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
This application is the U.S. National Stage (371) application of PCT/US18/15440 filed on 01/26/2018 which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/544,393 filed on 08/11/2017 and to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/450,623 filed on 01/26/2017.
Claim Status
The Applicant cancelled claims 1-12, 14-34, 39-40, 43 and 48-49. The Applicant amended claims 13, 38, 42 and 47 and noted that no new matter is added. The Applicant previously presented claims 35-37, 41, 44-46 and 50.
Thus, claims 13, 35-38, 41-42, 44-47 and 50 are pending and are under examination.
Withdrawn Rejection
The previous rejection of claims 13, 35-38, 41-42, 44-47 and 50 under 35 U.S.C. 103, regarding obviousness, is withdrawn in light of Applicants amendments of the claims.
The previous rejection of claims 16 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. 103, regarding obviousness, is withdrawn in lights of Applicants cancellation of the claims.
New Rejection
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 (PHOSITA) to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13, 35-38, 41-42, 44-47 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau et el. (US 2009/0142772 A1) in view of Song et al. (Biosensors and Bioelectronics 26 (2011) 3818–3824), Agrawal et al. ((“Single-Bead Immunoassays Using Magnetic Microparticles and Spectral-Shifting Quantum Dots”, 2007, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry), Li et al. (US 2008/0135490 A1) and Oldenburg et al. (US 2016/0250612 A1).
Regarding claims 13 and 42, Lau teaches a method for detecting the presence, absence, or level of an analyte of interest in a sample (Abstract; page 1, [0020-0028]).
Regarding claims 13 and 42, Lau teaches that the analyte of interest is a protein (Page 4-5, [0113]).
Lau teaches contacting a sample with a magnetic conjugate (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, “MAGNETIC BEAD 1”, “LIGAND 1” “MAGNETIC BEAD 2”, “LIGAND 2”, “LIGAND3”; page 1, [0021]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches that the magnetic conjugate comprise a magnetic particle conjugated to a capture moiety (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, “MAGNETIC BEAD 1”, “LIGAND 1” “MAGNETIC BEAD 2”, “LIGAND 2”; ).
Regarding claims 13 and 42, Lau teaches that the capture moiety comprises an antibody (Page 3, [0096]; page 5, [0120]).
Lau teaches that the capture moiety is configured to bind the analyte of interest in an analysis chamber (Page 1, [0008], [0011-0012]).
Lau teaches binding the analyte of interest with the capture moiety (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, “MAGNETIC BEAD 1”, “LIGAND 1” “MAGNETIC BEAD 2”, “LIGAND 2”, “LIGAND3”; page 1, [0021]).
Lau teaches separating the analyte of interest bound to the magnetic conjugate from the sample (Page 1, [0023]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches applying a magnetic field to the analysis chamber to pull down the magnetic conjugate with analyte of interest associated therewith (Page 1, [0023]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches contacting the analyte of interest bound to the magnetic conjugate with reporter binding moiety (Page 1, [0025]; page 5, [0114]).
Regarding claims 13 and 42, Lau teaches that the reporter binding moiety comprises an antibody (Page 3, [0096]; page 5, [0120]).
Lau teaches that the reporter binding moiety has biotin (Page 8, [0163]).
Lau teaches that the reporter binding moiety is configured to bind the analyte of interest (Page 5, [0113-0114]).
Lau teaches that wherein the capture moiety and the reporter binding moiety bind different portions of the analyte of interest (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, (b), “PATHOGEN CAPTURE & VERIFICATION, TWO LEVELS OF SPECIFICITY”; page 1, [0025]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches contacting the analyte of interest bound to the magnetic conjugate with a reporter (page 1, [0025]; page 5, [0114]).
Regarding claims 13 and 42, Lau teaches that the reporter comprises one or more quantum dots impregnated in a core particle (Page 8, [0157]; page 9, [0166]).
Lau teaches binding the analyte of interest with the reporter binding moiety (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, (b), “UP-CONVERTING REPORTER”; page 1, [0026]; page 5, [0114]).
Regarding claim 13 and 42, Lau teaches binding the reporter binding moiety with the reporter via streptavidin-biotin binding (Page 8, [0163-0164]).
Lau teaches separating a complex formed between the analyte of interest bound to the magnetic conjugate, the reporter binding moiety, and the reporter (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, (b), “MAGNET”; page 1, [0027]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches applying a magnetic field to the analysis chamber (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, (b), “MAGNET”; page 1, [0027]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches detecting the presence, absence, or level of the analyte of interest (Page 1, [0020]).
Regarding claim 13 and 42, Lau teaches detecting the fluorescence of the reporter with a light source and photodetector (Page 4-5, [0113-0114]; page 8, [0152-0156]).
Regarding claims 41 and 50, Lau teaches concentrating the analyte of interest in the sample by applying the magnetic field to the analysis chamber after contacting the sample with the magnetic conjugate (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, (b), “MAGNET”; page 1, [0027]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches removing a volume of the sample from the analysis chamber (Page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches adding a volume of buffer and/or an additional volume of the sample to the analysis chamber (Page 4, [0105]; page 10, [0185]).
Regarding claim 42, Lau teaches contacting a sample with a magnetic conjugate (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, “MAGNETIC BEAD 1”, “LIGAND 1” “MAGNETIC BEAD 2”, “LIGAND 2”, “LIGAND3”; page 1, [0021]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches that the magnetic conjugate comprise a magnetic particle conjugated to a capture moiety (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, “MAGNETIC BEAD 1”, “LIGAND 1” “MAGNETIC BEAD 2”, “LIGAND 2”).
Lau teaches that the capture moiety is configured to bind the analyte of interest in an analysis chamber (Page 1, [0008], [0011-0012]).
Lau teaches contacting the sample with a reporter binding moiety (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, (b), “UP-CONVERTING REPORTER”; page 1, [0026]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches that the reporter binding moiety is configured to bind the analyte of interest (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, (b), “UP-CONVERTING REPORTER”; page 1, [0026]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches that wherein the capture moiety and the reporter binding moiety bind different portions of the analyte of interest (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, (b), “PATHOGEN CAPTURE & VERIFICATION, TWO LEVELS OF SPECIFICITY”; page 1, [0025]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches contacting the sample with a reporter (page 1, [0025]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches that wherein the reporter comprises one or more quantum dots impregnated in a core particle (Page 8, [0157]; page 9, [0166]).
Lau teaches binding the analyte of interest with the capture moiety and the analyte of interest with the reporter binding moiety (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, “MAGNETIC BEAD 1”, “LIGAND 1” “MAGNETIC BEAD 2”, “LIGAND 2”, “LIGAND3”; page 1, [0021] and [0025]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches separating a complex formed between the analyte of interest bound to the magnetic conjugate, the reporter binding moiety, and the reporter (Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, (b), “MAGNET”; page 1, [0027]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches applying a magnetic field to the analysis chamber Sheet 4 of 29, FIG. 4, (b), “MAGNET”; page 1, [0027]; page 5, [0114]).
Lau teaches detecting the presence, absence, or level of the analyte of interest by detecting the reporter with a light source and photodetector (Abstract; page 1, [0020-0028]).
Regarding claims 13 and 42, Lau does not teach the analyte of interest to be thyroid stimulating hormone, troponin, luteinizing hormone (LH), or prostate specific antigen (PSA).
Regarding claims 13 and 42, Lau does not teach a metallic magnetic particle. Lau does not teach a biotin-labeled reporter binding moiety nor a streptavidin-labeled reporter.
Regarding claims 35 and 44, Lau does not teach that wherein the reporter comprises a gold core particle.
Regarding claims 36 and 45, Lau does not teach that wherein the gold particle comprises a silica shell.
Regarding claims 37 and 46, Lau does not teach that wherein the silica shell is impregnated with the one or more quantum dots.
Regarding claims 38 and 47, Lau does not teach that wherein the one or more quantum dots comprises about 100-600 quantum dots.
Regarding claim 42, Lau does not teach binding the reporter binding moiety with the reporter.
Regarding claim 13 and 42, Song teaches using a sandwich immunoassay using two antibodies directed to different epitopes of the target analyte of troponin (Fig. 1. “C) Schematic diagram of the sandwich immunoassay using antigen/antibody binding (System 1) and avidin/biotin affinity binding (System 2)”).
Regarding claims 13 and 42, Agrawal teaches using a metallic magnetic particle as part of an immunoassay (Page 3778, right column, “These magnetic beads are composed of iron oxide nanoparticles embedded in a polymeric matrix and are well suited for target capturing, enrichment, and isolation”).
Moreover, regarding claims 13 and 42, Li teaches such a biotin-labeled reporter binding moiety such as a Biotin-labeled antibody and a streptavidin-labeled reporter such as a Streptavidin conjugated quantum dot (Sheet 1 of 9, FIG. 2, “Quantum Dot-Streptavidin”, “Biotin-Ab” and FIG. 3, “Streptavidin Conjugated Quantum Dot”, “Biotin-labeled Antibody”).
Regarding claim 42, Li teaches binding the reporter binding moiety with the reporter (Sheet 1 of 9, FIG. 2, “Ab-magnetic Bead”, “Target Bacterium”, “Biotin-Ab”, “Quantum Dot Streptavidin”, “λEx 473 nm”, “λEm 609 nm”). Li teaches that the target analyte is a contaminant is selected from a group consisting of a prokaryote, a eukaryote, a virus, and a polypeptide (Page 2, [0016]; page 9, claim 8).
Moreover, regarding claims 35 and 44, Oldenburg teaches that the reporter comprises a gold core particle (Page 1, [0013]; page 3, [0049]; page 6, [0099]; page 10, [0136]).
Regarding claims 36 and 45, Oldenburg teaches that wherein the gold particle comprises a silica shell (Page 4, [0078-0082]; page 5, [0086]; page 10, [0136]).
Regarding claims 37 and 46, Oldenburg teaches that wherein the silica shell is impregnated with the one or more quantum dots (Page 8, [0115 ; page 9, [0124-0125]; page 10, [0136]).
Regarding claims 38 and 47, Oldenburg teaches that one or more quantum dots comprises about 100-600 quantum dots (Page 7, [0103]; page 8, [0115]).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the application to combine the sandwich immunoassay of troponin of Song with the magnetic method of Lau to improve the sensitivity of the detection method of an analyte of interest in an immunoassay because Song noted the suitability of their method to detect troponin from blood samples (Page 3819, right column, first paragraph). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the metallic magnetic particle of Agrawal with the methods of Song and Lau because Agrawal showed how to use a metallic magnetic particle as part of an immunoassay for the sensitive capture and separation of an analyte by a magnetic field (Abstract) and to have a sensitive detection of an analyte by using an antibody-conjugated semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) (Abstract). Agrawal further noted that QDs exhibit unique optical properties such as size-tunable fluorescence emission (spectral shifting), large absorption coefficients, improved brightness, and superior photostability (Abstract). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the three-component method of detection of Li with the methods of Agrawal, Song and Lau because Li teaches using a capture moiety, a reporter moiety and a reporter in a three-component method to increase the sensitivity of signal detection of an analyte in an immunoassay (Sheet 1 of 9, FIG.2; page 4, [0042]). Li further teaches using their method to detect a wide range of analytes (Page 3, [0033]). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the gold core particles of Oldenburg with the methods of Li, Agrawal, Song and Lau because Oldenburg teaches using a gold core particle with a silica shell that is impregnated with one or more quantum dots for optical detection and to provide protective coating of the particles (Page 1, [0005-0006]; pages 6-7, [0102]). Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the above methods and inventions to improve the sensitivity of detection of an immunoassay and the stability of capture particles. A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the methods of Oldenburg, Li, Agrawal, Song and Lau, and based on the methods being in the field of detecting a target analyte by an immunoassay. It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to bring the improvements of Oldenburg, Li, Agrawal and Song to the method of Lau to achieve a sensitive detection of proteins, pathogens or even contaminants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the Applicant claimed that the instant application teaches a three-component or a tertiary immunoassay as stated in the third Koussa Declaration and alleged that none of the references used in the 103 rejection teaches a three-component immunoassay. Specifically, the Applicant alleged that the Office Action's reliance on "polypeptide" to be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as the analytes of the amended claims using Li's assay is, respectfully, not supported. The Applicant alleged that Li clearly teaches that the "contaminant" is a pathogenic organism, such as a bacteria, yeast, or virus, or that the polypeptide is "prions and toxins". The Applicant alleged that there are no other examples of polypeptide "contaminants" in Li’s reference. The Applicant further alleged that the Office action has failed to establish that Li teaches a method using the claimed three- component assay to detect the recited analytes (e.g., non-contaminants - thyroid stimulating hormone, troponin, LH, and PSA).
This argument is not persuasive because Li clearly teaches a three-component immunoassay (Sheet 1 of 9, FIG.2, “Ab-magnetic Bead”, “Target Bacterium”, “Biotin-Ab”, “Quantum Dot Streptavidin”, “λEx 473 nm”, “λEm 609 nm”; page 4, [0042]). The Applicant referred to “Bacterial Target” in Figure 2 to show that Li only teaches a bacterial target. However, Li clearly states that figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the principle of contaminant detection based on combination of quantum dot labeling and bead-based separation (Page 2, [0016]). Li further teaches as described above that the target analyte is a contaminant that can be selected from a group consisting of a prokaryote, a eukaryote, a virus, and a polypeptide (Page 2, [0016]; page 9, claim 8). Li teaches that different contaminants are not just bacterial contaminants [0033]. Li does not only teach measuring contaminants, e.g., Li teaches detecting pesticides [0033]. Furthermore, it is not necessary that Li teach using the three-component assay to measure the claimed analytes as this rejection is one over a combination of references/. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Li’s disclosure of measuring contaminants does not teach away from the analytes of the claims because the disclosure of Li does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. “The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the instant case, Li did not argue against using the three-part assay to test for analytes, and thus Li does not teach away from testing analytes in blood.
Second, the Applicant alleged that the combination of the different methods of the references used in the 103 rejection of the instant claims results in a nonfunctional method. Specifically, the Applicant alleged that the components (e.g., capture moiety and reporter binding moiety) form a particle complex via binding different portions of the same analyte, as demonstrated in the third Koussa Declaration at Figs. B and C). The Applicant alleged that this cannot occur in Li’s reference, and combination with the other references does not lead one skilled in the art towards a method with this type of binding mode. The Applicant further alleged that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not modify Li’s method to have a magnetic bead and a reporter bind different portions of the same analyte because then such an assay would have a sample with mixture of contaminants, where some is bound by the reporter that does not bind the magnetic bead (and vice versa), where the detection of some contaminants is lost - defeating the purpose for the assay, or at the very least precipitously decreasing its accuracy and limit of detection
This argument is not persuasive because the different methods are in the area of immunoassays and the different adaptations of references are advantageous additives to the method of Lau. Specifically, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the sandwich immunoassay of troponin of Song with the magnetic method of Lau to improve then sensitivity of the detection method of an analyte of interest in an immunoassay because Song noted the suitability of their method to detect troponin from blood samples (Page 3819, right column, first paragraph). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the metallic magnetic particle of Agrawal with the methods of Song and Lau because Agrawal showed how to use a metallic magnetic particle as part of an immunoassay for the sensitive capture and separation of an analyte by a magnetic field (Abstract) and to have a sensitive detection of an analyte by using an antibody-conjugated semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) (Abstract). Agrawal further noted that QDs exhibit unique optical properties such as size-tunable fluorescence emission (spectral shifting), large absorption coefficients, improved brightness, and superior photostability (Abstract). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the three-component method of detection of Li with the methods of Agrawal, Song and Lau because Li teaches using a capture moiety, a reporter moiety and a reporter in a three-component method to increase the sensitivity of signal detection of an analyte in an immunoassay (Sheet 1 of 9, FIG.2; page 4, [0042]). Li further teaches using their method to detect a wide range of analytes (Page 3, [0033]) and teaches that the logical approach to detecting an analyte is by detecting different epitopes to an analyte to achieve specific detection [0056]. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the gold core particles of Oldenburg with the methods of Li, Agrawal, Song and Lau because Oldenburg teaches using a gold core particle with a silica shell that is impregnated with one or more quantum dots for optical detection and to provide protective coating of the particles (Page 1, [0005-0006]; pages 6-7, [0102]). Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the above methods and inventions to improve the sensitivity of detection of an immunoassay and the stability of capture particles.
Third, the Applicant alleged that synergy is the sum of individual parts. Specifically, the Applicant alleged that the first Koussa Declaration (Sections 7- 10 and shown in Fig. D and Table A, submitted February 21, 2024) describes that a three-component method was tested head-to-head against a two-component method - using the same reagents between the two methods. The Applicant alleged that the comparison demonstrated that the three-component method provided superior limit-of- detection (LOD), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), limit of blank (LOB), and overall maximal signal as compared to the two-component assay. The Applicant submitted that the two- component method was even performed with higher concentrations of reagents than the three-component method, and the three-component method still performed better. The Applicant alleged that they have shown clear, quantitative comparative data that proves the results of the three-component method are unexpected and not simply a synergistic outcome.
This argument is not persuasive because synergy is the combined effects of two or more components that is greater than the sum of individual components. Applicant alleges that the invention is predicated on an unexpected result, which typically involves synergism, an unpredictable phenomenon that is highly dependent upon specific proportions and/or amounts of particular ingredients. Any mixture of the components embraced by the claims which does not exhibit an unexpected result, e.g., synergism, is therefore ipso facto unpatentable. The Applicant argued against synergism and alleged that the unexpected results are not due to synergy among the different components of the immunoassay. In order to properly evidence unexpected results, the declaration should have explicit descriptions of all test conditions, i.e, precisely what was done should be recited in the declaration (actual steps carried out, materials employed, all amounts of reagents used, etc. Nothing should be left to conjecture. In order for the comparison to be valid, the closest prior art and the claimed invention must be tested under substantially the same conditions. In this case, the comparison between the three-component and the two-component assay is not under the same experimental conditions (e.g., same amounts of reagents) as noted by the Applicant in their response and in the first Koussa Declaration., Additionally, the claims are generic to any amount of reagent and are generic to many experimental conditions, while the declaration uses specific amounts and specific conditions. Thus, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the evidence of unexpected results.
Fourth, the Applicant questioned which Declaration was being referred to in the last Office action of 06/06/2025. Specifically, the Applicant alleged that the Office action of 06/06/2025 is not clear with respect to which of the three declarations it is referencing (perhaps overlooking one or more), and that the three declarations, collectively, provide data for the detection of more than three different analytes using the three-component system. The Applicant has amended the claims to recite detection of thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), troponin, luteinizing hormone (LH), or prostate specific antigen (PSA), to be commensurate with the data of the first Koussa Declaration (originally submitted February 21, 2024), the second Koussa Declaration (originally submitted October 2, 2024), and the third Koussa Declaration (originally submitted March 19, 2025), as well as paragraphs [0016], [0066]-[0067], [0142], [0184] of the specification. The Applicant respectfully points out that one or more of the first Koussa Declaration (submitted February 21, 2024), second Koussa Declaration (submitted October 2, 2024), and third Koussa Declaration (submitted March 19, 2025) may have been incorrectly listed in the File Wrapper and potentially overlooked by the Office action.
The first Koussa Declaration (originally submitted February 21, 2024) compares TSH three-component assay to two-component assays. However, the first Koussa Declaration does not compare the same amount of reagents (e.g., 5x or 10x) of three-component assay to two-component assay nor does it use the same experimental conditions in the comparison. Also, the claims do require the amount of reagents used in the declaration for performing the three-component assay of TSH. Thus, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the first Koussa Declaration.
The second Koussa Declaration (originally submitted October 2, 2024) only cover the improved sensitivity of the three-component assay for Troponin, luteinizing hormone (LH) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) by covering the limit of detection (LOD). The second Koussa Declaration does not show the comparison of the LOD of three-component assay of troponin, LH or PSA to a two-component assay of troponin, LH or PSA. The second Koussa Declaration does not cover TSH. Last, the claims of the instant application do not teach the LOD to use. Thus, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the second Koussa Declaration.
The third Koussa Declaration (originally submitted March 19, 2025) teaches the data of the first and second declaration along with mathematical modeling and kinetics calculations. The claims of the instant application do not recite any of the calculations nor the experimental conditions for any of the three declarations. Thus, the claims are still not commensurate in scope with the third Koussa Declaration.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR RAMADAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Gregory Emch can be reached at (571) 272-8149. 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.
/OMAR RAMADAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1678
/GREGORY S EMCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1678