DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response, filed May 19 2026, has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 10, 12-14, and 18-20 are pending.
Claims 12-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected species, as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated Sep 1 2022.
Claims 4-9, 11, and 15-17 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 10, 14, and 18-20 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to App. No. KR10-2015-0135386, filed Sep 24 2015. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, PCT/KR2016/010708, filed Sep 23 2016, is acknowledged.
Accordingly, each of claims 1-3, 10, 14, and 18-20 are afforded the effective filing date of the Sep 24 2015.
Claim Objections
The outstanding objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted herein.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 112
The outstanding rejections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted herein.
35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 10, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The instant rejection is newly stated and is necessitated by claim amendment.
Claims 1 and 18-20 recite “an optical detector coupled to the thermocycler”. The specification as published provides the following support at [0195]: “the device further comprises a reaction vessel to accommodate the sample and signal-generating means, a temperature controlling means to control temperatures of the reaction vessel and/or a detector to detect signals at amplification cycles”. However, there is not support within the specification, nor has Applicant provided such support, for an optical detector coupled to the thermocycler as instantly claimed. Therefore, the limitation introduces new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 10, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more. Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment.
MPEP 2106 organizes judicial exception analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prongs One and Two) and 2B as follows below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter;
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
Step 2B: If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
Step 1
With respect to Step 1: yes, the claims are directed to a method and a device, i.e., a process, machine, or manufacture within the above 101 categories [Step 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.03].
Step 2A, Prong One
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations);
certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and/or
mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information).
With respect to the instant claims, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, the claims are found to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) are as follows:
Independent claims 1 and 18-20: (c) or (iii) first processing… the raw dataset by applying a first transformation algorithm to generate a slope dataset, wherein the slope dataset comprises a plurality of data points, each data point having a pair of coordinate values comprising a cycle and a slope value of the fluorescent signal at the cycle;
(d) or (iv) second processing… the raw dataset by applying a second transformation algorithm to generate a baseline subtracted dataset, wherein the baseline subtracted dataset comprises a plurality of data points, each data point having a pair of coordinate values comprising a cycle and a baseline subtracted fluorescent signal value at the cycle;
(e) or (v) transforming… the raw dataset, the slope dataset, and the baseline subtracted dataset, by applying predefined thresholds thereto, thereby obtaining three determinative factors, wherein each of the thresholds is predefined for each of the raw dataset, the slope dataset, and the baseline subtracted dataset, wherein the predefined threshold is for differentiating between a positive sample and a negative sample, and wherein each of the three determinative factors is a positive determinative factor representing the possibility of the presence of the target analyte in the sample or a negative determinative factor representing a possibility of the absence of the target analyte in the sample; and
(f) or (vi) determining… the presence of the target analyte in the sample when the obtained two or more three determinative factors are all positive determinative factors or determining the absence of the target analyte in the sample when any one of the obtained three determinative factors is a negative determinative factor.
Dependent claims 10 and 14 recite further steps that limit the judicial exceptions in independent claim 1 and, as such, also are directed to those abstract ideas. For example, claim 10 further limits the determinative factors and claim 14 further limits the determination of the presence or absence of the target analyte.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined to each cover performance either in the mind and/or by mathematical operation because the method only requires a user to manually determine the presence or absence of a target analyte in a sample. Without further detail as to the methodology involved in “processing”, “generating”, “transforming”, “obtaining determinative factors”, and “determining”, under the BRI, one may simply, for example, use pen and paper to process a raw dataset using transformation algorithms to generate processed datasets, apply predefined criteria to multiple datasets to transform the datasets, and use the results to determine the presence or absence of a target analyte. Some of these steps and those recited in the dependent claims require mathematical techniques as the only supported embodiments, including transformation algorithms for determining slopes and subtracting values, and determinative values representing a possibility of the presence of the target analyte, as is supported in the specification as published at least at [0102-0108].
Therefore, claims 1, 18-20, and those claims dependent therefrom recite an abstract idea [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.04].
Step 2A, Prong Two
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under Step 2A, Prong Two, provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions, the claim is said to fail to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Additional elements, Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1: (a) performing an amplification reaction for the target analyte in a reaction vessel using the thermocycler;
(b) detecting, at each cycle, a fluorescent signal generated from the amplification reaction using the optical detector to obtain a raw dataset wherein the raw dataset comprises a plurality of data points, each data point having a pair of coordinate values comprising a cycle and a fluorescent signal value at the cycle;
Claims 18-20: (a) or (i) receiving an outcome of an amplification reaction for the target analyte performed in a reaction vessel using the thermocycler;
(b) or (ii) obtaining a raw dataset comprising fluorescence signals detected using the optical detector, wherein the raw dataset comprises a plurality of data points, each data point having a pair of coordinate values comprising a cycle and a fluorescent signal value at the cycle.
Claims 1 and 18-20: (f) or (vi) outputting the determination result through a display of the molecular diagnostic system.
Dependent claims 2-3 recite steps that further limit the recited additional elements of claim 1. For example, claim 2 further limits the type of target analyte and claim 3 further limits the amplification reaction to being PCR or real-time PCR.
The claims include the following non-abstract computing elements. Independent claim 1 includes a method implemented in a molecular diagnostic system comprising a thermocycler, an optical detector coupled to the thermocycler, and a processor operatively connected to the thermocycler and the optical detector. Independent claim 18 includes a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing instructions to configure a processor of a molecular diagnostic system comprising a thermocycler and an optical detector coupled to the thermocycler to perform a method. Independent claim 19 includes a device, implemented as a molecular diagnostic system, for determining a presence of a target analyte in a sample by a multiple dataset analysis (MDA), the device comprising: (a) a thermocycler; (b) an optical detector coupled to the thermocycler; (c) a computer processor; and (d) a computer readable storage medium coupled to the computer processor, wherein the computer readable storage mediums contains instructions to configure a processor to perform a method. Independent claim 20 includes a non-transitory computer program to be stored in a computer readable storage medium containing instructions to configure a processor of a molecular diagnostic system comprising a thermocycler and an optical detector coupled to the thermocycler to perform a method.
Considerations under Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of the claims do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following reasons. Those steps directed to data gathering, such as “performing an amplification reaction” using a thermocycler and an optical detector coupled to the thermocycler, “detecting” fluorescent signals generated from the amplification reaction, and “receiving” and “obtaining” data, and to data outputting, such as “outputting” results through a display, perform functions of collecting and outputting the data needed to carry out the judicial exceptions. Data gathering and outputting does not impose any meaningful limitation on the judicial exceptions, or on how the judicial exceptions are performed. Data gathering and outputting steps are not sufficient to integrate judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further steps directed to additional non-abstract elements of the recited computing elements do not describe any specific computational steps by which the “computer parts” perform or carry out the judicial exceptions, nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer, such as the computer-readable recording media, are used to implement these functions. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, and therefore the claim does not integrate that judicial exceptions into a practical application. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc.… are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Specification discloses that one of the characteristics of the present invention lies in the fact that the presence or absence of the target analyte can be finally determined, even using determinative factors expressed simply as a yes/no type indication, with more improved accuracy than conventional methods at p. 23, lines 20-21, but does not provide a clear explanation for how the additional elements provide these improvements. Therefore, the additional elements do not clearly improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field. Further, the additional elements do not clearly effect a particular treatment; they do not clearly require or set forth a particular machine; they do not clearly effect a transformation of matter; nor do they clearly provide a nonconventional or unconventional step (MPEP2106.04(d)).
Thus, none of the claims recite additional elements which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to one or more judicial exceptions [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO; See MPEP § 2106.04(d)].
Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi)
According to analysis so far, the additional elements described above do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A determination of whether additional elements provide significantly more also rests on whether the additional elements or a combination of elements represents other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Conventionality is a question of fact and may be evidenced as: a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims, the prior art to Kurnik (US 2015/0186598 A1, IDS reference) discloses that performing an amplification reaction and detecting signals therefrom, using a detector, relies on commercially available equipment (i.e., a thermocycler/PCR machine) and is routine, well-understood and conventional in the art. Said portions of the prior art are, for example, [0002-0003], and [0043]. Further, the courts have found that receiving and outputting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). As such, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(d)). The data gathering steps as recited in the instant claims constitute a general link to a technological environment which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept which would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(g)&(h)).
With respect to claims 1 and 18-20, the computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, which the courts have found to not provide significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.06(A)). The specification also notes that computer processors and systems, as example, are commercially available or widely used at [0043] and [0090-0096]. The additional elements are set forth at such a high level of generality that they can be met by a general purpose computer. Therefore, the computer components constitute no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(b)I-III).
Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself [Step 2B: NO; See MPEP § 2106.05].
Response to Applicant Arguments
At p. 11-12, section 1., Applicant submits that the independent claims are tied to a particular machine and eliminate the generic computer framework because they recite a specific molecular diagnostic system featuring a thermocycler and an optical detector physically coupled to the thermocycler.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(b), examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. One consideration is whether its involvement is extra-solution activity, which does not meaningfully limit the claim. In the instant claims, the recited thermocycler and optical detector merely provide data gathering functions in the claims. The thermocycler and optical detector do not act on or apply the steps which recite judicial exceptions. Only the computer system acts on the judicial exceptions, and is therefore considered to merely apply the judicial exceptions to a computer environment, as explained in MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the instant claims do not recite a particular machine.
At p. 12, section 2, Applicant submits that the data utilized involves physical transformation of biomolecules, not abstract numbers because the claims now recite that the dataset consists of physical fluorescence signals captured by an optical detector, and the data points are not abstract mathematical variables but direct digital transformations of real-world physical phenomenon.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. MPEP 2106.05(c) discloses that another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. However, the MPEP section also states that “For data, mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994))”, and that another consideration is whether the transformation is extra-solution activity. In the instant claims, the alleged transformation is the transformation of fluorescent signals into a dataset, as submitted by Applicant, which does not provide a practical transformation that can apply the judicial exceptions. Turning the fluorescent signals into data is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely writing numbers down in a file, which is similar to the mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” discussed in the MPEP. Further, gathering the dataset merely recites a data gathering function in the claim and does not provide a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2, or significantly more, at Step 2B.
At p. 12-13, section 3, Applicant submits that the invention resolves a hardware-driven technical deficiency unique to molecular diagnostics by addressing false-positive errors, which is not a subjective data-entry issue, but rather an inherent hardware limitation of optical sensors and thermocyclers.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. In the claims, the determination of the presence or absence of the target analyte is made based on a series of steps, performed on a computer, which recite judicial exceptions. The determination of the presence or absence of the target analyte is not performed by the hardware, or the optical sensor and the thermocycler, as alleged by Applicant. Therefore the issue being addressed in the claims is a data analysis issue to reduce false positives. It is considered that there is no misinterpretation of the root cause of the problem solved by the invention.
It is noted that while the analysis at Step 2A, Prong 2, considers the claims as a whole, i.e., the additional elements in combination with the judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the integration or improvement provided in the claim must flow from the additional elements and not the judicial exceptions to be considered persuasive. Applicant’s remarks support that the improvement flows from the analysis of the three datasets (i.e., the judicial exceptions) to provide an improved error rate by restructuring the representation and evaluation of the PCR signals. “PCR signal processing” and the like as submitted by Applicant are not technical fields which can be improved to provide a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2, because they are themselves judicial exceptions. Further, the steps of performing the amplification and obtaining the raw dataset in the claims are unchanged from the conventional PCR technology that Applicant has argued is improved. Therefore, the claims do not provide an improvement to PCR technology. There is no improvement in the actual amplification reaction itself or the obtaining and providing of data, and therefore does not constitute an improvement to a field of technology. Rather, as set forth in the above rejection, the claim recites calculations and mental processes which are applied to a computer environment to analyze PCR data.
At p. 13, section 4, Applicant submits that the method implements specific rules for machine automation analogous to McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. Applicant submits that the claims introduce a specific, objective rule architecture (requiring all three distinct physical datasets to yield positive determinative factors to conclude the analyte is present) to automate diagnostic judgment safely and eliminate machine readout errors, which provides an improvement.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. It is considered that the instant claims are not analogous to those at question McRO. In McRO, the courts found that claims to automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology and not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant has submitted that the claims similarly improve the functioning of a technology, but has not argued that the claims improve the functioning of a computer. It is not considered that the claims improve the functioning of a computer in ways similar to McRO, and, as discussed above, the claims do not improve an existing technology, such as PCR, which can provide a practical application. The claims merely provide an alleged improvement to the analysis of PCR fluorescent data to provide an allegedly improved result.
At p. 13-14, section 5, Applicant submits that the claims provide an inventive concept under Step 2B by using non-conventional combinations of elements to yield extraordinary, unexpected technological results. Applicant further submits that the claims do not preempt the abstract field of mathematical processing.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. Applicant is reminded that the standard for assessing the conventionality of the additional elements at Step 2B of the 35 USC 101 analysis is separate and distinct from the standard for applying prior art under 35 USC 102 or 103 (see MPEP 2106.05(I)). Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The only additional elements in the claims are those directed to performing an amplification reaction using a thermocycler, detecting fluorescence signals, providing that data to a computer, and outputting results. Both the combination of these additional elements and each of the additional elements alone are well-understood, routine, and conventional, as set forth in the above rejection.
Applicant is further reminded that unexpected results are not a consideration for patent eligibility under 35 USC 101, but rather for novelty in regards to the prior art. That the claims achieve improved false-positive error rates does not, for the reasons described above, provide an improvement at Step 2A, Prong 2, or significantly more at Step 2B.
While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility (Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981); “We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection”; see MPEP 2106.04).
At p. 14-15, section 6, Applicant submits that the claimed output is a fundamentally different and improved diagnostic result, constituting an improvement to the molecular diagnostic system because it is distinct from the output of conventional PCR methods. Applicant submits that the result is not merely a generic display of calculated numbers; it is a highly refined, physically corroborated diagnostic conclusion that is only made possible by the claimed multi-dataset architecture. Applicant submits that the claimed invention is not merely an abstract idea followed by conventional data outputting. Rather, the method as a whole represents a tangible, structural improvement to the molecular diagnostic system itself, enabling the system to output an unprecedentedly accurate result compared to conventional diagnostic systems.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. As discussed above, the step of outputting the results is merely a necessary data outputting function, which does not provide a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2 (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Any supposed improvement in comparison to conventional methods is a result of the steps identified as judicial exceptions, which provide the result from the creation and analysis of three specific and distinct datasets. Outputting that result is merely the representation of that result in a generic manner, which does not provide an improvement.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNA NICOLE SCHULTZHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-0812. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8-4.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached on (571)272-2249. The fax phone number for 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JANNA NICOLE SCHULTZHAUS/Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights