DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Sep 2 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s response, filed Sep 2 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn.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 39-47 are pending.
Claims 1-38 are canceled.
Claims 44-47 are newly added.
Claims 39-47 are rejected.
Priority
The instant Application claims domestic benefit to US provisional application 62/562,978, filed Sep 25 2017. Accordingly, each of claims 39-47 are afforded the effective filing date of the Sep 25 2017.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on Sep 2 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has therefore been considered. A signed copy of the IDS document is included with this Office Action.
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.
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 39-47 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.
The instant rejection reflects the Guidance published in the Federal Register notice titled
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines (Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday January
7, 2019 at 50) and the October 2019 Updated Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter both referred to as the “Guidance”), as outlined in the MPEP at 2106.04.
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 methods [Step 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.03].
Step 2A, Prong One
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite 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 herein 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).
The claim steps to abstract ideas of mental processes and mathematical concepts are as follows:
Independent claim 39: (b) generating… corrected sequencing data for the sequencing data received in (a) by applying an attribution rule set to the sequencing data, wherein the attribution rule set comprises attributing an occurrence in the sequencing data of:
(i) a putative sequence encoding the at least one CDR to a parent sequence based on sequence similarity and relative abundance of the parent sequence over the putative sequence, wherein the putative sequence and the parent sequence are associated with the same molecular label sequence;
(ii) a molecular label sequence associated with a putative sequence encoding the at least one CDR to a parent molecular label sequence associated with the putative sequence encoding the at least one CDR based on sequence similarity and relative abundance of the parent molecular label sequence over the molecular label sequence; and
(iii) a putative sequence encoding the at least one CDR to a chimeric sequence, wherein the chimeric sequence is associated with a molecular label sequence associated with (A) the putative sequence encoding the at least one CDR, and (B) at least one other putative sequence encoding a different CDR,
wherein attributing the occurrence of (i) and (ii) is applied to the sequencing data recursively, and wherein the putative sequence whose occurrence has been attributed to the chimeric sequence is excluded from the corrected sequencing data, such that a variation in sequences encoding the at least one CDR in the corrected sequencing data is reduced.
Dependent claim 41: wherein the attribution rule set further comprises attributing an occurrence in the sequencing data of (iv) a combination sequence to a parent combination sequence when the combination sequence is within a third directional adjacency threshold of the parent molecular label sequence, wherein each combination sequence comprises a putative sequence encoding the at least one CDR and an associated molecular label sequence, and when an occurrence of the parent combination sequence is greater than or equal to a third directional adjacency occurrence threshold relative to the occurrence of the combination sequence, and wherein attributing the occurrence of (iv) is applied to the sequencing data recursively.
Dependent claim 43: discriminating between signal and noise molecular label sequences among the molecular label sequences associated with sequences in the corrected sequencing data; and
removing sequences associated with the noise molecular label sequences from the corrected sequencing data.
Dependent claims 40 and 42 recite additional steps that further limit the judicial exceptions in independent claim 39 and, as such, are further directed to abstract ideas. For example, claim 40 further limits the actions taken in steps (b) (i-iii) of claim 39 to attributing occurrences of the difference sequences, and claim 42 further limits the first and second directional adjacency occurrence thresholds.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover performance either in the mind and/or performance by mathematical operation because the steps involve nothing more than instructions for a user to manually generated corrected sequencing data based on sequence similarities. There are no specifics as to the methodology involved in “generating”, “attributing”, “discriminating”, and “removing”, and thus, under the BRI, one could simply, for example, generate corrected sequencing data by attributing an occurrence in the sequencing data of a putative sequence to a parent sequence based on sequence similarity and abundance, attributing a molecular label sequence associated with a putative sequence to a parent molecular label sequence based on sequence similarity and relative abundance, and attributing a putative sequence to a chimeric sequence, in the mind or with pen and paper as an aid. Even though the received sequencing data comprises a molecular label sequence of 5-10 nucleotides in length and stochastic barcodes collectively represent at least 103 unique molecular label sequences, as recited in (a), it is considered that such data could be manipulated with the aid of pen and paper or a computer, and does not alter the mental processes which occur when analyzing such data. It is further noted that the claims require only “attributing an occurrence in the sequencing data” such that all of the sequencing data may not be required to be processed through steps (i-iii). Even though the claim recites that the attributing is applied to the sequencing data recursively, there is no condition set forth in the claim for how many times the attributing must be repeated.
Some steps, including those directed to “attributing… based on… relative abundance” in claim 39, attributing when an occurrence of the sequence is greater than or equal to a first or second directional adjacency occurrence threshold relative to the occurrence of the putative sequence or molecular label sequence and when the putative sequence has an occurrence smaller than a chimeric occurrence threshold in claim 40, attributing an occurrence of a combination sequence when the when an occurrence of the parent combination sequence is greater than or equal to a third directional adjacency occurrence threshold relative to the occurrence of the combination sequence in claim 41, and the first directional adjacency occurrence threshold is twice the occurrence of the putative sequence less one, and/or the second directional adjacency occurrence threshold is twice the occurrence of the molecular label sequence less one in claim 42 are performed using mathematical techniques as their only embodiment, as is supported by examples in the Specification, such as Hamming distance [0190]; thresholding analyses [0193]; and, generally, from [0188-0234].
Therefore, claims 39 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 abstract ideas 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 abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim is said to fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Independent claim 39: (a) receiving, with the computer system, sequencing data of stochastically barcoded mRNA targets from a sample of T-cells, wherein the MRNA targets encode immune receptors comprising at least one complementarity-determining region (CDR), and each of the stochastically barcoded mRNA targets comprising a stochastic barcode that comprises a molecular label sequence of 5-10 nucleotides in length, and wherein the stochastic barcodes collectively represent at least 103 unique molecular label sequences.
Dependent claims 44-47 further limit the sequencing data received in claim 39 to having read lengths of at least 30 nucleotides (claim 44) or from 30-200 nucleotides (claim 45) and an average sequencing depth of each of the stochastically barcoded mRNA targets of at least 3 (claim 46) or from 3 to 100 (claim 47).
The claims also include the following non-abstract computer elements. Claim 39 is a computer-implemented method with a computer system comprising: a hardware processor; and a non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon, which when executed by the hardware processor cause the processor to perform the method.
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 “receiving” data, perform functions of collecting the data needed to carry out the abstract idea. Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, or on how the abstract idea is performed. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further steps directed to additional non-abstract computer 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 does not disclose a clear explanation for how the additional elements provide any 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 an abstract idea [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO; See MPEP § 2106.04(d)].
Step 2B
As such, the claims are lastly evaluated using the Step 2B analysis, wherein it is determined that because the claims recite abstract ideas which are not integrated into a practical application, the claims also lack a specific inventive concept. Applicant is reminded that the judicial exceptions alone cannot provide the inventive concept or the practical application and that the identification of whether the additional elements amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements of data gathering described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As directed in the Berkheimer memorandum of 19 April 2018 and set forth in the MPEP, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either 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 courts have found that receiving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function 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) and 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) as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
Further, the non-abstract general purpose computer elements or do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The specification as published also notes that computer system is commercially available or widely ([0028; 0270]; Fig. 10). 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].
Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to applicant is directed generally to the MPEP § 2106.
Response to Applicant Arguments
At p. 5 through p. 8, par. 3, Applicant submits that claim 39 as a whole represents an improvement in a technical field by providing a process for analyzing sequencing data of stochastically labeled nucleic acids, such as mRNA, that corrects for errors in the sequences introduced in the barcoding process, and thereby generates a more accurate representation of immune receptor diversity in a sample of T cells. Applicant points to the submitted Declaration for support. Applicant submits as a first and second point that the Application discloses challenges associated with using stochastic barcodes to label nucleic acids in a sample, and that the Application describes a technical solution to this technical problem. Applicant submits as a third point that the claimed methods recite a combination of features that mitigate over-estimation of immune receptor diversity by providing for error correction and chimera removal, such that variation in sequences encoding at least one CDR in the corrected sequencing data is reduced. Applicant submits that claim 39 integrates any judicial exception into a practical application and is not merely a an improvement in the alleged abstract idea itself.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. It is noted that the Declaration is discussed in detail below. The claims are considered as a whole at Step 2A, Prong 2, which requires an analysis of how the additional elements contribute to the claim in relation to the judicial exception. As set forth in the above rejection, the step of receiving data merely recites a data gathering step which does not provide a practical application because the data is required by the judicial exception for its performance. The additional element of the computer system merely applies the judicial exception to a computer system and does not provide a practical application. Ultimately, neither of the additional elements in the claim are altered or affected by the performance of the judicial exceptions. It is considered that the improvement in in the claim flows from the judicial exceptions and results in improved data or results, which is not a technical field which can be improved, rather than an improvement in the additional elements of the claims. Similarly, Applicant’s assertion that providing a process for analyzing sequencing data of stochastically labeled nucleic acids, such as mRNA, that corrects for errors in the sequences introduced in the barcoding process, and thereby generates a more accurate representation of immune receptor diversity in a sample of T cells, provides an improvement in a technical field is not convincing. Data analysis is not a technical field which can be improved. While the combination of additional elements and judicial exceptions may provide an improvement, the improvement must not flow only from the judicial exception or it must result in an improvement in the additional elements. Therefore, the instant claims are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Regarding Applicant’s first, second, and third points, the limitations pointed to by Applicant for solving the technical problem (e.g., the attribution rule set that includes an error correction process by clustering and collapsing sequences; thresholds for clustering that allow for tuning stringency; options for accounting for PCR chimera errors by removing sequences; error correction and chimera removal as described in the last par. on p. 7; reducing variation in sequences encoding CDRs) recite a judicial exception. Judicial exceptions cannot be a practical application of the judicial exception. The courts have made clear that a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter (Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)) if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, it is the additional elements (if any) in the claim that must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. It is submitted here that the instant claims do not include any additional elements that provide for a practical application. Rather, the “additional element” in the instant claims (see exemplary claim 39) includes only the step of “receiving” sequencing data”. As set forth above, said steps operate in the claim as data gathering steps and do not integrate any of the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor do the claims as a whole include any inventive concept beyond well-understood, routine and conventional steps.
Ultimately, Applicant has not provided any reasoning for how the additional elements of the claim contribute to an improvement. The only additional element in the claim recites “receiving” sequencing data, which provides the essential function of gathering data which is analyzed by the recited judicial exceptions in the claims, and does not provide a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2, or significantly more at Step 2B, because receiving data is a normal function of a generic computer system, as described in the above rejection. Therefore, the improvements argued by Applicant actually do recite an improvement in an abstract idea, which is not patent eligible.
Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132
The Declaration filed Sep 2 2026 addresses the 35 USC 101 rejection of the instant claims.
At par. 3, the Declaration describes the technical solution, described in the application, to problems which arise when using single cell-based techniques for sequencing stochastically labeled nucleic acids to identify immune receptors. The Declaration submits that the application provides an improvement in technology compared to the conventional processes at the time of filing and may provide a more accurate representation of immune receptor diversity.
At par. 4-5, the Declaration discusses the state of the scientific field in profiling the diversity of immune receptors at the single-cell level. The Declaration describes issues related to PCR substitution error and chimeric molecules produced during the sequencing process or stochastically labelled molecules.
At p. 6-10, the Declaration submits that the claimed methods improve the identification of immune receptors in T-cells by reducing the over-estimation of immune receptor diversity in the sequencing data. The Declaration submits that the application provides an in silico solution to the above problem through the application of a an attribution rule set that corrects errors and removes chimera sequences.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. As discussed above, claims are considered as a whole at Step 2A, Prong 2, which requires an analysis of how the additional elements contribute to the claim in relation to the judicial exception. The only additional element action in the claim recites “receiving” sequencing data. As set forth in the above rejection, the step of receiving data merely recites a data gathering step which does not provide a practical application because the data is required by the judicial exception for its performance. The additional element of the computer system merely applies the judicial exception to a computer system and does not provide a practical application. Ultimately, neither of the additional elements in the claim are altered or affected by the performance of the judicial exceptions. It is considered that the improvement in in the claim flows from the judicial exceptions and results in improved data or results, which is not a technical field which can be improved, rather than an improvement in the additional elements of the claims. Similarly, the Declaration’s assertion that providing a process for analyzing sequencing data of stochastically labeled nucleic acids, such as mRNA, that corrects for errors in the sequences introduced in the barcoding process, and thereby generates a more accurate representation of immune receptor diversity in a sample of T cells, provides an improvement in a technical field is not convincing. Data analysis is not a technical field which can be improved. The Declaration describes the solution to the problem as an in silico solution, further supporting this finding. While the combination of additional elements and judicial exceptions may provide an improvement, the improvement must not flow only from the judicial exception or it must result in an improvement in the additional elements. Therefore, the instant claims are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Further, the limitations pointed to in the Declaration for solving the technical problem (e.g., the attribution rule set that includes an error correction process and removing PCR chimeras) recite a judicial exception. Judicial exceptions cannot be a practical application of the judicial exception. The courts have made clear that a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter (Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)) if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"); Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, it is the additional elements (if any) in the claim that must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. It is submitted here that the instant claims do not include any additional elements that provide for a practical application. Rather, the “additional element” in the instant claims (see exemplary claim 39) includes only the step of “receiving” sequencing data”. As set forth above, said steps operate in the claim as data gathering steps and do not integrate any of the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, nor do the claims as a whole include any inventive concept beyond well-understood, routine and conventional steps.
Ultimately, the Declaration has not provided any reasoning for how the additional elements of the claim contribute to an improvement. The only additional element in the claim recites “receiving” sequencing data, which provides the essential function of gathering data which is analyzed by the recited judicial exceptions in the claims, and does not provide a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2, or significantly more at Step 2B, because receiving data is a normal function of a generic computer system, as described in the above rejection. Therefore, the improvements submitted by the Declaration actually recite only an improvement in an abstract idea, which is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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