DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
This application is the U.S. National Stage (371) application of PCT/EP2019/075698 filed on 09/24/2019 which claims priority to Foreign Application No. DE 10 2018 007 556.8 filed on 09/24/2018.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 and 27 are previously presented.
Claim 26 is currently amended, and the Applicant notes that no new matter is added.
Claims 16-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/21/2024.
Claim 25 is cancelled at the Applicant’s request.
Thus, claims 1-15 and 26-27 are under examination.
Withdrawn Rejections
The previous rejection of claim 26 under U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, regarding indefiniteness, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments of the claim.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt et al. (WO 2009/021687 A1) in view of Helbert et al. (US 2003/0049707 A1) and May et al. (US Patent No. 5,622,871).
It should be noted that the previous Office action of 08/01/2025 had typos in the first line of this rejection. Specifically, claim 5 was not listed as part of the claims that were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt in view of Helbert and May; whereas claims 14-15 were included in the list of claims that were rejected with these references. However, it is clear from the body of the 103 rejection of Office action of 08/01/2025 that claim 5 was addressed in this rejection, and claims 14-15 were not subjected to this rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Engelhardt teaches producing a stable dispersion of cellulose (see Page 12 of 20, first paragraph).
Engelhardt does not teach producing a cellulose layer by applying cellulose and/ or a cellulose derivative to a suitable support, nor does Engelhardt teach immobilizing at least one ligand on the cellulose layer.
However, the use of cellulosic material to immobilize biological ligands is well known in the art as demonstrated by Helbert. Helbert teaches producing a cellulose layer by applying cellulose and/ or a cellulose derivative to a suitable support (Page 4, [0055-0058]; page 5, [0064]; page 14, [0201]). Helbert teaches immobilizing at least one ligand on the cellulose layer (Page 1, [0019]; page 3, [0045-0046]; page 4, [0059]).
May teaches cellulosic materials (e.g. nitrocellulose) as carrier material that has considerable advantages over conventional strips because of its natural ability to bind proteins without requiring prior sensitization and binding reagents may be applied and directly immobilized thereon (May, column 2, lines 1-17; column 3, lines 5-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the application to use the stable cellulosic suspension as taught by Engelhardt to form a cellulosic layer such as taught by Helbert because Engelhardt teaches cellulose has outstanding molecular properties (p. 1, lines 16-25), and their method of making stable cellulose-based nanoparticles which are dispersible to primary particles has the advantage of being obtainable by technically and comparatively straightforward process that do not require external emulsifiers for particle formation, i.e. simple and inexpensive. Engelhardt also teaches their cellulosic composition is useful for applications in biomedical and pharmaceutical areas and Helbert teaches cellulose films have wide applications and may be used to immobilize ligands or other proteins on it in order to make a device for use in biological assays. Helbert and May, in particular, specifically teaches that cellulosic films are easily reproducible and can be formed in a vast number of identical containers (Helbert, page 4, [0058]) rendering it desirable for making devices for use in immunoassays. And May teaches cellulosic materials (e.g. nitrocellulose) as carrier material that has considerable advantages over conventional strips because of its natural ability to bind proteins without requiring prior sensitization and binding reagents may be applied and directly immobilized thereon (May, column 2, lines 1-17; column 3, lines 5-18).
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the cellulosic material taught by Engelhard to make cellulosic carrier with immobilized ligands such as antibodies and the like for use in biological assays such as taught by Helbert and May because of the advantages disclosed therein.
Regarding claim 2, Engelhardt fails to teach wherein the cellulose layer is present on a support.
Helbert teaches that the cellulose layer is present on a support (Page 4, [0055-0058]; page 5, [0064]; page 14, [0201]). May also discloses a nitrocellulose layer on a solid support (Column 7, lines 12-15).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the application to use the cellulosic dispersion of Engelhardt to make the cellulose layer on a support as in Helbert and May because it would increase the handling strength of cellulose layer as taught by May (May, column 7, lines 12-15).
Regarding claims 3-6, Engelhardt does not teach that the ligand selectively binds at least one analyte.
Engelhardt does not teach that the ligand is a polypeptide, a carbohydrate, a fat, antibody, a protein or recombinant protein as claimed.
Helbert teaches that the ligand selectively binds at least one analyte such as an enzyme binding to its substrate that is attached to the microfibrillar cellulose (MFC) layer (Page 4, [0059]).
Helbert teaches that the ligand is a polypeptide, a carbohydrate, or a fat (page 3, [0045-0046]; page 4, [0050]).
Helbert teaches that the ligand is or comprises a recombinant protein, a native protein such as a fluorescent substance(Page 8, [0148]). An artisan would understand that a fluorescent substance could be a ligand bound to a fluorophore to make a recombinant protein or a native fluorescent substance.
May teaches that the ligand can be an antibody (Column 6, lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the application to use the cellulosic material taught by Engelhard to make cellulosic carrier with immobilized ligands such as antibodies and the like for use in biological assays such as taught by Helbert and May because of the specificity of binding between and antibody and its target antigen and the ability to provide rapid results as noted by May (Column 1, lines 15-21). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to pick and choose a specific ligand to be immobilized on a solid support such as taught by Helbert and May because the ability to choose from a finite number of solution is obvious and generally dependent on the needs of the users.
Regarding claims 7 and 9 Engelhardt does not teach that wherein a multiplicity of non-identical ligands are immobilized on the cellulose layer.
Engelhardt does not teach that wherein the ligand is covalently bonded to the cellulose layer.
Helbert teaches that wherein a multiplicity of non-identical ligands are immobilized on the cellulose layer (Page 15, [0214-0216]).Helbert teaches that wherein the ligand is covalently bonded to the cellulose layer (Page 18, claim 40; page 3, [0046]).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the application to use the cellulosic dispersion of Engelhardt to make a cellulose layer with immobilized multiplicity of non-identical ligands as taught by Helbert because of the ability to test for different ligands that would have different specificities (Page 15, [0214]). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to immobilized the ligand via available means such as covalently binding of the ligand to cellulose layer because the ligand would be embedded in the cellulose matrix as taught by Helbert (Page 3, [0046]) and thus prevent ligand fall off from the layer during the assay which leads to enhanced stability, specificity and prolonged activity. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to pick and choose a specific ligand to be immobilized on a solid support such as taught by Helbert and May because the ability to choose from a finite number of solution is obvious and generally dependent on the needs of the users.
Regarding claim 10, Engelhardt teaches that producing a stable dispersion of cellulose that is completely transparent (Page 12 of 20, first paragraph).
Engelhardt does not teach producing a cellulose layer.
Helbert teaches producing a cellulose layer by applying cellulose and/ or a cellulose derivative to a suitable support (Page 4, [0055-0058]; page 5, [0064]; page 14, [0201], page 3, [0046]).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the application to use the transparent cellulosic dispersion of Engelhardt to make a cellulose layer as taught by Helbert because a transparent layer would have provided the advantage of optical applications without interfering with the generated optical signal from a ligand that has optical properties such as a fluorescent marker bound to a ligand.
Regarding claim 11, Engelhardt teaches that wherein the stable dispersion has a solids content of between 0.1% to 10% by weight, more preferably 0.5% to 3.5% and most preferably 0.75% to 2.5% (Page 7, lines 23-26; page 13-14, claims 12 and 18) which overlaps the instant claim range of 0.05% to 10%.
A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the solid concentration of the cellulosic dispersion taught by Engelhardt because it is well-settled that differences such as in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Engelhardt teaches that the cellulose-based particles have a size of less than 300 nm (Abstract).
Regarding claim 26, Engelhardt teaches that producing a stable cellulose dispersion comprises treatment in an Ultra-Turrax device (Page 10 of 20, lines 6-8; page 11 of 20, lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 27, Engelhardt teaches that producing a stable cellulose dispersion comprises treatment in a high-pressure homogenizer at a pressure of 600 bar (Page 7 of 20, lines 17-24; page 10 of 20, lines 11-14; pages 11-12 of 20, lines 32-37 of page 11 and lines 1-2 of page 12).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt et al. (WO 2009/021687 A1), Helbert et al. (US 2003/0049707 A1) and May et al. (US Patent No. 5,622,871) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horn et al. (US 8,846,132 B2) and Audeh et al. (US 6,921,637 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Engelhardt, Helbert and May teach all of the limitations of the claim, but Engelhardt fails to teach that wherein a multiplicity of non-identical ligands is immobilized in a spatially structured manner resulting in an array.
May teaches that immobilization of reagents such as antibody ligands takes place in a spatially structured manner on a polymer layer (Column 6, lines 19-22).
Horn teaches that immobilization of identical or different ligands or reagents takes place in a spatially structured manner on a polymer layer (Sheet 4 of 4, Figure 4, “61”, “62”; column 5, lines 53-57).
Audeh teaches using a protein binding assay microarray slide that can be incubated first with a mixture of ligands that might potentially bind to the proteins of the microarray (Column 8, lines 33-35). Audeh teaches that an assay is carried out to identify those microarray spots in which significant binding has occurred (Column 8, lines 44-45).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the application to modify the method of Engelhardt, Helbert and May for making cellulosic layers using a stably dispersed cellulose film by further specifying the spatial configuration of a ligand on the cellulose biopolymer as taught by Horn and Audeh because Horn showed to spatially separate the ligands on a polymer film (Sheet 4 of 4, Figure 4, “61”, “62”; column 5, lines 53-57) with the flexibility of being able to use different ligands for different targets (column 5, lines 53-57) and Audeh taught identifying the specific protein binding spot (Column 8, lines 45-46) is well known in the art. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the cellulosic dispersion of Engelhardt to make an array having non-identical ligands made in a spatially structured manner as taught by Helbert, May, Horn and Audeh because Horn and Audeh teaches arrays comprising spatial configuration of ligands increase stability, transparency, flexibility and versatility of the manufactured film (Horn, column 2, lines 8-21; Audeh, column 4, lines 9-17).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt et al. (WO 2009/021687 A1), Helbert et al. (US 2003/0049707 A1) and May et al. (US Patent No. 5,622,871) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trigiante et al. (CA 2877201 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Helbert, Engelhardt and May teach all of the limitations of the claim, but Engelhardt fails to teach that the cellulose derivative has derivatization with ester and/or ether groups.
Trigiante teaches that the cellulose derivative has been derivatized with ester (Page 10, [0046-0047]) to make the cellulose film more heat-resistant and less prone to mechanical damage without losing the transparency (Page 7, [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the application to modify the cellulosic dispersion of Engelhardt to make a cellulose layer as taught by Helbert and May for detecting an analyte on a stably dispersed cellulose film, and to further modify the cellulose by derivatizing it with ester as taught Trigiante because Trigiante teaches cellulose that is modified by ester would have made the film more heat-resistant and less prone to mechanical damage without losing the transparency (Page 7, [0026]).
A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the methods of Engelhardt, Helbert, May and Trigiante based on the methods being in the field of making cellulose films that could have different uses and on what have been earlier discussed.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhardt et al. (WO 2009/021687 A1), Helbert et al. (US 2003/0049707 A1) and May et al. (US Patent No. 5,622,871) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ono et al. (US 6,541,627 B1).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Engelhardt, Helbert and May teach all of the limitations of the claims, but Engelhardt fails to teach the following limitations.
Engelhardt does not teach that wherein the cellulose layer comprises at least two non-identical celluloses and/or cellulose derivatives.
Engelhardt does not teach that wherein at least two non-identical celluloses and/or cellulose derivatives are dispersed together before application.
Ono teaches a cellulose composite of at least two non-identical celluloses and/or cellulose derivatives (column 6, lines 56-63).
Ono teaches that wherein at least two non-identical celluloses and/or cellulose derivatives are dispersed together before application (column 6, lines 56-63).
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the application to use the cellulosic dispersion of Engelhardt to make a cellulose layer as taught by Helbert and of two different celluloses as taught by Ono (Abstract; column 6, lines 56-63) because it will produce a cellulose composite particulate which have such performances as no rough feel, excellent rolling properties and high dispersibility (Abstract). Ono further noted that cellulose particulates obtained from the above dispersion are in the form of spheres that are difficult to aggregate and have high strength (Column 6, lines 46-55). Such a combination of two different celluloses in making the final cellulosic layer would have been an advantageous modification to the method of Engelhardt because it would have resulted in the production of a strong cellulosic composite without losing its transparency (Ono, column 6, lines 46-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleged that Engelhardt does not teach the application of the stable cellulose dispersion, nor that the applied ligand selectively binds at least one analyte into the layer for sensing/detection purposes as is required by the present claims. The Applicant further alleged that the skilled artisan would understand that the complex steps of amorphization and subsequent hydrolysis in the processes of Engelhardt are not required for the production of the cellulose layers according to the present claims.
This argument is not persuasive because while Engelhardt does not teach producing a cellulose layer by applying cellulose and/or a cellulose derivative to a suitable support, nor does Engelhardt teach immobilizing at least one ligand on the cellulose layer, the use of cellulosic material to immobilize biological ligands is well known in the art as demonstrated by Helbert. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Helbert teaches producing a cellulose layer by applying cellulose and/or a cellulose derivative to a suitable support (Page 4, [0055-0058]; page 5, [0064]; page 14, [0201]). Helbert teaches immobilizing at least one ligand on the cellulose layer (Page 1, [0019]; page 3, [0045-0046]; page 4, [0059]). A skilled artisan would not have been limited to the use of amorphization and subsequent hydrolysis for the production of cellulose layers because Helbert teaches producing a cellulose layer without amorphization (Page 4, [0055-0058]). Furthermore, claim 1 is broadly recited to produce a cellulose layer by applying a stable dispersion of cellulose or cellulose derivative to a suitable support and thus any method that applies a stable dispersion of cellulose or a cellulose derivative is acceptable.
The Applicant alleged that the method of producing cellulose layers in Helbert differs significantly from the method according to the presently claimed invention. The Applicant alleged that the method in Helbert relies on sedimentation, which is fundamentally and mechanically different from a production method involving the application of stable dispersion as required by the presently claimed invention. The Applicant further alleged that Helbert produces cellulose layers from bacterial cellulose and from cotton. The Applicant alleged that Helbert's lack of disclosure regarding the required concentration of the cellulose dispersion and Helbert' s reliance on bacterial cellulose/cotton further distances the teachings of Helbert from the presently claimed method which utilizes a defined, stable, process-ready dispersion. The Applicant alleged that there is nothing in Helbert that would motivate the skilled Artisan to abandon Helbert's primary focus, i.e., a cellulose film that is prepared via sedimentation, in favor of a cellulose dispersion comprising the cellulose nanoparticles of Engelhard that is applied to a solid support as required by the presently claimed method.
This argument is not persuasive because Helbert is a secondary reference that is used for producing a cellulose layer by applying cellulose and/or a cellulose derivative to a suitable support (Page 4, [0055-0058]; page 5, [0064]; page 14, [0201]) and Engelhardt is used to teach the stable dispersion of cellulose. Moreover, there is no teaching in the claims against producing cellulose layers from bacteria and from cotton as taught by Helbert, i.e., the claims do not exclude such method steps.
The Applicant alleged that May provides no teaching on the production method of the nitrocellulose carrier. The Applicant alleged that there is certainly no teaching or suggestion in May that the nitrocellulose carrier is applied to a suitable support as a stable dispersion, or that a ligand is integrated into said carrier. The Applicant alleged that the nitrocellulose carrier is meant to contact the subject's urine and transport it to the testing zone where it will be analyzed. The Applicant alleged that there is certainly nothing in May that would suggest that the nitrocellulose carrier should be reformulated as a stable dispersion that is applied to a solid support. The Applicant alleged that there is nothing in May that would teach or suggest immobilization of a ligand to the cellulose after the dispersion is applied. The Applicant alleged that modifying May to read on the presently claims would require a complete redesign of the device of May.
This argument is not persuasive because May is not used as a main reference and is used to teach cellulosic materials (e.g. nitrocellulose) as carrier material that has considerable advantages over conventional strips because of its natural ability to bind proteins without requiring prior sensitization and that binding reagents may be applied and directly immobilized thereon (May, column 2, lines 1-17; column 3, lines 5-18). Furthermore, the method of May is not modified but rather is an advantageous addition to the method of Engelhardt because it would increase the handling strength of cellulose layer (May, column 7, lines 12-15).
The Applicant alleged that the skilled artisan would have no motivation to combine Engelhard, Helbert, and May as doing so would alter the principle of operation of each reference such that the skilled artisan would have no reasonable expectation of success that the device would function for the detection of at least one analyte as required by the present claims.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the application to use the cellulosic dispersion of Engelhardt to make the cellulose layer on a support as in Helbert and May because it would increase the handling strength of cellulose layer as taught by May (May, column 7, lines 12-15).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the application to use the cellulosic material taught by Engelhard to make cellulosic carrier with immobilized ligands such as antibodies and the like for use in biological assays such as taught by Helbert and May because of the specificity of binding between and antibody and its target antigen and the ability to provide rapid results as noted by May (Column 1, lines 15-21). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to pick and choose a specific ligand to be immobilized on a solid support such as taught by Helbert and May because the ability to choose from a finite number of solution is obvious and generally dependent on the needs of the users.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the application to use the stable cellulosic suspension as taught by Engelhardt to form a cellulosic layer such as taught by Helbert because Engelhardt teaches cellulose has outstanding molecular properties (p. 1, lines 16-25), and their method of making stable cellulose-based nanoparticles which are dispersible to primary particles has the advantage of being obtainable by technically and comparatively straightforward process that do not require external emulsifiers for particle formation, i.e. simple and inexpensive. Engelhardt also teaches their cellulosic composition is useful for applications in biomedical and pharmaceutical areas and Helbert teaches cellulose films have wide applications and may be used to immobilize ligands or other proteins on it in order to make a device for use in biological assays. Helbert and May, in particular, specifically teaches that cellulosic films are easily reproducible and can be formed in a vast number of identical containers (Helbert, page 4, [0058]) rendering it desirable for making devices for use in immunoassays. And May teaches cellulosic materials (e.g. nitrocellulose) as carrier material that has considerable advantages over conventional strips because of its natural ability to bind proteins without requiring prior sensitization and binding reagents may be applied and directly immobilized thereon (May, column 2, lines 1-17; column 3, lines 5-18).
A skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the cellulosic material taught by Engelhard to make cellulosic carrier with immobilized ligands such as antibodies and the like for use in biological assays such as taught by Helbert and May because of the advantages disclosed therein.
The Applicant alleged that Horn does not teach or suggest immobilization of multiple ligands on a cellulose dispersion in a spatially ordered array. The Applicant alleged that a completely different system is utilized in Horn to produce polymer layers exclusively on the basis of functionalized acrylates. The Applicant alleged that this method is not designed to produce cellulose layers.
This argument is not persuasive because horn teaches that reagent spots consist of polymer layers with indicators (Column 5, lines 55-57). Horn further teaches that the indicator is an enzyme (Column 8, claim 5). Furthermore, Horn is used as a secondary reference and as an advantageous addition to the method of Engelhardt.
Similarly, the Applicant traversed to using references Audeh, Trigiante and Ono for not teaching the current method.
This argument is not persuasive because the three references of Audeh, Trigiante and Ono are secondary references that are added to the method of Engelhardt as advantageous additions.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR RAMADAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Emch can be reached at (571) 272-8149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR RAMADAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1678
/GREGORY S EMCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1678