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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 10-11, and 13 are examined.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winnik et al. (PGPub 2008/0003,616), in view of Melikechi et al. (IDS; PGPub 2011/0171,636), Wang et al. (IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2014, vol. 17, 012208), and Olstein et al. (PGPub 2003/0175207), and as evidenced by Cremers et al. (Encyclopedia of Analytical Chemistry, 2006, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.) and 35th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment ((ISRSE35) 22–26 April 2013, Beijing, China), for reasons of record which are reiterated herein below.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 13, Winnik teaches “Element tags based on novel metal-polymer conjugates are provided for elemental analysis of analytes” and “The polymer is further functionalized to attach a linker which allows for attachment to antibodies or other affinity reagents” (Abstract). “An aspect of the invention is to provide an element tag comprising a polymer, wherein the polymer comprises at least one metal-binding pendant group that comprises at least one metal atom or is capable of binding at least one metal atom. The element tag can further comprise a functional group that allows the polymer to be attached to a biomolecule” ([0045]). “The element tag described above, can be covalently attached to a biomolecule. The biomolecule can be an affinity reagent, and the affinity reagent can be an antibody” ([0048]). The tag can be a polymer with covalently attached multiple chelating groups, and the chelating groups can have an element or multitude of elements attached to them ([0022]).
Additionally, Winnik teaches a method for the analysis of an analyte, comprising (i) incubating the element tagged affinity reagent described above with an analyte, wherein the affinity reagent binds with the analyte; (ii) separating unbound tagged affinity reagent from bound affinity reagent; and (iii) analyzing the element bound to the affinity reagent attached to the analyte by elemental analysis” ([0053]).
Winnik also teaches a method for characterizing a target within a sample, the method comprising:
applying to the sample a recognition construct comprising multiple metals and a scaffold, wherein the scaffold is configured to bind to the target (claims 1 and 14), or causing the target to bind with a recognition construct, the recognition construct comprising a scaffold configured to bind with the target; a polymer coupled to the scaffold and comprising a metal-chelating ligand; and a metal atom or ion linked to the metal chelating ligand, the sample comprising the target bound with the recognition construct - specifically, Winnik teaches labeling a model cell line, K562 with primary antibodies attached to a metal-polymer conjugate ([0138]), wherein antibodies are scaffolds, configured to bind their targets located on the surface of the cells: CD38, CD110, CD61, CD45, CD54 and CD49d; metal ions in the recognition constructs were Ho, Dy, Nd, Eu, Pr, and La (one metal ion per antibody/recognition construct);
incubating the targets and the antibody-metal complexes from step (a) above, washing unbound sample components and pelleting labeled cells by centrifugation. The pelleted cells were dissolved in hydrochloric acid for elemental analysis ([0138]);
applying energy to the sample, wherein the applied energy is sufficient to transform at least some of the sample into a plasma – specifically, Winnik teaches subjecting cells dissolved in step (b) to inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) to measure elemental composition ([0138]). During an ICP-MS analysis at least some of the sample is converted into a plasma and later analyzed by mass spectroscopy.
Additionally, Winnik teaches that ‘tagged affinity reagent’ is an affinity reagent (for example, an antibody) that is conjugated to a synthetic tag (moiety) usually through a linker group. The tag can be, but is not limited to, a polymer with covalently attached multiple chelating groups ([0022]), and “flexible linker/spacer at one end of the polymer may contain a thiol-reactive functional group such as a maleimide, and through this group can be linked to an affinity reagent (for example an antibody) for the specific target analyte” ([0093]). Winnik teaches a typical source of biological samples are viruses, bacteria, or fungi ([0013]), meeting the limitation of claim 1 reciting pathogens.
Furthermore, Winnik teaches metal-containing tags for labeling of bioorganic molecules can have three or four moieties: the attachment group (linker), possibly a spacer (for example, a PEG spacer), the polymer skeleton (carrier), and the tag atoms (as many tag atoms (of the same metal or isotope, or of a different metal and/or isotope) as possible) ([0090]). As such, Winnik teaches the limitation of claim 1 reciting multiple different metal atoms bound to a polymer.
Finally, Winnik teaches that “[t]he invention involves primarily but not exclusively the following aspects:” ([0085]) … “(iv) Method of employing the affinity reagents as multiplexing tools” ([0089]). It is known in the art that optical spectrum signals of metal atoms or ions depend on specific parameters of electron orbitals of each element. There are no different metal atoms or ions having the same electron orbitals, therefore optical spectrum signals of different metal atoms or ions are inherently unique. Therefore, Winnik teaches the use of the different metal atoms or ions adjusts the optical spectrum signal to increase multiplexing factor, meeting this limitation recited in claim 1.
Winnik fails to teach detection of pathogens in the food or water sample, the metals bound to a polymer that is bound to the antibody, retaining the sample on a substrate, optical detection of the signal, its normalization and target characterization based on such normalization, and determining comprises performing at least one of spectral unmixing, constrained energy minimization (CEM), pattern recognition, or classification.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 13, Melikechi teaches mono- and multi-element coded laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy assays and methods (Title). Melikechi also teaches retaining the sample on a substrate, wherein the target within the sample is bound to a capture antibody that is coupled to a silicon substrate (Si particles).
Specifically, Melikechi teaches preparation of immunoconjugated Si particles using commercially available 1.5 µm diameter protein A-coated Si particles ([0036]). Antibody specific to the target molecule binds to protein A molecules on the surface of the Si particles. Subsequent binding of the target to the antibody retains the target on the substrate (the surface of the Si particles).
The order of binding steps taught by Melikechi differs from the order of claim 1. Melikechi teaches binding of the antibody to the substrate and then binding the target to the immobilized antibody. Claim 1 recites binding scaffold to the target and then retaining the complex on the substrate. Both, approaches are widely and interchangeably used in the art, achieving the same final result of immobilization of the scaffold-target complex on the substrate. Because the specification does not establish any criticality for the recited approach, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to practice either approach with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, claim 1 does not explicitly teach an order of steps. The scaffold binding to a target is also not an active method step since it’s just part of a “configured to” step. Finally, the retaining step does not explicitly say that the complexed pathogen/target is retained so any retaining of the sample on a substrate should teach this.
Melikechi also teaches detecting electromagnetic radiation emitted by the plasma to provide an optical-spectrum signal of the metal atoms or ions; generating a normalized optical-spectrum signal by normalizing the optical-spectrum signal with respect to an optical-spectrum signal of a material of the substrate; and determining presence of the target in the sample based at least in part on the normalized optical-spectrum signal.
Specifically, Melikechi teaches “A laser is focused onto the sample and pulsed to generate a plasma and dissociate the sample into atomic species. One or more atomic emission spectra are produced based on the types of element-coded particles in the sample. Commercially available software programs are used to identify and quantify the types of element-coded particles present in the sample. The spectral "bar codes" are then compared with the types of element-coded particles mixed with the sample and "translated" to determine which biomarkers are present in the sample” ([0032]).
Additionally, Melikechi teaches obtaining the silicon standard emission spectrum from the preparation of immunoconjugated protein A-coated Si particles ([0036]), meeting the limitation of normalizing the optical-spectrum signal of the sample with respect to an optical-spectrum signal of a material of the substrate.
Because the specification does not establish any criticality for normalizing the optical-spectrum signal in a specific way, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to practice spectral signal processing using commercially available software programs, specifically designed for this purpose, as taught by Melikechi, with a reasonable expectation of success of detecting electromagnetic radiation emitted by the plasma, generating a normalized optical-spectrum signal, and determining the presence of the target.
Winnik and Melikechi fail to teach detection of pathogens in the food or water sample and spectral unmixing or constrained energy minimization (CEM).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 13, Wang teaches “A Novel and Effective Multivariate Method for Compositional Analysis using Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy” (Title). Wang also teaches spectral unmixing or constrained energy minimization (CEM).
Specifically, Wang teaches “multivariate analysis (MVA) techniques are coupled with laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) to estimate quantitative elemental compositions and determine the type of the sample. In particular, we present a new multivariate analysis method for composition analysis, referred to as "spectral unmixing"” (Abstract). 35th International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment publication confirms that Wang was published online in March 2014, prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention (see pg. 1 for the publication date and pg. 27 for Wang publication entry).
Winnik, Melikechi, Wang, and 35th Symposium fail teach detection of pathogens in the food or water sample.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 13, Olstein teaches methods utilizing complexes of bacteriocins and metals for detecting bacteria and fungi (Abstract). Olstein also teaches detection of pathogens in the food or water sample.
Specifically, Olstein teaches sensitive and rapid detection of bacteria and other pathogens in food or water samples ([0050]) using novel bacteriocin derivative that takes the form of a chelated complex comprising a bacteriocin and a metal ([0014]), wherein the metal can be Cu, Co, Fe, Mn, Cr, Ni, Zn, Tc, or lanthanide metals such as Gd, La, Eu, Tb, Dy, and Er ([0016]). Bacteriocin of Olstein is a functional equivalent of the antibody of Winnik; therefore, antibodies and bacteriocin can be used interchangeably for pathogen detection.
Additionally, Olstein teaches “[t]he methods of the present invention are suitable for use in rapidly detecting gram-positive bacteria and mycobacteria in samples as diverse as drinking water, hamburger and blood” ([0139]). The gram-positive bacteria and mycobacteria are pathogens.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Winnik, by retaining the sample on a substrate, and detecting electromagnetic radiation emitted by laser-generated plasma to provide an optical-spectrum signal as taught by Melikechi, in order to provide a method for identifying and quantifying target molecules not limited to those attached to cells (Winnik) and using an optical-spectrum signal for a fast and simultaneous detection of multiple targets labeled with different metals. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a change because retention of the targets on the substrate is a standard practice of target analysis and allows analysis of targets of wide range of sizes. The optical spectrum detection is beneficial for multiplexed analysis (Melikechi, [0058]). The use of such combination would have been desirable to those of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons mentioned above.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the prior art references because Winnik teaches metal-polymer labels conjugated to antibodies. The plasma-based metal ion analysis is a well-known technique with a wide range of applications, including analysis of biological samples.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Winnik and Melikechi by employing spectral unmixing analysis as taught by Wang, as an obvious matter to try, namely choosing from a finite list of suitable, art recognized/known methods for analysis of laser induced breakdown spectroscopy results with a reasonable expectation of success. The spectral unmixing analysis was used to elemental compositions of metal-containing samples using ICP-OS detection method (Wang, pg. 4, line 1), which is closely related to the ICP-MS method of Winnik.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Winnik, Melikechi, and Wang by applying it for determining presence of a pathogen within a food or water sample as taught by Olstein, as an obvious matter of using of known technique (analysis of pathogens using metals) to improve similar methods (method of Winnik, Melikechi, and Wang) in the same way. Olstein teaches analysis of pathogens in food or water samples ([0050]) using wide variety of metals: Cu, Co, Fe, Mn, Cr, Ni, Zn, Tc, Gd, La, Eu, Tb, Dy, and Er ([0016]), wherein Winnik teaches transition elements and lanthanides ([0047]). The elements of Olstein and Winnik overlap, therefore the combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Winnik and Melikechi teach antibodies as a pathogen-specific scaffold and Olstein teaches bacteriocin as a pathogen-specific scaffold. Bacteriocin of Olstein is a functional equivalent of the antibody taught by Winnik. The antibodies and bacteriocin can be used interchangeably as analyte-specific molecules with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 2-3, Winnik and Melikechi teach using ICP and laser to generate plasma. As evidenced by Cremers, laser focused onto a sample is heating the sample “material is atomized and excited at the high temperature of laser spark plasma” (pg. 1 Col. 2, 1st paragraph of Introduction), meeting the limitation of claim 2.
The laser used to generate plasma also meets the limitation of claim 3 reciting applying energy comprises irradiating at least part of the sample using a laser.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches “multivariate analysis (MVA) techniques are coupled with laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) to estimate quantitative elemental compositions and determine the type of the sample. In particular, we present a new multivariate analysis method for composition analysis, referred to as "spectral unmixing"” (Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Winnik teaches the metal-chelating ligand is diethylenetriamine pentaacetate (DTPA), an acyclic chelator that can be readily derivatized as an amine functionalized ligand (Scheme 1, FIG. 2).” ([0097]).
Regarding claim 13, Winnik teaches metal atom or ion linked to the metal-chelating ligand comprises a lanthanide. Specifically, Winnik teaches “The metal atom can be a transition element or an isotope thereof, or a lanthanide or an isotope of a lanthanide” ([0047]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winnik, in view of Melikechi, Wang, Olstein, and 35th Symposium, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davis et al. (WO 99/15865), for reasons of record which are reiterated herein below.
The teachings of Winnik, Melikechi, Wang, Olstein, and 35th Symposium have been set forth above.
Winnik, Melikechi, Wang, Olstein, and 35th Symposium fail to teach applying energy comprises applying a spark to at least part of the sample.
Regarding claim 4, Davis teaches induced breakdown spectroscopy detector system (Title) and “invention related to high power, spark induced breakdown spectroscopy (SIBS) detectors” (Abstract). Davis also teaches applying energy comprise applying a spark to at least part of the sample.
Specifically, Davis teaches “a relatively powerful electrical spark discharge creates a small volume of hot plasma in which aerosol and solid particulates are quickly vaporized and components are reduced to atomic form. Initially, the plasma emits broadband, essentially continuous radiation. Monitoring of atomic emissions in selected wavelength bands during the relatively short period of time during which the plasma cools enables measurement of elemental concentrations” (pg. 1, lines 20-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Winnik, Melikechi, Wang, Olstein, and 35th Symposium, by employing spark-generated plasma as taught by Davis, as an obvious matter to try, namely choosing from a finite list of suitable, art recognized/known methods for achieving plasma generation and sample ionization.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the prior art references because spark-generated plasma has already been used for elemental analysis (Davis).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winnik, in view of Melikechi, Wang, Olstein, and 35th Symposium, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Schierle et al. (Fresenius J Anal Chem 343, 561–565 (1992)), for reasons of record which are reiterated herein below.
The teachings of Winnik, Melikechi, Wang, Olstein, and 35th Symposium have been set forth above.
Winnik, Melikechi, Wang, Olstein, and 35th Symposium fail to teach specific multi-class classifier for determining presence of the metal in the sample.
Regarding claim 11, Schierle teaches “A neural network approach to qualitative analysis in inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES)” (Title). Schierle also teaches using a neural network for elemental analysis.
Specifically, Schierle teaches “The use of a simple neural network, the Bidirectional Associative Memory (BAM), is described for the qualitative and semiquantitative analysis in ICP-AES” (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Winnik, Melikechi, Wang, Olstein, and 35th Symposium by employing the neural network analysis as taught by Schierle, as an obvious matter to try, namely choosing from a finite list of suitable, art recognized/known mathematical methods for determining presence of a metal.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the prior art references because neural network analysis has already been used for elemental analysis (Schierle).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that “an important element of the claims is missing from this rationale; mainly, that the claims require an antibody that binds a pathogen in the food or water sample and neither Winnik or Melikechi disclose or suggest an antibody that binds a pathogen in the food or water sample” (pg. 6, par. 1). The non-final OA (August 26, 2025) clearly stated that “Winnik and Melikechi fail to teach detection of pathogens in the food or water sample” (OA; pg. 7, par. 3). The Office never relied on Winnik and Melikechi teaching detection of pathogens in the food or water. However, Winnik does teach antibodies labeled with elemental tags “The polymer is further functionalized to attach a linker which allows for attachment to antibodies or other affinity reagents” (Abstract). The reference of Olstein teaches food or water samples (see details below).
Applicant argues that if “the antibody constructs of Winnik or Melikechi were used to try and detect a pathogen in food or water sample, such an approach would fail as neither Winnik or Melikechi disclose or suggest that their antibodies would bind a pathogen in a food or water sample” and “a negative reading would be obtained under the combination” (pg. 6, par. 2). The argument is not persuasive because:
no antibodies were cited by their target or structure from the teachings of Winnik and Melikechi; therefore, Applicant cannot provide strong evidence that these antibodies would not bind a pathogen in a food or water sample. Such argument requires evidence from prior art, which Applicant fails to provide;
Winnik teaches “an affinity reagent (for example an antibody) for the specific target analyte” ([0093]) and “a typical source of biological samples are viruses, bacteria, or fungi” ([0013]). Therefore, Winnik teaches that antibodies can be used for determining presence of a pathogen. Typically, antibodies are selected for their binding to a target in a chosen assay buffer in the presence of a certain fraction of the original sample. Therefore, it would be obvious to select an antibody for binding to the target in the presence of a certain fraction of food or water. Antibody-based assays are routinely run in the presence of an assay buffer, in fact it is highly unusual to use actual raw sample (e.g., food or water) as the main solvent for the assay. Antibodies are known for their ability to bind to pathogens from different samples (e.g., blood, serum, urine, CSF); therefore, one would have had a reasonable expectation of success by utilizing antibodies with food or water samples.
Additionally, Olstein teaches sensitive and rapid detection of bacteria and other pathogens in food or water samples ([0050]) using novel bacteriocin derivative that takes the form of a chelated complex comprising a bacteriocin and a metal ([0014]), wherein the metal can be Cu, Co, Fe, Mn, Cr, Ni, Zn, Tc, or lanthanide metals such as Gd, La, Eu, Tb, Dy, and Er ([0016]). Bacteriocin is a molecule with specific binding properties analogous to those of antibodies. Bacteriocin of Olstein is a functional equivalent of the antibody of Winnik; therefore, the antibody can be used instead of bacteriocin. Specifically, Olstein teaches “The term “sample” refers to any substance (e.g., food, water, … that it is desired to test for the presence of pathogens or non-pathogenic organisms” ([0050]).
Applicant argues that “Olstein cannot and does not cure that deficiency of the combination as Olstein' s teachings regarding bacteriocin do not teach to the skilled artisan which antibody to use in the antibody constructs of Winnik or Melikechi in order to bind pathogen in a food or water sample” (pg. 6, par. 3). The argument is not persuasive because Olstein is not cited for its teaching of antibodies. Olstein teaches a scaffold (bacteriocin) labeled with metal ions capable of detecting “bacteria, fungi and other biological analytes, and are particularly useful in detecting gram positive bacteria” (Abstract) in food or water ([0050]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use antibodies of Winnik with specificity toward pathogens (Winnik - viruses, bacteria, or fungi ([0013])) instead of bacteriocin of Olstein, because using antibodies as affinity molecules is a common practice in pathogen assays.
Applicant argues that “even if Olstein suggests application of the antibody constructs of Winnik or Melikechi to a food or water sample, that combination still does not disclose or suggest an antibody that binds a pathogen in the food or water sample” (pg. 6, par. 4-5). The argument is not persuasive because it is Winnik and Melikechi that teach detection of pathogens using antibodies labeled with metals atoms. Winnik and Melikechi are generic with respect to the source of the pathogens. Olstein teaches detection of pathogens in food or water. Winnik, Melikechi and Olstein teach analogous art of detecting pathogens using affinity molecules labeled with metal atoms. It would have been obvious to combine a labeled affinity molecule (antibody) having specificity to pathogens (Winnik and Melikechi) with detection of pathogens in food or water of Olstein, as an obvious matter of using a known technique (detection of pathogens in food or water) with a known method (detection of pathogens using antibodies labeled with metals atoms of Winnik and Melikechi) that is ready for improvement (expanding pathogen detection to food or water samples).
Applicant argues that “the evidence for teaching away from this substitution is found in Olstein itself” (pg. 7, par. 1, and the rest of pg. 7). Applicant cites Olstein as “The pathogens may be isolated from the sample prior to contacting the sample with the bacteriocin-metal complex” (pg. 7, par. 2). The argument is not persuasive because Olstein specifically teaches use of labeled antibody for target detection as “an antibody, specific for an antigen on the target bacteria is labeled with fluorescein to make a fluorescent antibody” ([0010]). This teaching clearly contradicts the Applicant’s teaching away argument.
The prior art does not teach away because disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, "[t]he 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…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (MPEP 2123.II).
Conclusion
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Volkov whose telephone number is (571) 272-1899. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bao-Thuy Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-0824. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ALEXANDER ALEXANDROVIC VOLKOV/Examiner, Art Unit 1677
/REBECCA M GIERE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1677