DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed 8/19/2026 has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 9-10, 13, 16-18 and 20-21 are cancelled by Applicant.
Claim 27 is newly added by Applicant.
Claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, 19 and 22-27 are currently pending and are herein under examination.
Claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, 19 and 22-27 are rejected.
Claims 1, 5, 22 and 26 are objected.
Priority
The instant application claims domestic benefit as a 371 to international application PCT/IL2019/050474 filed 04/29/2019, which claims domestic benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/664,202 filed 04/29/2018. The claims to domestic benefit are acknowledged. As such, the effective filing date for claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, 19 and 22-27 is 04/29/2018.
Withdrawn Rejections
35 USC 112(b)
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-12, 14-16, 19 and 22-26 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of claim amendment.
35 USC 101
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11-12, 14-15, 19 and 23-24 under 35 USC 101 is withdrawn in view of claim amendment.
Claim Objections
The objection to claims 1, 13, 16 and 22 are withdrawn in view of claim amendments.
Claims 1, 5, 22 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 18), claim 22 (line 20), and claim 26 (line 19) should recite “thereby participate in”.
Claim 1 (step e last line) and claim 26 (step e) should recite “in [[a]] said subject” to refer to “said subject”.
Claim 5, line 3, should recite “composite healthy- and cancer-expression”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, 19 and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
This rejection is newly recited as necessitated by claim amendment. Claims dependent from a rejected claim are also rejected unless otherwise noted.
Claim 1 (line 15), claim 22 (line 17), and claim 26 (lines 15-16) recite “that unbalanced process”. It’s unclear which process is referenced because step c recites “at least one unbalanced process”. Clarify which process is referenced. A suggested amendment is “[[that]] the respective unbalanced process”.
Claim 1 (lines 14 and 17), claim 22 (lines 17 and 20), and claim 26 (lines 15 and 18) recite the relative term “significant”, which renders the claims indefinite. The term “significant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of a significant amplitude and Gia value is unclear.
Claim 1 (line 17), claim 22 (line 20), and claim 26 (line 18) recite “Gai values”. It’s unclear what these values are and there is no limiting definition in the specification. To overcome this rejection, clarify what the values are.
Step c in claims 1, 22 and 26 recites “determining/determine within said second composite cancer-expression data set at least one unbalanced process in said expression data … wherein said at least one balanced process is determined to be present in said subject when the surprisal analysis yields a significant amplitude λα for that unbalanced process”. This recitation appears to first require determining presence of an unbalanced process then, as indicated by “when”, recites that the determination of presence is contingent upon a significant λα. Thus, it’s unclear whether at least one unbalanced process must be determined or if there is a scenario where none are determined when all processes do not have a significant λα. Clarify this limitation. For examination, this recitation is interpreted as “determining/determine within said second composite cancer-expression data set at least one unbalanced process in said expression data having a significant amplitude λα determined by the surprisal analysis”.
Claim 22, step f, and claim 26, step e, recite the relative phrase “clinically approved targeted anticancer therapeutic agent”, which renders the claims indefinite. The phrase “clinically approved” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It’s unclear whether the phrase includes drugs clinically approved before, after, or both before and after the effective filing date of the instant application. It’s also unclear whether “clinically approved” refers to the FDA or to some other drug regulating agency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 22 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Any newly recited portions herein are necessitated by claim amendment.
Step 1:
Step 1 asks whether the claims recite statutory subject matter. In the instant application, claims 22, 25 and 27 recite a product and claim 26 recites a method. As such, these claims recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims that recite statutory subject matter are analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1 to determine if they recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomena. The instant claims recite the following limitations that equate to one or more categories of judicial exception:
Claim 22 recites “b) add said subject's expression data to a first composite cancer-expression data set to produce a second composite cancer-expression data set, wherein said first composite cancer-expression data set comprises data from a plurality of cancer types; c) determine within said second composite cancer-expression data set at least one unbalanced process in said expression data of said subject, wherein said determining comprises performing thermodynamic-based analysis, wherein said thermodynamic-based analysis comprises surprisal analysis, wherein said at least one unbalanced process is selected from the group of unbalanced processes in the following table, wherein said at least one unbalanced process is determined to be present in said subject when the surprisal analysis yields a significant amplitude Xa for that unbalanced process in said subject's expression data, and wherein, for each unbalanced process listed in the table, the proteins listed in the corresponding row are proteins identified as having significant Gia values in the surprisal analysis and thereby participating in the corresponding unbalanced process a; d) construct a patient-specific barcode that indicates the at least one unbalanced process that influences the cancer in said subject”
Claim 25 recites “wherein constructing said patient-specific barcode comprises mapping identified tumor-specific barcodes associated with a plurality of patients into at least a 17-dimensional data space.”
Claim 26 recites “A method of identifying a patient specific druggable target/s for treating a subject suffering from cancer, the method comprising: b) adding said subject's expression data to a first composite cancer-expression data set to produce a second composite cancer-expression data set; wherein said first composite cancer-expression data set comprises data from a plurality of cancer types; c) determining within said second composite cancer-expression data set at least one unbalanced process in said expression data of said subject, wherein said determining comprises performing thermodynamic-based analysis, wherein said thermodynamic-based analysis comprises surprisal analysis, wherein said at least one unbalanced process is selected from the group of unbalanced processes in the following table, wherein said at least one unbalanced process is determined to be present in said subject when the surprisal analysis yields a significant amplitude Xa for that unbalanced process in said subject's expression data, and wherein, for each unbalanced process listed in the table, the proteins listed in the corresponding row are proteins identified as having significant Gia values in the surprisal analysis and thereby participating in the corresponding unbalanced process a; d) constructing a patient-specific barcode that indicates the at least one unbalanced process that influences said cancer of said subject; e) selecting, based on said barcode, at least one drug that targets at least one druggable target within said at least one unbalanced process in said subject's expression data, wherein said at least one druggable target is at least one protein selected from the group of proteins in the following table; and wherein said at least one drug is a clinically approved targeted anticancer therapeutic agent having a known drug-target interaction with said at least one druggable target; thereby identifying at least one druggable target in a subject suffering from cancer;”
The tables recited in claims 22 and 26 are part of the abstract idea.
Limitations reciting a mental process.
Claims 22 and 25-26 contain limitations recited at such a high level of generality that they equate to a mental process because they are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), which the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind. The paragraphs below discuss the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the limitations in these claims that recite a mental process.
Steps b-d in claim 22 and steps b-e in claim 26 recite mental processes. A human can use pen and paper to add gene expression values to a dataset and perform a surprisal analysis. Published specification para. [109-116] describe an equation to perform the surprisal analysis. Constructing a barcode, as recited in step d and claim 25, includes matching expression data for each patient to 17 variables. The human mind can determine whether an amplitude is above a threshold value and select based on a barcode as these limitations require analyzing data.
Limitations reciting a mathematical concept.
Claims 22 and 26 recite limitations that equate to a mathematical concept because they are similar to the concepts of organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)), which the courts have identified as mathematical concepts. The BRI, in light of the specification, of performing a surprisal analysis includes performing calculations using the equation recited in specification para. [109].
As such, claims 22 and 25-27 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Additional Elements:
Once limitations have been identified that recite a judicial exception, the claims are evaluated for additional elements. The additional elements are then analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 then Step 2B. The instant claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 22 recites “A computer program product for identifying a druggable target for treating a subject suffering from cancer, comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program code embodied thereon, the program code executable by at least one hardware processor to a) receive expression data from said subject; e) provide, based on said patient-specific barcode, an output of at least one druggable target from said at least one unbalanced process within said subject's expression data for which at least one drug that targets said druggable target is known, wherein said at least one druggable target is at least one protein selected from the group of proteins in the following table; and f) provide an output identifying said at least one drug that targets said at least one druggable target for use in administering said at least one drug to said subject as a patient-specific cancer treatment, wherein said at least one drug is a clinically approved targeted anticancer therapeutic agent having a known drug-target interaction with said at least one druggable target.”
Claim 26 recites “a) receiving expression data from said subject; and f) administering to said subject the at least one drug that targets said at least one druggable target, thereby providing a patient-specific cancer treatment.”
Claim 27 recites “wherein said at least one drug is selected from the group consisting of tamoxifen, erlotinib, ramucirumab, lapatinib, dasatinib, trastuzumab, vemurafenib, enzalutamide, and a combination thereof.”
These above recited additional elements are analyzed below under both Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that reflect an improvement to a computer, technology, or technical field (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.5(a)), require a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), implement the recited judicial exception with a particular machine that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), nor provide some other meaningful limitation (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Rather, the claims include limitations that equate to an equivalent of the words “apply it” and/or to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The paragraphs below discuss the additional elements recited above in the instant claims.
Claims 22, 25 and 27 recite a CRM. There are no limitations requiring anything other than a generic computer and/or generic computing system. Therefore, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, which the courts have established does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp. 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. These limitations also invoke a generic computer to perform existing processes such as receive, store and transmit data (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claim 22 steps a and e-f and claim 26 step a recite insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering and data outputting. Step a gathers data to perform the abstract idea of step b. Steps e and f in claim 22 output data.
Step f in claim 26 recites mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)), rather than a particular treatment. Although the clinically approved drug targets a druggable target from at least one unbalanced process, the drug is still so generically recited that it encompasses all applications of the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(a)). The drug still covers any clinically approved anti-cancer drug with a known drug-target interaction associated with any of the proteins enumerated in the table listed in claim 26.
As such, claims 22 and 25-27 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B:
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these claims recite additional elements that equate to instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way and/or in a generic computing environment (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and to well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The paragraphs below discuss the additional elements recited above in the instant claims.
Claims 22, 25 and 27 recite a CRM. There are no limitations requiring anything other than a generic computer and/or generic computing system. Therefore, these limitations equate to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computing environment, which the courts have established does not provide an inventive concept in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 22 steps a and e-f and claim 26 step a equate to receiving/transmitting data over a network, which the courts have established as WURC limitation of a generic computer in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claim 27 also equates to transmitting data over a network because it limits the type of data but does not change the fact that data is transmitted.
Claims 22, 25 and 27 store information in memory, which the courts have established as a WURC function of a generic computer in Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 27, step f, equates to instructions to “apply” the abstract idea rather than reciting a particular treatment, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See above in section Step 2A, Prong 2 for further discussion.
When the additional elements of claims 22 and 26-27 of acquiring patient gene expression data, administering a drug, and generic computer functions/components are viewed in combination, they equate to WURC limitations as disclosed by Worst et al. (“Worst”; European journal of cancer 65 (2016): 91-101; previously cited on PTO892 mailed on 01/11/2024), Harris et al. (“Harris”; JAMA oncology 2, no. 5 (2016): 608-615; previously cited on PTO892 mailed on 09/17/2024) and Chang et al. (“Chang”; Clinical cancer research 22, no. 15 (2016): 3810-3820; previously cited on PTO892 mailed on 09/17/2024). The paragraphs below disclose the WURC nature of these limitations:
Worst performs RNA sequencing on cancer biopsies (abstract), wherein druggable targets were discovered from the expression data (Figure 1), and matching targeted therapies were administered to the patents (pg. 97, col. 2, last para.). Worst shows in Figure 3 a druggable target PTEN (which is listed in unbalanced process 13 and 15 in the instant claims). Worst discloses using computer software such as BWA and deFuse (ph. 95, col. 2, para. 1), indicating that the method is compatible with computers.
Harris discloses a study of tumor molecular profiling to inform therapeutic decisions in advanced pediatric solid tumors (title). Tumor biopsies were collected (pg. 609, col. 2, para. 1) and a targeted next-generation sequencing OncoPanel using Agilent SureSelect for target capture and Illumina HiSeq for sequencing was performed on the samples (pg. 609, col. 2, para. 2). This data was inputted into iCat which produces therapeutic recommendations based on the genomic data, then patients receive a targeted therapy based on the recommendations (Figure 2; Table 4; pg. 611, col. 2, last para.). Harris shows in eTable 2 of Supplement 2 that a mutation in BRAF can be treated with Vemurafenib (which is a gene listed in unbalanced process 4, 10 and 14 of the instant claims). Harris uses the computer software PRARA to analyze RNA sequencing data (pg. 610, col. 2, para. 2), indicating that the method is compatible with a computer.
Chang discloses a multidimensional clinomics for precision therapy for children with relapsed and refractory cancer (title). Patients with non-central nervous system solid tumors underwent whole exome and whole genome sequencing wherein clinically actionable alterations were identified and matched with a targeted drug (abstract). Tumor tissue was sampled (pg. 3811, col. 1, para. 3), genome sequencing was performed (pg. 3811, col. 1, para. 4), actionable mutations were discovered (pg. 3811, col. 1, last para.), and patients were administered the targeted drug therapies (pg. 3815, col. 2, para 2-3). Chang shows in Table 2 a list of genes that have mutations targetable by a drug. One gene is BRAF (which is listed in unbalanced process 4, 10 and 14 of the instant claims). Chang also discloses that a high-performance cluster computer analyzed data (pg. 3819, col. 2, para. 1), indicating the method is compatible with computers. Therefore, these limitations are WURC individually and when considered in combination with a generic computer.
When these additional elements are considered individually and in combination, they do not provide an inventive concept because they equate to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception, WURC functions/components of a generic computer, and are WURC limitations as taught by Worst, Harris, and Chang. Therefore, these additional elements do not transform the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No).
As such, claims 22 and 25-27 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 22 and 26 no longer encompasses any arbitrary or unspecified drug (pg. 20, last para. – pg. 21, para. 1) (pg. 25, para. 2-4) Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because:
Although the drug administered in claim 26 has been limited to a clinically approved drug that has a known interaction with a druggable protein in one of the unbalanced processes, step e still does not recite a particular drug. It’s still unclear which particular drug is used to target one of the proteins. Step e is still so broadly recited that it encompasses all applications of the judicial exception. This contrasts with patent eligible claim 1 which recites a particular treatment (e.g., erlotinib and dasatinib) to treat a particular disease (i.e., cancer).
Step f in claim 22 outputs a druggable target, which can be interpreted as transmitting data over a network, with an intended use of administration. There is no affirmative step of administration. Thus, claim 22 does not recite a particular treatment.
Applicant argues that claim 22 step f does not merely output abstract information and claim 27 further limits the drugs in claim 22 (pg. 21, para. 2). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because:
Claim 22 step f outputs the judicial exception of identifying at least one drug that targets the at least one druggable target. Step f has an intended use of being used for cancer treatment. However, an affirmative step of administration is not required. Thus, step f does not recite a particular treatment. Data outputting is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 27 further limits the type of drug that is output, which itself recites data outputting and does not recite an affirmative step of administration.
Applicant argues that the surprisal analysis is not a mental process and that the claims provide a concrete treatment related result (pg. 23, para. 1-4). Applicant argues a practical application of a patient-specific cancer-treatment workflow (pg. 23, last para. – pg. 24, para. 3). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because:
A human can perform the surprisal analysis following the mathematical calculations provided in published specification para. [109-116]. Even if a human were not capable of such calculations, the surprisal analysis recites a mathematical concept, in light of the specification.
As discussed above, claims 22 and 26 do not recite a particular treatment. They equate to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea and to data outputting with an intended use of administration, neither of which provide a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims address a specific problem in cancer therapy by identifying patient-specific unbalanced processes and using those processes to construct a patient-specific barcode for selecting a druggable target and therapeutic agents (pg. 24, last para. – pg. 25, para. 1). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because:
The alleged practical application appears to be conferred by steps b-d in claim 22 and steps b-e in claim 26. However, these limitations recite a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(a) recites “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement” and “an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Even if step e in claim 22 contributed to the improvement, it would recite data outputting, which does not recite a practical application.
Applicant argues that claim 22 does not merely implement an abstract idea on a generic computer and that the output of claims 22 and 27 are not information displayed for further consideration but rather a treatment-specific output (pg. 25, last para.). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive:
The generic computer in claim 22 is used to perform the abstract ideas recited in the claim (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and is used to perform existing processes such as storing, transmitting, and receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Moreover, the output of claim 22 has an intended use of being used for administration. However, no affirmative treatment step is required. The output steps of claim 22 merely recite data outputting, which does not provide a practical application. Claim 27 further limits the output and does not recite a particular treatment.
Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more under Step 2B and that because the claims are free from the prior art the claims are not WURC (pg. 26, last para. – pg. 27, para. 2). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because:
Only additional elements are considered under Step 2B for whether they are WURC. The additional elements in claim 22 are the CRM, step a, and steps e-f. The additional elements in claim 26 are step a and f. The additional elements in claim 22 recite receiving/transmitting data over a network and mere instructions to implement on an abstract idea, both of which are not inventive concepts. The additional elements of claim 26 recite receiving data over a network and mere instructions to “apply” the judicial exception, both of which are not inventive concept. Furthermore, the additional elements in claims 22 and 26 have been shown to be WURC by Worst, Harris and Chang.
MPEP 2106.05.I recites “[a]lthough the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting ‘the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101’). As made clear by the courts, the ‘‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.’ Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9).”
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, 19 and 22-27 are free from the prior art because the prior art does not fairly teach or suggest the following limitations in step c of independent claims 1, 22 and 26: “wherein said at least one unbalanced process is selected from the group of unbalanced processes in the following table, wherein said at least one unbalanced process is determined to be present in said subject when the surprisal analysis yields a significant amplitude λα for that unbalanced process in said subject's expression data, and wherein, for each unbalanced process listed in the table, the proteins listed in the corresponding row are proteins identified as having significant Giα values in the surprisal analysis”. The closest prior art is Kravchenko-Balasha et al. (“Balasha”; The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 120, no. 26 (2016): 5990-5997; previously cited on PTO892 mailed 01/11/2024) who uses thermodynamic analysis of tumors to detect unbalanced processes. However, Balasha does not disclose the specific set of proteins that compose each unbalanced process listed in the tables of claims 1, 22 and 26, wherein each protein must have significant Giα values.
Claims 1-8, 11-12, 14-15, 19 and 23-24 are patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 1 recites a particular treatment in step f.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah A. Auger whose telephone number is (703)756-4518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685
