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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the Remarks filed on 2/23/2024 is acknowledged.
Claim 27-29, 31, 33-34, 36-38, and 59 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the Remarks filed on 2/23/2024.
Status of Claims
Cancelled: 2, 5-9, 12-18, 21-26, 30, 32, 35-60
Withdrawn: 27-29, 31, 33-34
Examined Herein: 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 19, 20, 61-65
Priority
Priority to PRO 62/666,489 filed on 5/3/2018 and PCT/US19/30665 filed on 5/3/2019 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/23/2024 are in compliance with the
provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/15/2020 are accepted.
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 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 1, 4, 10, 11, 19, and 61-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrall (US 2014/0248608 A1, Published 9/4/2014), in view of Vogel (The design of MACs (minimal actin cortices), 10/4/2013, Cytoskeleton, 70:706-717).
With respect to claim 1, Barrall discloses a nanopore device comprising a membrane spanning an aperture, the membrane comprising:
a lipid bilayer; and
at least one pore through the membrane;
wherein the aperture is 0.25 nm to 100 µm, or at least about 1 micrometer (µm) in diameter. [Barrall, 0098, 0103, 0105, 0114, 0115]
With respect to claim 4, Barrall discloses the device may comprise one pore per aperture. [Barrall, 0094, 0115]
With respect to claim 61, Barrall discloses the pore may be alpha hemolysin, MspA, OmpF, and
gramicidin A, which are ion channels. [Barrall, 0010, 0115]
With respect to claim 63, Barrall discloses the aperture may be about 0.25 nm to 100 µm in diameter. [Barrall, 0098] Thus, the claimed range, 10 µm to 100 µm, is within the range disclosed by Barrall.
With respect to claim 64, Barrall discloses the aperture may be about 0.25 nm to 100 µm diameter. [Barrall, 0098] Thus, the claimed range, 50 µm to 100 µm, is within the range disclosed by Barrall.
With respect to claim 65, Barrall discloses the aperture may be about 0.25 nm to 100 µm, which is up to 1 mm. [Barrall, 0098]
Barrall further discloses the nanopore devices are comprised of a substrate, wherein the substrate is glass and contains an aperture. [Barrall, 0094, 0096, 0098, 0118]
Barrall does not disclose the lipid bilayer is linked to a filamentous network that is external to the membrane through a chemical link, wherein the filamentous network is a polypeptide, an oligonucleotide, or an oligosaccharide.
However, with respect to claim 1, Vogel discloses a lipid bilayer supported on glass, wherein the lipid bilayer contains functionalized biotinylated lipids that bind to neutravidin. [Page 707, Col. 2, Paragraph 2] Vogel discloses the lipid bilayer is linked to a filamentous network/polypeptide, actin, through a chemical link, a protein bridge. [Vogel, Page 708, Figure 1A]
With respect to claim 10, Vogel discloses the filamentous network/polypeptide is actin. [Vogel, Page 708, Figure 1A] Actin is a cytoskeletal peptide.
With respect to claim 11, Vogel discloses the polypeptide, actin, is linked to the lipid bilayer through a protein bridge. [Vogel, Page 708, Figure 1A]
With respect to claim 19, Vogel discloses the protein bridge comprises neutravidin. [Vogel, Page 708, Figure 1A]
With respect to claim 62, Vogel discloses the protein bridge is neutravidin-biotin. [Vogel, Page 708, Figure 1A] Neutravidin-biotin is a non-covalent link.
Modifying the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall by linking a filamentous network/polypeptide, like actin, to the membrane through a non-covalent chemical link, like a neutravidin-biotin protein bridge, results in the nanopore device of claim 1.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall by linking a filamentous network/polypeptide, like actin, to the membrane through a non-covalent chemical link, like a neutravidin-biotin protein bridge and have a reasonable expectation of success because Barrall discloses a nanopore device comprising a membrane, wherein the membrane comprises a lipid bilayer and is supported by a substrate made of glass, wherein the substrate contains an aperture. Barrall further discloses the membrane spans the aperture. Vogel discloses a lipid bilayer supported on glass, wherein the lipid bilayer contains functionalized biotinylated lipids that bind to neutravidin and is linked to a filamentous network/polypeptide, actin, through a chemical link, a protein bridge. Barrall teaches a lipid bilayer supported on glass and Vogel teaches that a lipid bilayer supported on glass may be linked to a filamentous network/polypeptide through a chemical link. Thus, the combined teachings of Barrall and Vogel suggests that the lipid bilayer supported on glass disclosed by Barrall may be linked to a filamentous network/polypeptide through a chemical link. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall may be modified by linking a filamentous network/polypeptide, like actin, to the membrane through a non-covalent chemical link, like a neutravidin-biotin protein bridge. One would have been motivated to do so because such a modification enables the formation of an actin-membrane interface between the filamentous network and the membrane of the nanopore device. The resulting interface may be used to investigate general principles underlying membrane shape changes governed by the interplay between the actin cytoskeleton and membranes. [Vogel, Page 706, Col. 1, Paragraph 2 and Col. 2, Paragraph 2]
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 19, and 61-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrall and Vogel, as applied to claim 1, 4, 10, 11, 19, and 61-65 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 2018/0364169 A1, Filed 6/6/2016).
With respect to claim 1, Barrall and Vogel disclose the teachings above.
Barrall and Vogel do not disclose the nanopore device comprises a plurality of apertures.
However, with respect to claim 3, Anderson discloses a nanopore device comprising a membrane spanning an aperture, the membrane comprising:
a lipid bilayer; and
at least one pore through the membrane.
Anderson further discloses the nanopore devices comprises a plurality of apertures. [Anderson, 0036, 0060]
Modifying the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall and Vogel by adding a plurality of apertures, results in the nanopore device of claim 3.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall and Vogel by adding a plurality of apertures to the device and have a reasonable expectation of success because Barrall and Vogel disclose a nanopore device comprising a membrane spanning an aperture, wherein the membrane comprises a lipid bilayer with a pore through the membrane. Similarly, Anderson discloses a nanopore device comprising a membrane spanning an aperture, wherein the membrane comprises a lipid bilayer with at least one pore through the membrane. Anderson further discloses the nanopore device may comprise a plurality of apertures. Barrall and Vogel teach the previously described nanopore device and Anderson teaches that such a device may comprise a plurality of apertures. Thus, the combined teachings of Barrall and Vogel and Anderson suggests that since the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall and Vogel comprises a membrane spanning an aperture, wherein the membrane comprises a lipid bilayer and a pore through the membrane, said device may comprise a plurality of apertures. Therefore, in view of the structural similarities between the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall and Vogel and Anderson, it is reasonable to expect the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall and Vogel may be modified by adding a plurality of apertures to the device. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a precise location of nanopores for optical read out techniques, which is achieved by deploying a plurality of regularly spaced apertures. [Anderson, 0035]
Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 19, 20, and 61-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrall and Vogel, as applied to claim 1, 4, 10, 11, 19, and 61-65 above, and further in view of Nova (Investigating asymmetric salt profiles for nanopore DNA sequencing with biological porin MspA, 7/27/2017, PLos One, 12(7): e0181599).
With respect to claim 1, Barrall and Vogel disclose the teachings above.
Recall, Barrall discloses the pore may be MspA, which is an ion channel. [Barrall, 0010]
Barrall and Vogel do not disclose the nanopore device further comprises a molecular motor, wherein said motor is adjacent to the at least one pore and is capable of moving a polymer with respect to the at least one pore.
However, with respect to claim 20, Nova discloses a nanopore device comprising a membrane comprising:
a lipid bilayer; and
a pore, MspA, through the membrane. [Nova, Page 2, Figure 1]
Nova discloses the nanopore device further comprises a molecular motor enzyme, wherein said motor is adjacent to the pore and is capable of moving a polymer, DNA polymerase, with respect to the pore. [Nova, Abstract and Page 2, Figure 1 and Page 5, Figure 2 and Page 6, Figure 3 and Page 8, Figure 4]
Modifying the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall and Vogel by adding a molecular motor, wherein said motor is adjacent to the pore and is capable of moving a polymer with respect to the pore, results in the nanopore device of claim 20.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall and Vogel by adding a molecular motor, wherein said motor is adjacent to the pore and is capable of moving a polymer with respect to the pore and have a reasonable expectation of success because Barrall and Vogel disclose a nanopore device comprising a membrane comprising a lipid bilayer and a pore, including alpha hemolysin, MspA, OmpF, or gramicidin A, through the membrane. Similarly, Nova discloses a nanopore device comprising a membrane comprising a lipid bilayer and a pore, MspA, through the membrane. Nova further discloses the nanopore device also comprises a molecular motor enzyme, wherein said motor is adjacent to the pore and is capable of moving a polymer, DNA polymerase, with respect to the pore. The disclosure of Nova establishes that a nanopore device comprising a lipid bilayer and a pore, MspA, through the membrane may also comprise a molecular motor enzyme adjacent to the pore that is capable of moving a polymer with respect to the pore. Thus, the combined teachings of Barrall and Vogel and Nova suggests that since the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall and Vogel comprises a lipid bilayer and a pore, including MspA, through the membrane, said device may also comprise a molecular motor enzyme adjacent to the pore that is capable of moving a polymer with respect to the pore. Therefore, in view of the structural similarities between the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall and Vogel and Nova, it is reasonable to expect the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall and Vogel may be modified by adding a molecular motor, wherein said motor is adjacent to the pore and is capable of moving a polymer with respect to the pore. One would have been motivated to do so to identify a DNA strand sequence because Nova explains driving a molecule through the pore of a membrane’s electric field, produces a measurable ion current. Negatively charged DNA molecules in the cis chamber will be attracted to can be used to and translocate through the pore towards the positive trans chamber. DNA within the pore affects the flow of ions, changing the measured ion current. Because the blockage currents depend on the specific DNA nucleotides passing through the pore, these signals can be used to identify DNA strand sequence. [Nova, Page 1, Paragraph 1 and Page 2, Paragraph 1]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/6/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 19, 20, and 61-65 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments largely restate and summarize the same assertions made in the Burden Declaration and do not present materially different issues. Accordingly, the response (provided below) to the Burden Declaration is equally applicable to Applicant’s remarks. Ultimately, both Applicant’s remarks and the Burden Declaration are not persuasive.
Declaration
The Burden Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, filed 2/6/2026, is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 19, 20, and 61-65 based upon 35 U.S.C 103 as set forth in the last Office action because the assertions made fails to sufficiently rebut the prima facie case of obviousness of record.
Dr. Burden asserts “One of ordinary skill in the art, however, would have known at the time of our patent application (in 2018-2019) that such lipid bilayers would fail mechanically (see U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0172928 A1, paragraph [0006] and the underlying motivations for all the cited studies). For example, reduced aperture size, the surface energy of the substrate materials, the effect of hydrated polymer cushions, lipid photopolymerization, chemical cross-linking of lipids, and droplet interface bilayers (DIBs) were all investigated prior to the filing of our application. Among other things, these works point to significant mechanical and electrical limitations for bilayers having an aperture size of 1 μm or greater.” [Burden Declaration - 2/6/2026, Paragraph 4, 3.4]
A prior art reference is presumed to be operable/enabling. MPEP 2121(I). Accordingly, the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall is presumed mechanically operable. The burden to rebut the presumption of operability is on the Applicant. However, Applicant’s arguments amount to general assertions. Applicant identifies factors that present significant mechanical and electrical limitations for bilayers having an aperture size of 1 μm or greater but does not sufficiently demonstrate how these factors apply to the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall and render the device mechanically inoperable. For example, Applicant does not identify the surface energy of the substrate materials of Barrall and explain what mechanical limitations this presents.
Furthermore, even if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches. A non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. MPEP 2121.01. Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated Barrall would fail mechanically, Barrall still qualifies as applicable prior art.
Moreover, several teachings from Barrall suggest that the device does not fail mechanically. On the contrary, these teachings are consistent with a device that achieves mechanical operability:
• “The lipid composition of a device often is relatively stable to mechanical disturbances, and can have a lifetime in excess of two weeks.” [0104 and 0114]
• “One advantage of the supported bilayer is its stability. SLBs often remain largely intact even when subject to high flow rates or vibration, and the presence of holes will not destroy the entire bilayer. Due to the stability of SLB's, experiments lasting weeks and even months can be conducted with supported bilayers, while BLM experiments sometimes are limited to hours.” [0118]
At minimum, several teachings from Barrall contemplates achieving mechanical operability for the device.
• “The simplicity of a single lipid system is advantageous when determining physical or mechanical properties of bilayers.“ [0111]
• “The thickness of this layer is defined as the distance between the exterior surface and the lipid bilayer and often plays a role in determining the resistance of the bilayer seal and the stability and fluidity of the bilayer.” [0115]
Additionally, many of the factors identified by the Applicant were considered by Barrall:
• Reduced aperture size – See Barrall, 0098, 0105
• The surface energy of the substrate materials - See Barrall, 0102
• The effect of hydrated polymer cushions - See Barrall, 0117
• Droplet interface bilayers (DIBs) - See Barrall, 0107, 0113, 0114
Barrall contemplated these factors and nevertheless disclosed a nanopore device consistent with mechanical operability.
Dr. Burden asserts “One of ordinary skill in the art understood at the time the patent application was filed that a Giga-ohm (Gohm) resistance is the condition necessary for successful detection of single ion channels in a bilayer. But Sugihara admits that an aperture size of 800 nanometers (nm) or less was required to achieve Gohm resistance (see, e.g., page 5049, second column of Sugihara). Thus, from the collection of information available at the time of our application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a membrane device having an aperture diameter of 1 um or greater (e.g., a device as described in Claim 1 of our application), would fail electrically (resistance below 1 Gohm)” [Burden Declaration – 2/6/2026, Page 4, 3.4]
Applicant extracts a result from Sugihara and attempts to apply it as a universal constraint applicable to all membrane devices. Namely, an aperture size of 800 nm or less was required to achieve Gohm resistance; therefore, a POSITA would conclude apertures greater than 800 nm would fail electrically because they would not achieve the necessary Gohm resistance.
However, this generalized conclusion is not supported in view of Barrall. Barrall discloses a nanopore device having an aperture of 1 um or greater (0.25 um to 100 um). Applicant acknowledges that the Barrall device would succeed electrically (“The lipid bilayers generated by Barrall succeed electrically.” Burden Declaration - 2/6/2026, Page 4, 3.4]
Accordingly, Barrall demonstrates that a membrane device having an aperture diameter of 1 um or greater does not fail electrically. Therefore, a POSITA would not have concluded, in view of Barrall, that a membrane device having an aperture diameter of 1 um or greater would necessarily fail electrically, as Barrell demonstrates the contrary.
Dr. Burden asserts “However, as demonstrated in our application, not only does our device succeed electrically, our device also comprises a filamentous network that withstands unexpectedly large pressures (e.g., up to 200 Pa). In other words, our device also succeeds mechanically. In summary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Barrall did not disclose or suggest any mechanical problem associated with the lipid bilayers they indicate were produced, and that any device produced according to Barrall would have required an aperture size of 800 nm or less to give rise to favorable electrical resistance and mechanical resilience.” [Burden Declaration - 2/6/2026, Page 4, 3.5 – Page 5, 3.5]
Applicant imports an aperture size constraint from an uncited reference (Sugihara) to limit the express teachings of Barrall. The asserted aperture size constraint is not disclosed or suggested by Barrall. On the contrary, Barrall discloses the aperture has a size of 0.25 nanometer (0.00025 um) to about 100 μm. [0098] Sugihara does not negate the express teachings of Barrall, especially since the instant rejection relies on Barrall and Vogel, not Sugihara. Ultimately, Applicant’s assertion that an aperture size of 800 nm or less is necessary to yield a nanopore device with favorable electrical resistance and mechanical resilience is not supported by and is inconsistent with Barrall.
Dr. Burden asserts “The structure of Vogel's system is completely different than the devices taught in our patent application. For example, Vogel's structure is built entirely on glass. (see, e.g., Figure 1 of Vogel). Thus, there is no aperture and there are no pores. Accordingly, it is not possible to include a nanopore in such a device that will conduct because the pore has to traverse the membrane, but in Vogel's system the glass would prevent the traversal of a pore. Moreover, simply combining Barrall and Vogel would have resulted in a structure that was unfit for the intended purpose of either Barrall or Vogel.” [Burden Declaration - 2/6/2026, Page 5, 4.1]
Applicant’s assertion that including a nanopore in the device by Vogel would render the combination of Barrall and Vogel unfit for the intended purpose mischarachterizes the instant rejection because the instant rejection is based on the modification of Barrall, in view of the teachings of Vogel. The Office does not address modifying Vogel at all.
Moreover, a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements. MPEP 2145(III). The rejection does not state any portion of the structure disclosed by Vogel is physically extracted from Vogel and inserted into the device of Barall, as to render the device by Barrall unfit for the intended purpose. Hence why the rejection states “Modifying the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall by linking a filamentous network/polypeptide, like actin, to the membrane through a non-covalent chemical link, like a neutravidin-biotin protein bridge, results in the nanopore device of claim 1.” The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2145(III).
Dr. Burden asserts “Barrall discloses methods to determine a characterization contrast signal to noise ratio (CCNR) to characterize a nanopore (see, e.g., paragraph [0008] of Barrall). Using disclosure from Vogel to inform or enhance Barrall would have frustrated the purposes of Barrall because the addition of cytoskeletal filaments to nanopore-containing bilayers would have been expected to alter the measured noise levels of the nanopores in the bilayer. It also would have been expected that the addition of cytoskeletal proteins (e.g., that are linked to the bilayer via avidin (see, e.g., claim 19 of Exhibit B) would have prohibited the detection of Barrall's biotinylated DNA molecules altogether. Thus, at best, Barrall's conclusions regarding the usable noise characteristics of nanopores would have been entirely different and would have frustrated the purpose of Barrall. [Burden Declaration - 2/6/2026, Page 5, 4.2]
Applicant’s assertion is merely speculative and not sufficient to adequately establish that using Vogel to inform or enhance Barrall would have frustrated the purpose of Barrall’s nanopore device to determine a characterization contrast signal to noise ratio (CCNR).
On the contrary, Barrall discloses that the lipid composition of the device is stable to mechanical disturbances. [0104, 0118] Moreover, Barrall discloses calculating the contrast signal comprises determining the difference between an average of the measurements of the first level and an average of the measurements of the second level. In some embodiments the noise value is the larger value of the noise computed for the first level and the noise computed for the second level. In some embodiments the noise value is the smaller value of the noise computed for the first level and the noise computed for the second level. [0013] Accordingly, Barrall suggests the nanopore device accommodates alterations in noise levels during CCNR characterization.
Dr. Burden asserts “Conversely, using disclosure from Barrall to inform or enhance Vogel…” [Burden Declaration - 2/6/2026, Page 5, 4.3]
Applicant’s assertion is immaterial to the instant rejection because the instant rejection does not rely on using disclosure from Barrall to inform or enhance Vogel.
Dr. Burden asserts “Furthermore, neither Barrall nor Vogel provides any basis for one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably predict or expect that any combination of Barrall and Vogel would produce: (1) a large (i.e., at least 1 μm) freestanding membrane absent of significant electrical leakage, or (2) a freestanding membrane structure capable of resisting large transmembrane mechanical stress. I find no disclosure or suggestion in either Barrall or Vogel indicating any concern with either issue.” [Burden Declaration - 2/6/2026, Page 6, 4.4]
It would be reasonable to expect that the nanopore device disclosed by Barrall may be modified by linking a filamentous network/polypeptide, like actin, to the membrane through a non-covalent chemical link, like a neutravidin-biotin protein bridge, in view of the teachings of Vogel, for the reasons set forth in the CTNF of 8/8/2025.
A POSITA need not reasonably predict or expect that any combination of Barrall and Vogel would produce the specific outcomes asserted by the Applicant because conclusive proof of efficacy is not required to show a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I). Obviousness does not require absolute predictability. MPEP 2143(II). The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in combining or modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention, not the likelihood of success in achieving the same result as the instant invention. MPEP 2143(I). To that end, the reason or motivation to modify a reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. MPEP 2144(IV) Therefore, it is not necessary that Barrall or Vogel explicitly address either issue identified by Applicant.
Dr. Burden asserts “The devices we describe in our patent application achieve both (1) and (2), as demonstrated in our application. A device such as the one recited in claim 1 of the above-identified patent application provides unprecedented advantages (e.g., high electrical resistance, mechanical stability over large areas, longevity, durability, diffusive access to the membrane surface; see, e.g., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0172928 A1, paragraph [0030]). As I have explained above, in my view a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have arrived at a device like the ones described and claimed in our patent application in view of Barrall, Vogel, or any combination thereof.” [Burden Declaration - 2/6/2026, Page 6, 4.4]
Allegations of unexpected results must be established in accordance with MPEP 716.02. Applicant has not provided objective evidence sufficient to establish unexpected results. Therefore, Applicant’s allegations are unsupported and are not persuasive.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAILA A CRAIG whose telephone number is (703)756-4540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1600.
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 571-272-0616. 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.
/K.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1618
/Michael G. Hartley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1618
Prosecution Insights