitted by respective first and second light sources (402 and 408), but fails to disclose passing
`
`the light emitted by the first and second sources througha slit before such light illuminates the
`
`examination region
`
`Howeverit is well known in the art to use an aperture to limit the beam spotsize in order to
`
`maximize the efficiency of the beam.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/341,678
`Art Unit: 2886
`
`Page 6
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was madeto use a slit before the light illuminates the examination region in order to enhance the
`
`sharpness of the beam.
`
`20.
`
`Considering claim 10, Hairston discloses (col. 9, lines 53-56) wherein the data represents
`
`light detected with a same detector (428) during illumination of the examination region with thefirst
`
`pulses and the secondpulses.
`
`21.
`
`Considering claim 11, Hairston discloses further comprising a step of detecting light from
`
`the examination region during the first pulses and the second pulses (e., detector (428)
`
`to receive
`
`the long and short wavelength radiation, col. 9, lines 55-58), wherein the step of detecting light
`
`creates a first signal and a secondsignal (see figure 4), but fails to specifically disclose wherein the
`
`step of collecting data includes a step of periodically gating the first signal and the secondsignal in
`
`correspondence with the first pulses and the second pulses, respectively
`
`However Hairston discloses (col. t, lines 65-67) that it is well known and obvious to use
`
`gratings to separate the illumination beam accordingly.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was madeto include a step of periodically gating thefirst signal and the second signal in
`
`correspondence with the first pulses and the second pulses, respectively, in order to provide more
`
`control for the measurement.
`
`22.
`
`Considering claim 12, Hairston fails to specifically disclose wherein the step of illuminating
`
`includes a step of intersecting the channel with a beam oflight having a cross section that is
`
`elongated transversely to a long axis defined by the channel.
`
`Howeverit would have been obvious and well knownin the art to illuminate the object with
`
`the optimal size beam width in order to maximize the efficiency of the measurement.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/341,678
`Art Unit: 2886
`
`Page 7
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was madeto illuminate the channel with a beam oflight having a cross section that is elongated
`
`transversely to a long axis defined by the channel, since it has been held that where the general
`
`conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges
`
`involves only routine skill in the art.
`
`23.
`
`Considering claim 13, Hairston discloses a system (400) for detection in droplet-based
`
`assays, comprising: a channel (Le., flowing fluid (416) through a channel, figure 4); an illumination
`
`assembly configured to produce a beam oflight that illuminates an examination region of the
`
`channel as droplets pass through such region(1.e., emitters (402 and 408) illuminate the examination
`
`region as the particles (418) pass through the region,col. 9, lines 32-51); a detector (428) configured
`
`to detect light recetved from the examination region; and a controller (Le., processor) that collects
`
`data representing light detected by the detector butfails to specifically disclose wherein the beam of
`
`light is elongated 1n cross section where the beam intersects the channel.
`
`Howeverit would have been obvious and well knownin the art to illuminate the object with
`
`the optimal size beam width in order to maximize the efficiency of the measurement.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was madeto illuminate wherein the beam oflight is elongated in cross section where the beam
`
`intersects the channel., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are
`
`disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in
`
`the art.
`
`Hairston fails to specifically disclose wherein each dropletis illuminated with a beam oflight
`
`that is narrower than a diameter of the droplets.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/341,678
`Art Unit: 2886
`
`Page 8
`
`Howeverit would have been obvious and well known in the art to illuminate the object with
`
`the optimal size beam width in order to maximize the efficiency of the measurement.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was madeto illuminate the droplet with a beam oflight that is narrower than a diameter of the
`
`droplet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior
`
`att, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further,
`
`selecting the diameter of the light beam with respect to the droplet will depend upon the intended
`
`application. It would have been further obviousto illuminate each droplet with a beam oflight that
`
`is narrower than the diameter of the droplet since a beam oflight having a narrower diameter than
`
`the droplet will increase the sensitivity of the measurement by focusing on a particular type of
`
`droplet and therefore recover the desired background scattering.
`
`24,
`
`Considering claim 14, Hairston fails to specifically disclose wherein the illumination
`
`assembly includes a light source andaslit, and wherein light emitted by the light source travels
`
`through theslit before reaching the examination region.
`
`Howeverit is well known tn the art to use an aperture to limit the beam spotsize in order to
`
`maximize the efficiency of the beam.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was madeto use a slit before the light illuminates the examination region in order to enhance the
`
`sharpness of the beam.
`
`25.
`
`Considering claim 15, Hairston fails to specifically disclose wherein the beam oflight is
`
`elongated in cross section in a direction transverse to a long axis defined by the channel.
`
`Howeverit would have been obvious and well known in the art to illuminate the object with
`
`the optimal size beam width in order to maximize the efficiency of the measurement.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/341,678
`Art Unit: 2886
`
`Page 9
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was madeto illuminate the object with the optimal size beam width in order to maximize the
`
`efficiency of the measurement, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are
`
`disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in
`
`the art.
`
`20.
`
`Considering claim 16, Hairston fails to specifically disclose wherein a cross section of the
`
`beam, at a position halfway across the channel, extends outside opposing surfaces of the channel.
`
`Howeverit would have been obvious and well known in the art to illuminate the object with
`
`the optimal size beam width and position in order to maximize the efficiency of the measurement.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was madeto illuminate wherein a cross section of the beam, at a position halfway across the
`
`channel, extends outside opposing surfaces of the channel, since it has been held that where the
`
`general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the priorart, discovering the optimum or working
`
`ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
`
`27.
`
`Considering claim 17, Hairston fails to specifically disclose wherein the beam oflight
`
`illuminates a disk-shaped volume of the channel.
`
`Howeverit is well known in the art to use any shape for the channel such as a disk-shaped
`
`volumeto direct the fluid flow.
`
`It would have been obvious matter of design choice to select an optimal shape for the
`
`channel, since such a modification would have involved a mere changein size and shape of a
`
`component. A change in size and shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/341,678
`Art Unit: 2886
`
`Page 10
`
`28.
`
`Considering claim 18, Hairston fails to specifically disclose wherein the beam oflight is a
`
`blade having an elongated cross section with opposing sides that are generally planar.
`
`Howeverit is well known in the art to use any shape for the channel such as having planar
`
`sides to direct the fluid flow.
`
`It would have been obvious matter of design choice to select an optimal shape for the
`
`channel, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in size and shape of a
`
`component. A change in size and shapeis generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`29.
`
`Considering claim 19, Hairston fails to specifically disclose wherein the beam oflight has a
`
`dimension measured parallel to a long axis of the channel where the channel and the beam intersect,
`
`and wherein the dimensionis less than a diameter of the channel.
`
`Howeverit would have been obvious and well known in the art to illuminate the object with
`
`the optimal size beam width in order to maximize the efficiency of the measurement.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was madeto illuminate with a beam oflight that has a dimension measured parallel to a long axis of
`
`the channel where the channel and the beam intersect, and wherein the dimension is less than a
`
`diameter of the channel, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are
`
`disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in
`
`the art.
`
`30.
`
`Considering claim 20, Hairston discloses and showsin figure 1, a method ofdetection for
`
`droplet-based assays, comprising: generating at least two separate signals each representing light
`
`detected with a different detection configuration during a series of time intervals from a stream of
`
`fluid carrying droplets (.e., long emitter (102) and short emitter (108) illuminate stream offluid (116)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/341,678
`Art Unit: 2886
`
`Page 11
`
`carrying droplets (118) wherein the filters (126a-d) maybe adjust to detect the light from the
`
`different emitters, col. 6, lines 1-30); combining theat least two separate signals to form a combined
`
`signal (i.e., reflector (114) combines the two separate signals to form a combinedsignal, col. 5, lines
`
`37-40); and processing the combined signal to identify time intervals that correspond to droplets.
`
`(Le., signal processor combinesthe data,col. 6, lines 1-30), wherein the two separate signals are
`
`generated by illumination of the droplets by two separate sources(1.e., light generated by two
`
`different sources along two different paths (106 and 112) as see figure 1).
`
`Hairston fails to specifically disclose wherein each dropletis illuminated with a beam oflight
`
`that is narrower than a diameter of the droplets.
`
`Howeverit would have been obvious and well known in the art to illuminate the object with
`
`the optimal size beam width in order to maximize the efficiency of the measurement.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was madeto illuminate the droplet with a beam oflight that is narrower than a diameter of the
`
`droplet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior
`
`art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further,
`
`selecting the diameter of the light beam with respect to the droplet will depend upon the intended
`
`application. It would have been further obvious to illuminate each droplet with a beam oflight that
`
`is narrower than the diameter of the droplet since a beam oflight having a narrower diameter than
`
`the droplet will increase the sensitivity of the measurement by focusing on a particular type of
`
`droplet and therefore recover the desired background scattering.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`31.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2013 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/341,678
`Art Unit: 2886
`
`Page 12
`
`With respect to claims 1, 13 and 20, applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose
`
`the limitation of each droplet is iluminated with a beam oflight that is narrower than a diameter of
`
`the droplets. Howeverit is respectfully pointed out to the applicant that selecting the diameter of the
`
`light beam with respect to the droplet will depend upon the intended application. It would have
`
`been further obviousto illuminate each droplet with a beam oflight that is narrower than the
`
`diameter of the droplet since a beam oflight having a narrower diameter than the droplet will
`
`increase the sensitivity of the measurement by focusing on a particular type of droplet and therefore
`
`recover the desired backgroundscattering. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time the invention was madeto illuminate the droplet with a beam oflightthatis
`
`narrower than a diameter of the droplet, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a
`
`claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine
`
`skill in the art. Further applicant argues that the figure of Hairston clearly showsthat the diameter of
`
`the beam oflight is larger than that of the droplet. However, the figure in Hairston is clearly not
`
`drawn to scale and will not provide an accurate to-scale representation of the dimensions of the
`
`beam oflight with respect to the droplets. Therefore using the figure to teach against the claimed
`
`invention would not be appropriate.
`
`Conclusion
`
`32.
`
`Applicant's amendmentnecessitated 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 oftime policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action ts set to expire THREE MONTHS
`
`from the mailing date of this action. In the eventa first reply is filed within TWO MONTHSofthe
`
`mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/341,678
`Art Unit: 2886
`
`Page 13
`
`THREE-MONTHshortened 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 MONTHSfrom the date ofthis final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to Tara S. Pajooht Gomez whosetelephone numberts (571)272-9785. The
`
`examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 10:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m., EST.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone numberfor the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system,
`
`see http://pait-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system,
`
`contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like
`
`assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`/Tata S Pajoohi Gomez/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2886
`
`