DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 07/09/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 16 and 23 are pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed 07/09/2026 is acknowledged. This listing of the claims replaces all prior versions and listings of the claims.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 07/09/2026 in response to the final rejection mailed on 03/11/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election
The elected subject matter is
Group I, corresponding to claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 16 and 23, drawn to the technical feature of a method of forming a monosaccharide comprising providing a hydrogen source containing hydrogen gas in an aqueous electrolyte solution; providing a carbon dioxide source; forming a reaction mixture by feeding the hydrogen source and the carbon dioxide source into a synthetic reaction vessel containing an aqueous reaction solution, wherein the aqueous reaction solution contains a plurality of photosynthetic enzymes, at least two cofactors including reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) and adenine triphosphate (ATP), and at least one substrate; and forming an amount of the monosaccharide in the synthetic reaction vessel by reacting the hydrogen source, the carbon dioxide source, and the at least one substrate in contact with the plurality of photosynthetic enzymes and the at least two cofactors,
elected in the reply filed 05/10/2024.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 16 and 23 are being examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 16 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention is withdrawn in view of
the amendment to claim 1 to recite “ATP is regenerated using a synthetic enzymatic reaction” and
the amendment to claim 10 to recite “a voltage of from -1.5 V to 5.5 V”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11-12, 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles et al. (US 7,803,601; cited on the IDS filed 03/29/2022; herein Nobles) in view of Yagishita et al. (J Biosci Bioeng, 1999, 88:210; cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 07/12/2024; herein Yagishita), Ortega et al. (J Chem Technol Biotechnol, 1998, 73:7; cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 02/11/2025; herein referred to as Ortega), Hodgman et al. (Metabolic Eng, 2012, 14:261; cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 02/11/2025; herein referred to as Hodgman), Greiner et al. (Green Chem, 2003, 5:697; cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 11/07/2025; herein Greiner) and Resnick et al. (Appl Env Microbiol, 2000, 66:2045; cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 11/07/2025; herein Resnick), and evidentiary references Ducat et al. (Curr Opin Chem Biol, 2012, 16:337; cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 01/18/2024; herein Ducat), Mayo et al. (Plant Physiol, 1989, 90:720; cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 07/12/2024; herein Mayo) and Gibco et al. (Certificate of Analysis BG-11 Media, 1 page, 04/06/2024; cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 07/12/2024; herein Gibco).
The instant rejection is maintained from a previous Office action and any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim 1 is drawn to a method of forming a monosaccharide comprising:
providing a hydrogen source containing hydrogen gas in an aqueous electrolyte solution;
providing a carbon dioxide source;
forming a cell-free enzyme-based reaction mixture by feeding the hydrogen source and the carbon dioxide source into a synthetic reaction vessel containing an aqueous reaction solution, wherein the aqueous reaction solution contains a plurality of photosynthetic enzymes, at least two cofactors including reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) and adenine triphosphate (ATP), and at least one substrate;
wherein NADPH is regenerated using an electrochemical method and
ATP is regenerated using synthetic enzymatic reaction which comprises polyphosphate kinase (PPK), adenylate kinase (ADK) and AMP phosphotransferase (PPT); and
forming an amount of the monosaccharide in the synthetic reaction vessel by reacting the hydrogen source, the carbon dioxide source, and the at least one substrate in contact with the plurality of photosynthetic enzymes and the at least two cofactors,
wherein the synthetic reaction vessel includes an electrochemical cell and a power source; and wherein the hydrogen source is provided by performing hydrolysis of water in the electrochemical cell to produce hydrogen gas;
wherein the plurality of photosynthetic enzymes is immobilized in a hydrogel, and wherein the hydrogel includes alginate or calcium alginate; and
wherein the amount of monosaccharide formed has a concentration in the reaction mixture of 2 mg/ml or greater.
Nobles discusses production and secretion of glucose in photosynthetic prokaryotes [title].
Regarding claim 1 and the limitations of providing a hydrogen source containing hydrogen gas in an aqueous electrolyte solution, providing a carbon dioxide source, and forming a reaction mixture by feeding the hydrogen source and the carbon dioxide source into a synthetic reaction vessel containing an aqueous reaction solution containing a plurality of photosynthetic enzymes, at least two cofactors including NADPH and ATP, and at least one substrate resulting in the production of a monosaccharide, Nobles discloses a scheme of providing CO2, H2O and growth medium components into a photobioreactor [Figure 1], wherein the photobioreactor is a fermentation device suitable for inoculating cyanobacteria for the production of cyanobacteria cells and secreted materials such as cellulose [col 5, lines 4-15], and wherein cellulose is further metabolized via enzymatic hydrolysis to produce monosaccharides [col 6, lines 10-17, and Figure 1]. Nobles describes the cyanobacteria include photosynthetic, nitrogen-fixing facultative heterotrophs, chemoautotrophs, and combinations thereof [col 1, line 67 to col 2, line 3], wherein photosynthetic chemoautotrophs such as Cyanobacteria inherently contain a plurality of photosynthetic enzymes, NADPH and ATP as evidenced by Ducat [Figure 1].
Regarding claim 1 and the limitations of the amount of monosaccharide formed has a concentration in the reaction mixture of from 2 mg/ml or greater, Nobles teaches the removal of glucose from culture supernatant after incubation and subsequent centrifugation [col 11, line 66 to col 12, line 2] wherein the reaction produced 1.37 mg/ml glucose [Table 2].
Nobles does not teach the limitations regarding the electrochemical cell, immobilization of enzymes in hydrogels, forming a cell-free reaction mixture, the electrochemical regeneration of NADPH and a two-step enzymatic reaction to regenerate ATP.
Yagishita discusses photosynthetic electrochemical cells using Synechocystis sp. [title] and discloses the effect of added substrate on the current outputs of electrochemical cells to modulate total sugar content in microbial cells in both light and dark conditions [abstract].
Regarding claim 1 and the limitation of a synthetic reaction vessel that includes an electrochemical cell and a power source, Yagishita teaches the use of an electrochemical cell wherein the anode solution contains Synechocystis sp. with 0.25 mM 2-hydroxy-1,4-naphthoquinone (HNQ) in phosphate buffer, the cathode solution contains 0.1 M ferricyanide in phosphate buffer, and the electrochemical cell is left in an open circuit for 30 min [p 211, col 1, para 4], wherein an open circuit inherently involves the use of a power source.
Regarding claim 1 and the limitation of a hydrogen source provided by performing hydrolysis of water in the electrochemical cell to produce hydrogen gas, Yagishita teaches running the buffer-filled electrochemical cell in an open circuit for 30 minutes [p 211, col 1, para 4], the process of which inherently produces hydrogen gas from the hydrolysis of water.
Greiner relates to the continuous reduction of NADP+ with molecular hydrogen by Pyrococcus furiosus hydrogenase [title], and discusses that hydrogenases can activate H2 [p 697, col 1, para 1] as well as provide a cheap and clean source for the generation and regeneration of NADPH [p 697, col 1, para 3].
Regarding claim 1 and the limitation of regenerating NADPH using an electrochemical method, the instant specification does not specifically define the term “an electrochemical method”. For the sake of compact prosecution, the term is being defined as reading on any method comprising the use of an electrochemical component. In view of this definition, Greiner teaches a preparation of a cell-free extract of P. furiosus and crude enzyme comprising hydrogenase I [p 698, col 1, para 3] followed by adsorption of the electroactive enzyme onto the surface of an electrode for the continuous reduction of NADP+ to NADPH in the presence of H2 [abstract], which is encompassed by the limitation of regenerating NADPH using an electrochemical method. Additionally, Greiner teaches the direct electrochemistry of immobilized enzymes has been demonstrated to provide means for the electrochemical generation and regeneration of NADH [p 697, col 1, para 2], which is considered to correspond to the electrochemical regeneration of NADPH when considered with the teachings of Greiner.
Resnick relates to in vitro ATP regeneration from polyphosphate and AMP by polyphosphate:AMP phosphotransferase and adenylate kinase from Acinetobacter johnsonii 210 [title] and discusses the use of this PPT/ADK system provides an alternative to existing ATP regeneration systems as it uses stabile and inexpensive substrates [abstract].
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of ATP regeneration using a synthetic enzymatic reaction which comprises polyphosphate kinase (PPK), adenylate kinase (ADK) and AMP phosphotransferase (PPT), Resnick teaches the reaction scheme of converting polyphosphate (PolyP(n)) and AMP to ADP with the enzyme PPT, and subsequent conversion of ADP or AMP to ATP using the enzyme ADK [Figure 1], and the regeneration of ATP from ADP using polyphosphate and the enzyme PPK [p 2045, col 2, para 2].
Hodgman discusses cell-free synthetic biology [title], and describes that cell-free is a powerful approach to harness and expand the capabilities of natural biological systems due to the ability to bypass cell walls and remove genetic regulation to enable direct access to the inner workings of the cell [abstract].
Regarding claim 1 and the limitation of a cell-free enzyme-based reaction mixture, Hodgman teaches the construction of a cell-free extract harvested from cells in the scheme shown in [Fig. 3], wherein the cell-free extract corresponds to the cell-free enzyme based reaction mixture recited in the claim.
Ortega discusses the stabilization of enzymes entrapped in alginate [title], and describes the immobilization of an enzyme can facilitate a decrease in enzyme consumption as well as an improvement in enzyme stability [p 7, col 1 to col 2, para 1].
Regarding claim 1 and the limitation of the plurality of photosynthetic enzymes immobilized on an alginate or calcium alginate hydrogel, Ortega teaches the immobilization of the enzyme β-glucosidase in alginate gels [p 8, col 1, para 2], wherein the immobilization increased the enzymes thermal stability and half-life [Fig. 3 and Table 1] and its protection against proteolytic degradation [p 11, col 1, para 4]. While Ortega discusses the immobilization of β-glucosidase, which is not a photosynthetic enzyme, one of skill in the art would understand that the principles of enzyme immobilization and its effect on enzyme stability would be applicable to enzymes in any field, such as a photosynthetic enzyme or a plurality thereof.
In view of Nobles, Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nobles by using an electrochemical cell, as taught by Yagishita, electrochemically regenerating NADPH, as taught by Greiner, regenerating ATP through a two-step enzymatic process, as taught by Resnick, using a cell-free enzyme mixture as taught by Hodgman, and immobilizing enzymes in a hydrogel, as taught by Ortega, to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Nobles by using an electrochemical cell because Yagishita teaches an electrochemical cell with different substrate concentrations can be used to modulate the total sugar content in microbial cells in both light and dark conditions.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to electrochemically regenerate NADPH because Greiner teaches electrochemical generation and regeneration of NADPH via hydrogenases can provide a cheap and clean source for NADPH.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to regenerate ATP through a two-step enzymatic process because Resnick teaches the use of a two-step enzyme system for ATP regeneration provides an alternative to existing systems as it uses stabile and inexpensive substrates.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a cell-free enzyme mixture because Hodgman teaches that cell-free is a powerful approach to harness and expand the capabilities of natural biological systems due to the ability to bypass cell walls and remove genetic regulation to enable direct access to the inner workings of the cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to immobilize enzymes in a hydrogel because Ortega teaches the immobilization of an enzyme can facilitate a decrease in enzyme consumption as well as an improvement in enzyme stability.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Nobles, Yagishita and Hodgman discuss components for artificial metabolic pathways, and Hodgman, Greiner, Resnick and Ortega discuss methods to optimize enzymatic reactions outside of a cell.
The combination of Nobles, Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick does not explicitly teach or suggest the claim 1 limitation of “the amount of monosaccharide formed has a concentration in the reaction mixture of from 2 mg/ml or greater.” However, MPEP 2112.01(I) states when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Since the structure of the system of the combined method of Nobles, Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick comprises an aqueous electrolyte solution containing a hydrogen gas, a carbon dioxide source, an electrochemical cell and a power source, and a cell-free enzyme reaction mixture comprising a plurality of photosynthetic enzymes, at least two cofactors including reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) and adenine triphosphate (ATP), and at least one substrate, wherein the NADPH is regenerated using an electrochemical method and ATP is regenerated using a two-step synthetic enzymatic reaction which comprises PPK, ADK and PPT, wherein the plurality of photosynthetic enzymes is immobilized in a hydrogel that is substantially identical to the system recited in the claim, the property or function of “the amount of monosaccharide formed has a concentration in the reaction mixture of 2 mg/ml or greater” is presumed to be an inherent property or function of the system of the combined method of Nobles, Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick.
Regarding claim 4, Nobles discloses the use of the Cyanobacteria sp. Synechococcus leopoliensis which natively expresses the enzyme ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase (RUBISCO) as evidenced by Mayo [abstract].
Regarding claims 5-6, Nobles discloses the production of the monosaccharide glucose [Figure 1] which is understood in the art to contain 6 carbon atoms per molecule.
Regarding claim 9, Greiner teaches a preparation of a cell-free extract of P. furiosus and crude enzyme comprising hydrogenase I [p 698, col 1, para 3] followed by adsorption of the electroactive enzyme onto the surface of an electrode for the continuous reduction of NADP+ to NADPH in the presence of H2 [abstract].
Regarding claim 11, Yagishita teaches maintaining photosynthetic reactions with Synechocystis at 25-27 °C in BG-11 media [p 211, col 1, para 2], wherein BG-11 media has a pH ranging 6.7 – 7.5 as evidenced by Gibco. One of skill in the art would be expected to maintain the physiological conditions of the cell-based reaction in a cell-free reaction at least as a starting point, and would be expected to optimize both the temperature and pH ranges to increase reaction efficiency, as it is common in the art to optimize reactions in such a way.
Regarding claim 12, Nobles teaches the removal of glucose from culture supernatant after incubation and subsequent centrifugation [col 11, line 66 to col 12, line 2] wherein the reaction produced 1.37 mg/ml glucose [Table 2]. As the glucose concentrations in [Table 2] were measured from aliquots of cell suspensions [col 12, line 35-37], these measurements are understood to correspond to harvested monosaccharide as recited in the claim. While the combination of the prior art does not teach “the amount of monosaccharide formed from the reaction mixture at a production rate of from 2 mg/mL to 40 mg/mL,” MPEP 2112.01(I) states when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. As the system of the combined method of Nobles, Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick is substantially identical to the system recited in the claim, the property or function of “the amount of monosaccharide formed from the reaction mixture at a production rate of from 2 mg/mL to 40 mg/mL” is presumed to be an inherent property or function of the system of the combined method of Nobles, Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick.
Regarding claim 16, the method of Yagishita wherein the electrochemical cell is left in an open circuit for 30 min [p 211, col 1, para 4] is understood to use an electrical power source.
Regarding claim 23, Resnick teaches the two-step reaction scheme of converting polyphosphate (PolyP(n)) and AMP to ADP with the enzyme PPT, and subsequent conversion of ADP or AMP to ATP using the enzyme ADK [Figure 1], and also teaches ATP regeneration from ADP using polyphosphate and the enzyme PPK [p 2045, col 2, para 2], which is considered to correspond to ATP regeneration in in a light-independent manner.
Therefore, the invention of claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11-12, 16 and 23 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles in view of Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11-12, 16 and 23 above, and further in view of Fukuzumi et al. (Biochim Biophys Acta, 2016, 1857:604; cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 07/12/2024; herein Fukuzumi).
The instant rejection is maintained from a previous Office action and any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim 7 is drawn to the method of claim 1, wherein the electrochemical cell includes at least one pair of graphite-based electrodes or at least one photochemical catalyst; or wherein the electrochemical cell contains a carbon nitride catalyst.
The teachings of Nobles, Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11-12, 16 and 23 are described above. These references do not teach one pair of graphite-based electrodes, or at least one photochemical catalyst, or wherein the electrochemical cell contains a carbon nitride catalyst.
Fukuzumi discusses artificial photosynthesis [title], and discusses methods of harnessing the reduction power of photosystem I (PSI) which normally enables reduction of NADP+ to NADPH, that can be also applied to fuel production via reduction of O2 [abstract].
Regarding claim 7, Fukuzumi teaches that graphite carbon nitride can act as a photocatalyst to catalyze the reduction of O2 [p 6-7, col 2, para 3].
In view of Fukuzumi, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined method of Nobles, Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick by using a carbon nitride catalyst, as taught by Fukuzumi, to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the combined method of Nobles, Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick by using a carbon nitride catalyst because Fukuzumi teaches methods of harnessing the reduction power of photosystem I (PSI) which normally enables reduction of NADP+ to NADPH, that can be also applied to fuel production via reduction of O2 using a carbon nitride catalyst. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Nobles, Yagishita and Fukuzumi discuss components for artificial metabolic pathways.
Therefore, the invention of claim 7 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nobles in view of Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11-12, 16 and 23 above, and further in view of in view of Park et al. (J Phys Chem C, 2009, 113:7935; cited on the Form PTO-892 mailed 07/12/2024; herein Park).
The instant rejection is maintained from a previous Office action and any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim 10 is drawn to the method of claim 1, further comprising feeding the carbon dioxide source into the aqueous reaction solution at a flow rate of from about 80 ml/min to about 110 ml/min, or performing hydrolysis at a voltage of from -1.5 V to about 5.5 V.
The teachings of Nobles, Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11-12, 16 and 23 are discussed above. These references do not teach a flow rate of CO2 or voltages associated with hydrolysis.
Park discloses electrochemical water splitting [title], and discusses methods of electrochemical water splitting, e.g. electrolysis, for H2 generation that have a negligible carbon footprint compared to the predominant method of steam methane reformation [p 7935, col 1, para 1].
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches a method of producing hydrogen gas at a constant cell voltage of 3.17 V in a cell containing 50 mM NaCl [Figure 6b, and p 7941, col 2, para 2].
In view of Park, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined method of Nobles, Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick by using the voltage of Park to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the combined method of Nobles, Yagishita, Ortega, Hodgman, Greiner and Resnick by using the voltage of Park, because Park teaches using this voltage in methods for H2 generation that have a negligible carbon footprint compared to the predominant industrial methods. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Nobles, Yagishita and Park discuss systems that carry out hydrolysis.
Therefore, the invention of claim 10 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Response to remarks: beginning on page 5 of Applicant’s response to rejections under 35 USC 103; Applicant in summary contends the prior art of record, particularly Greiner, does not teach or suggest the regeneration of NADPH by electrochemical means as presently claimed, as Greiner is merely applying electrochemistry to measure the activity of the enzyme; Applicant further contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would not apply an electrochemical method to regenerate NADPH because Wang et al., attached as Exhibit A, teaches electrochemical methods of NADPH regeneration are not sufficient alone, particularly for large scale reactions.
Applicant’s remarks are considered and found not convincing.
Regarding Greiner, as discussed in the rejection above, Greiner teaches adsorption of an enzyme to the surface of an electrode for the continuous reduction of NADP+ to NADPH in the presence of H2. As the instant specification does not specifically define “an electrochemical method”, the term is interpreted to encompass methods comprising electrochemical components, which corresponds to the method of Greiner. While Applicant states Greiner is not using electrochemical means to regenerate NADPH, the claims do not recite any limitations wherein the NADPH is regenerated by electrochemical means or any particular electrochemical component, but instead limits the method to be the broadly stated “electrochemical method”.
Regarding the teaching against using electrochemical methods to regenerate NADPH, the reference cited by Applicant of Wang et al. (Exhibit A) was not filed with the present remarks, and therefore the arguments based on the teachings of Wang are not clear. However, considering Applicant’s argument that electrochemical methods of NADPH regeneration are not sufficient alone for large-scale reactions, it is noted that the claims do not require any particular scale of reaction, or any threshold amount of NADPH to be regenerated, and therefore this assertion would not preclude the claimed method from being obvious over Greiner and the other prior art of record.
Conclusion
Status of the Application:
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 16 and 23 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 16 and 23 are rejected.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JOSEPH SPANGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Manjunath Rao can be reached at (571) 272-0939. 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.
/JOSEPH R SPANGLER/
Examiner
Art Unit 1656
/David Steadman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights