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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
The present application was filed 03/20/2015, claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to provisional application No. 61/969,371, filed 03/24/2014.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 12, 14-16, 18, 22, 23, 25-27, 29-31 and 36-39 are pending; claims 1, 6-7, 12, 14-15and 36 are amended; claims 22 and 23 are withdrawn; claims 2, 4, 5, 9-11, 13, 17, 19-21, 24, 28-29 and 32-35 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 12, 14-16, 18, 25-27, 29-31 and 36-39 are examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 08/25/2025 is considered, initialed and is attached hereto.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The previous rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) regarding the limitation “additional second antibody” are withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claim (the claims are amended to omit the limitation “additional second antibody”.
The previous rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, citing Ganesh et al. in view of Angeley et al., Chen, Lilliard et al., Feldstein et al., and Lennox et al., and as evidenced by Mukundan et al., is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claims to clearly recite the system for detecting a target analyte comprising “a first antibody being bound to a first epitope of a target analyte” and “second antibody being bound to a second epitope of the target analyte”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 12 and 15 as amended recites “wherein the grating surface and the refractive layer comprise a grating period”, the recited language is confusing because it appears to suggest two separate structures both having a grating period, however, based on the earlier claim language “the grating structure” comprises a “refractive layer on the grating surface”. It is suggested that the “wherein clause” be amended in order to recite “wherein the grating surface comprises a grating period” (as previously recited) or recite something such as “wherein the grating surface having the refractive layer thereon comprises a grating period” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3, 6-8, 12, 14-16, 18, 25-27, 29-31 and 36-39 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 15 recite the language “a first antibody bound to the upconverting nanoparticle, the first antibody being bound to a first epitope of the target analyte thereby forming an analyte that is labeled with an upconverting nanoparticle”, the recited language is indefinite because the preamble recites that the method is intended “for detecting a target analyte”, yet this limitation recites the first antibody of the system as already bound to the target analyte. As a result the claim language at the preamble is contradictory with the body of the claim. It is not clear how Applicant’s device can both be intended for detection of an analyte (unknown), yet already bound to a first epitope of the target analyte. The preamble suggests that the target analyte is not part of the system, rather that the system is to be used to detect the analyte. However, the body of the claim contradicts this because the analyte is recited as already bound to the first antibody. Based on Applicant’s previous remarks during prosecution and previous reference by Applicant to Figure 4 (remarks 07/30/2024), Applicant previously has communicated the intent to recite a system intended for competitive binding/detection of a target analyte, suggesting that the analyte is not part of the system claimed (rather is what the system is to be used on, for detecting the unknown analyte).
Similarly claims 1, 12 and 15 also recite “a second antibody coupled to a top of the refractive layer, the second antibody being bound to a second epitope of the target analyte”, as indicated with the first antibody above, the language is indefinite because it contradicts the preamble of the claim which indicates the intended use of the claimed device is “for detecting a target analyte”. As discussed above, based on Applicant’s previous remarks during prosecution (07/30/2024) and previous reference by Applicant to Figure 4, Applicant has indicated the intent is to recite a system intended for competitive binding/detection of a target analyte.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 12, 14-16, 18, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 36 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesh et al., Leaky-mode assisted fluorescence extraction: application to fluorescence enhancement biosensors, Optics Express, 16(26), (2008), (15 pages) in view of Angeley et al., US PG Pub No. 2005/0068543A1, Chen, US PG Pub No. 2003/0030067A1 and Lilliard et al., US PG Pub No. 2012/0082993A1 and as evidenced by Mukundan et al., Waveguide-Based Biosensor for Pathogen Detection, Sensors, 9, (2009), p. 5783-5809.
Ganesh et al. teach an antibody based binding method comprising a first antibody conjugated to a fluorescence emitting particle label (quantum dot that emits fluorescence upon excitation), the antibody specific for a first epitope of a target analyte (TNF-a, see binds during use of the system, to the target analyte), and a waveguide comprising a grating structure comprising an optically transparent substrate (see glass substrate and structured TiO2 layer (refractive layer), the TiO2 layer having a grating thereon) and a grating surface, see Ganesh is teaching detection by sandwich immunoassay of TNF-a, page 10, para 1, Figure 5, and also page 15.
Also noted, Ganesh does teach this device can be operated in transmission mode (light transmitted through the device, fluorescence collected at the normal incidence). Ganesh does also teach the use of this device to provide an enhancement at the surface (see also Ganesh teach tailoring the photonic crystal properties to provide a powerful mechanism to redirect emitted light into preferred directions, where it can be detected with greater efficiency, see page 2, para 1; see provide a fluorescence enhancement biosensor, cited above, and also page 2, para 2; 20 fold enhancement, page 3, para 1).
Structurally, Ganesh does teach the grating structure having a grating period, a grating groove depth, and a duty cycle that tune the resonance condition of the structure toward the absorption wavelength (the excitation) of the label (page 11, para 2). Ganesh’s structure is therefore “arranged to receive light having a wavelength that matches a resonance condition of the grating structure, and to direct the received light to the grating surface”.
However, the system as taught by Ganesh differs structurally from that presently claimed in that Ganesh fails to teach label that is an upconverting nanoparticle. Further, although Ganesh teach a sandwich immunoassay (And as such, is teaching a device comprising two antibodies that bind the same target, during the use of said device, analyte bound to the antibodies. I.e., during the use of the device Ganesh is teaching a device/system with first antibody “being bound to a first epitope” and second antibody “being bound to a second epitope”.), Ganesh is silent as to whether those antibodies taught by Ganesh bind to different (i.e., a first and second) epitopes of the same target.
Angeley similarly teach systems comprising antibody immobilized on a waveguide structure, see Angeley teaching a waveguide comprising a resonance structure having a grating surface, binding a target analyte captured at the antibody on the grating surface with a second, labeled antibody (see for example, Figure 10, paras [0011], [0019], [0104]). At para [0120], Angeley teach various tagging or labeling systems usable with such grating structure systems, see in addition to that described at para [0112] above (other than fluorescence tags), including an up-converting label as a suitable label/tag (see also claims 16 and 22 of Angeley).
Chen teach nanoparticles demonstrating up-converting luminescent properties conjugated to biomaterials (para [0177]). Chen teach bio conjugated nanoparticles are useful in detection, sensor and probe applications because of the enhanced detection and ease of detection afforded by the up-converting luminescent properties (para [0177]). See at para [0179] Chen teach nanoparticles attached to an antibody, teaching the particles conjugated to antibody maintain strong up-conversion luminescence and spectral positions the same as that of free nanoparticles, teaching these particles are ideal candidates for biological labeling and biological sensor applications. See further para [0012] Chen teach regarding nanoparticle up-conversion, light scattering intensity is proportional to the 6th power of the particle size, and as such compared to micro-meter sized phosphors, light scattering in nanoparticles is nonexistent. See para [0011] Chen teach a common use of up-conversion is to convert longer wavelength (infrared) to shorter wavelength (visible) and/or from a low energy to a higher energy state.
Lilliard et al. teach sandwich immunoassay is a method using two antibodies which bind to different sites on the antigen (para [0078]); see in particular the reference teaches the detection antibody binds the antigen to a different epitope than the primary (first antibody), thereby sandwiching the antigen between two antibodies.
Regarding waveguide structures, Mukundan teach a thin, high refractive index waveguide film deposited on a low index substrate leads to optimum detection sensitivity (page 5788, para 1). Mukundan (see page 5788, para 3) with respect to waveguide grating materials, teach substrate material choice is critical as optically transparent and optically smooth surfaces are essential for good waveguide performance; that optimum sensitivity, a low index substrate is preferred with refractive indices centered at ~ n-1.5 typically performs well. See Mukundan teach fused silica (SiO2) represents an excellent substrate material with a minimal refractive index of 1.457 in the visible portion of the optical spectrum. Regarding deposited waveguide films, see end of page 5788, Mukundan teach suitable materials include materials such as silicon oxynitride having n=1.6-2.0, tantalum pentoxide having n= 2.1-2.3 and titanium dioxide having n=2.5 to 2.8, that such materials produce low loss waveguides with adequate attenuations.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the quantum dot particle label of Ganesh et al. to use the upconverting particles of Chen as an obvious matter of a simple substitution of one known emitting label particle for another. The prior art contained the base system comprising a labeled (a label that emits upon an excitation source) antibody and a waveguide as claimed, which differs from the claimed system merely by the label (the claimed label comprising an upconverting particle). Both the quantum dot labels (of Ganesh), and the claimed upconverting nanoparticle labels were labels known to produce signal upon an excitation light source, and further were both labels known to be usable with waveguide grating structures (see Ganesh, see also Angeley). One having ordinary skill, given the teaching of Angeley, would have found it obvious to have substituted the upconverting particle for the quantum dot of Ganesh (and would have tuned the grating structure as in Ganesh such to produce excitation at the particle on the surface of the grating), and the results of the substitution would be predictable, namely would be expected to result in enhancement of the detection at the grating surface.
Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to rely on the nanoparticles of Chen because these labels were recognized in the prior art to be useful detection reagents for sensor and probe applications as a result of their enhanced detection, ease of detection and ability to maintain their up-converting ability and spectral position when conjugated to antibody (i.e., they are desirable detection reagents because of their known up-converting luminescent properties) and because particles of nanometer size have nearly nonexistent scattering.
One having ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation of success because Angeley teach labels such as upconverting labels are known suitable with these types of resonant grating structures (grating structure as in Ganesh), and further one would expect success because it was well known in the art at the time, that a grating structure (period, groove depth, duty cycle) is a tunable structure, tuned in order to achieve excitation of a label at a particular wavelength.
Regarding the amended language recited at claim 1 “wherein the grating structure is arranged to receive light having a wavelength that matches a resonance condition of the grating structure, and to direct the received light to the refractive layer”; see the above analyses, the combination of the cited art addresses modifying the waveguide grating in order tune (i.e., configure or match) the excitation to that of the upconverting nanoparticle of Chen (see Ganesh teaching controlling the device to excite at particular wavelengths), and as discussed, the structure is capable of the same intended use, namely receiving the light via transmission mode (directing light to the grating surface, namely at the refractive layer on said surface). Because the prior art structure is structurally indistinguishable from that which is claimed, it would be expected capable of the same intended use.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the sandwich immunoassay of Ganesh comprise a first antibody to a first epitope and a second antibody to a second epitope different from the first, such that both antibodies are able to bind the targeted antigen because it was known in the assay art at the time that this is how sandwich type reaction is performed (Lilliard et al., such that both antibodies are able to bind the same targeted antigen). One of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success relying on the known technique for an art recognized binding method, especially considering Ganesh is teaching binding of two different antibodies (sandwich immunoassay); one would expect success targeting different epitopes in order to promote binding of both antibodies to the same target analyte (prevent one antibody from blocking the other).
Regarding claim 3, see above, Chen teach up-conversion converting longer wavelength (infrared) to shorter wavelength (visible) (see e.g. para [0011]).
Regarding claim 6, see Ganesh page 10, para 2, antibody linked to the surfaces by a silane surface chemistry, thereby addressing “through a chemical linkage”.
Regarding claim 7, see as evidenced by Mukundan, titanium dioxide has a refractive index of 2.5-2.8, and as such the refractive layer on the grating of Ganesh addresses the claimed refractive layer of at least 1.5.
Regarding claim 8, see as cited above, Ganesh teach a grating structure that is a photonic crystal.
Regarding claims 12 and 15 (see claim 15 is substantially similar to claims 1 and 12, directed to a bioassay system), see as cited above, Ganesh and the cited prior art teach a system/apparatus for detecting a target analyte substantially similar to the structure(s) as claimed. Regarding the limitation that the optically transparent structure comprises an incident light surface and a grating surface comprising grooves (claim 12), see the immunoassay of Ganesh is performed with immobilized capture antibody at the grating surface. However, see also the grating structure taught by Ganesh comprises two surfaces, namely a grating surface and also a flat opposite side consistent with figures of the present specification (described previously in the claims as the “incident light surface”). Consistent with MPEP 2114, in the present case the limitation “incident” is a limitation regarding the way the claimed waveguide apparatus is intended to be employed and does not differentiate the claimed waveguide surface structurally from that taught by the prior art. The limitation “incident light surface” places no specific structure or structurally limiting feature on the claimed waveguide. As such, the prior art is considered to read on the waveguide as claimed, as it does comprise at least two different surfaces, namely a grooved side surface and a surface opposite of said grooved side, which reads on the claimed “incident light surface”.
In particular, the combination of the cited art teaches an upconverting nanoparticle, a waveguide structure comprising a grating structure with a grating surface (a single waveguide), the grating comprising an optically transparent substrate comprising two surfaces (namely a second surface opposite the grating surface that reads on the claimed “incident light surface”), a first antibody coupled/conjugated to the upconverting nanoparticle (which then becomes coupled upon binding to the first analyte epitope during use of the system), a second antibody coupled to the grating surface, which binds (becomes coupled during use of the apparatus) to a second epitope of the analyte that is different from the first. The prior art addressing all the limitations and elements as recited at the claims (see above).
Also, the waveguide of Ganesh does have a refractive layer disposed at the grating surface (TiO2), see as cited above. Ganesh is teaching providing a light source for providing the light that would pass through the grating structure (see above, the system of Ganesh usable in transmission mode to pass light to the grating surface), the combination of the art does address an apparatus/system exciting at the wavelength that excites the nanoparticle conjugated to the antibody (thereby suggesting light having a first wavelength that corresponds to, i.e., matches, a resonance condition of the grating structure). Similarly, Ganesh teach detecting the light emitted from the nanoparticle (detector, detecting at a second shorter wavelength, see Chen teach up-conversion converting longer wavelength (infrared) to shorter wavelength (visible) (see e.g. para [0011])). Also, see as addressed previously above, the combination of the cited art addressing the grating surface comprising a grating period, a grating groove depth, and a duty cycle tuned to excite the nanoparticle.
Further, regarding the “wherein the grating structure is arranged to…” language as recited at claim 15, see the previous analyses above (addressing claim 1), as the same analyses also applies presently.
Regarding claim 14, see Ganesh page 10, para 2, antibody linked to the surfaces by a silane surface chemistry, thereby addressing “through a chemical linkage”.
Regarding claim 16, see as evidenced by Mukundan, titanium dioxide has a refractive index of 2.5-2.8, and as such the refractive layer on the grating of Ganesh addresses the claimed refractive layer of at least 1.5.
Regarding claim 18, see as cited above, Ganesh teach a grating structure that is a photonic crystal comprising replicated gratings.
Regarding claim 25, see the combination of the cited art addresses the light source to emit light toward the grating structure (causes excitation at the grating structure surface).
Regarding claims 26 and 30 see Chen teach excitation source such as an infrared source, teaching excitation wavelength for infrared excitation would be longer than about 800 nm (para [0119]). Longer than about 800 nm indicates near infrared excitation (NIR is from 780 nm - 2500 nm). It would have been obvious when modifying to rely on the nanoparticle of the Chen to rely on the excitation wavelength taught by Chen for their nanoparticle.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of the cited art addresses tuning to the wavelength that excites the upconverting nanoparticle (a first wavelength).
Regarding new claim 36, see the analysis as provided at claim 6 above, namely it would have been obvious to have the second antibody coupled to the surface through chemical linkage for the reasons as indicated previously above (same reasoning applies presently). Also regarding claim 36, the language as pending recites “The system of claim 1, comprising a plurality of upconverting nanoparticles”; when this language is given broadest reasonable interpretation, “a plurality of upconverting nanoparticles” would encompass the reagent of Ganesh and the cited art which is antibody reagent bound to an upconverting particle label (i.e., a quantity of antibodies, plural, each bound to a label, namely a plurality of secondary antibody bound to upconverting nanoparticles). This claim language is not for example limited to a plurality of different upconverting nanoparticles. See also this interpretation appear consistent with the meaning as conveyed by the originally filed specification (see page 6, referring a plurality of nanoparticles 350, and Figure 3; nanoparticles referenced as number 350 appear to mean a plurality of the same nanoparticle species).
Regarding claims 38-39, see Ganesh as cited above, teaching a grating structure comprising an optically transparent substrate (see glass substrate and structured TiO2 layer (refractive layer), the TiO2 layer having a grating thereon)
Claims 27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesh et al., in view of Angeley, Chen and Lilliard et al. as applied to claims 24, 28 and 32 above, and further in view of Zhang et al., US PG Pub No. 2011/0127445A1.
Ganesh et al. and the cited prior art teach a system substantially as claimed (see waveguide system comprising coupled antibody and an antibody conjugated to an upconverting nanoparticle excited by NIR excitation); however, the prior art fails to teach the excitation wavelength of 980 nm (fails to teach a nanoparticle excited at 980 nm).
Zhang et al. teach an upconverting nanoparticle that is excited at near-infrared wavelength of 980 nm (see para [0075], green up-conversion emission under infrared excitation) suitable as reporter material for immunoassay. At para [0057] Zhang teach their upconverting nanoparticles exhibit strong up-conversion fluorescence under NIR excitation, and are suitable for conjugation of biomolecules.
It would have been further obvious to have modified the system as taught by the prior art such to use the green emitting upconverting nanoparticle of Zhang et al. (excited at 980 nm) because the particles of Zhang were known to exhibit strong fluorescence and because the nanoparticles were recognized as suitable reporter material for immunoassay. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because the upconverting nanoparticles of Zhang were recognized in the art as suitable for conjugation to biomolecules and therefore would be expected suitable for coupling to an antibody for binding target analyte.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesh et al., in view of Angeley, Chen and Lilliard et al. as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Li et al., An efficient and user-friendly method for the synthesis of hexagonal-phase NaYF4:Yb, Er/Tm nanocrystals with controllable shape and upconversion fluorescence, Nanotechnology, 19, (2008), (5 pages).
The combination of the cited art teach a system substantially as claimed (see as cited in detail previously above). Although Chen teach upconverting nanoparticles, specifically that such labels were recognized in the prior art to be useful detection reagents for sensor and probe applications as a result of their enhanced detection, ease of detection and ability to maintain their up-converting ability and spectral position when conjugated to antibody (i.e., they are desirable detection reagents because of their known up-converting luminescent properties) and because particles of nanometer size have nearly nonexistent scattering, Chen fails to specifically disclose the species as recited at claim 37.
See however, Li et al., Li teach hexagonal-phase NaYF4(Yb, Er, Tm) crystals have been demonstrated (at the time of Li) to be the best NIR-to-visible upconverting materials, Li teaching these materials are known to exhibit strong upconversion fluorescence (see page 1, end of col 2, and page 4, conclusion, end of col. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ganesh and the combination of the cited art do have relied upon NaYF4, doped with Yb, Er or Tm, as the upconverting material because it was known in the art that these crystals demonstrate best NIR-to-visible conversion, resulting in strong upconversion fluorescence (see Li et al). One having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success selecting a superior known material for its art recognized purpose, thereby expecting to achieve optimum signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Regarding the previous rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) (remarks page 8), Applicant indicates amendments to the claims in order to overcome the rejections. However, see new grounds of rejection set forth in detail above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
At remarks pages 9-12 Applicant argues the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant specifically refers to the amendments to the claims. Applicant argues the layer of Mukundan is flat and therefore, the grating surface and the refractive layer do not have the same grating period, groove depth, or duty cycle. However, this argument is not persuasive in view of the combination of the cited art, for example, see Ganesh is the reference cited as teaching waveguide comprising a grating structure comprising an optically transparent substrate, namely glass substrate and structured TiO2 layer (refractive layer), the TiO2 layer having a grating thereon. Structurally, Ganesh does teach the grating structure having a grating period, a grating groove depth, and a duty cycle that tune the resonance condition of the structure toward the absorption wavelength (the excitation) of the label (page 11, para 2).
Mukundan is merely cited as an evidentiary reference that supports that the waveguide structure as taught by the cited prior art addresses the claimed detailed features. Specifically see, regarding waveguide structures, Mukundan teach a thin, high refractive index waveguide film deposited on a low index substrate leads to optimum detection sensitivity (page 5788, para 1). Mukundan (see page 5788, para 3) with respect to waveguide grating materials, teach substrate material choice is critical as optically transparent and optically smooth surfaces are essential for good waveguide performance; that optimum sensitivity, a low index substrate is preferred with refractive indices centered at ~ n-1.5 typically performs well. See Mukundan teach fused silica (SiO2) represents an excellent substrate material with a minimal refractive index of 1.457 in the visible portion of the optical spectrum. Regarding deposited waveguide films, see end of page 5788, Mukundan teach suitable materials include materials such as silicon oxynitride having n=1.6-2.0, tantalum pentoxide having n= 2.1-2.3 and titanium dioxide having n=2.5 to 2.8, that such materials produce low loss waveguides with adequate attenuations. While Mukundan’s example at Figure 2 is referring to a grating structure shown flat, see Ganesh, which is the structure cited in detail above as addressing the present claimed invention claim 1. Structurally, Ganesh addresses the claim, Mukundan is cited as evidence specific to the refractive index value of the layer taught by Ganesh.
At remarks page 12, applicant refers to the new claims recited. See the rejection as set forth in detail above, further addressing the newly recited claims.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN J MARCSISIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6001. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bao-Thuy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-0824. 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.
/ELLEN J MARCSISIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1677