CTFR 17/421,677 CTFR 98341 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/28/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been thoroughly reviewed and considered. Claims 8-9 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 10-14, and 16-21 are pending and are examined on the merits herein. Response to Applicant’s Amendments 35 USC 112(b) Rejections Claims 8-12 were rejected due to various indefiniteness issues. Claims 8-9 have been canceled, and so these rejections have been rendered moot . Applicant has amended claim 10 in the claims submitted 5/28/2026, and so this rejection has been withdrawn . Claim 11 has not been amended, and so the rejections for claims 11-12 have been maintained . It is noted that Applicant has not provided any substantive arguments against these rejections. 35 USC 112(a) Rejections Claims 8-10 were rejected for reciting new matter. In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted 5/28/2026, the rejection for claim 10 has been withdrawn . Claims 8-9 have been canceled, and so these rejections have been rendered moot . 35 USC 112(d) Rejections Claims 8-10 were rejected because claims 8-9 failed to further limit the subject matter upon which they depended. In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted 5/28/2026, the rejection for claim 10 has been withdrawn . Claims 8-9 have been canceled, and so these rejections have been rendered moot . 35 USC 103 Rejections 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 5, 7-14, and 16-21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ankenbauer (US 2008/0248535 A1), in view of Bray et al. ( Human Mutation , 2001), and in view of Wittwer et al. (WO 2017/079636 A1). Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been thoroughly reviewed and considered. These rejections have been maintained for all currently pending claims. See “Response to Applicant’s Arguments” below. Claims 8-9 have been canceled, and so these rejections have been rendered moot . Response to Applicant’s Arguments Regarding the 35 USC 103 Rejections, Applicant argues that Wittwer, which is used to provide particular reagent concentrations and amplification conditions in the obviousness rejection, is a two-enzyme reverse transcription and amplification process, while the present invention is directed to a single-enzyme system for such purposes. Applicant particularly argues that the reagent concentrations of Wittwer would not predictably translate to a single-enzyme system (Remarks, pages 5-6). Additionally, Wittwer’s system uses Mg 2+ rather than Mn 2+ , which Applicant states is not a trivial substitution that would have predictable results (Remarks, page 6). In the final paragraph of page 6 of Applicant’s Remarks, they state that Wittwer’s system does not show that a single enzyme can be used with the rapid reverse transcription times described by the instant claims. Regarding the Examiner’s rejection using the rationale of overlapping ranges, Applicant states that Wittwer’s invention does not describe the same general conditions as the instant invention, and so the rationale cannot be used (Remarks, page 7). Applicant also points to “surprising” results in Example 1 of the instant specification, and to the prosecution history for evidence that single-polymerase rapid RT-PCR as recited in the combination of references would not have a reasonable expectation of success (Remarks, page 7-8). Applicant’s arguments focus almost entirely on the teachings of Wittwer, when the instant claims were rejected over Ankenbauer, in view of Bray, and in view of Wittwer. 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). Ankenbauer alone is used to teach rapid one-step RT-PCR with a single-enzyme and a rapid reverse transcription time (see para. 37 of the Final Rejection mailed 5/28/2026). In para. 37 of the reference, Ankenbauer states, “an optimization of concentrations used in the context of the present invention can be obtained through routine experiments.” This indicates that reagent concentrations need not be fixed in the teachings of Ankenbauer, and that alterations of such concentrations would be possible for the ordinary artisan. This reference also teaches the use of Tth polymerase, and Bray is used to provide additional teachings that this polymerase can perform both reverse transcription and amplification when used with manganese chloride, thus providing rationale for the inclusion of manganese chloride in the reactions of Ankenbauer so that the polymerase would perform as intended. In utilizing the teachings of Wittwer, the Examiner states in para. 43 of the Final Rejection, “Though the methods generally described by Wittwer are not the exact same as those described by Ankenbauer in view of Bray, Wittwer does teach methods for rapid RT-PCR reactions. The methods and conditions described by Wittwer above relate to the amplification portion of the RT-PCR reactions, and so can provide the ordinary artisan with useful information about how to optimize the amplification reactions of Ankenbauer in view of Bray.” This is related to Applicant’s concerns regarding the general conditions of the references in relation to an overlapping range analysis in accordance with MPEP 2144.05. Ankenbauer, the primary reference, does teach the general conditions of the instant claims (i.e. a rapid, single-enzyme RT-PCR system), and also explicitly teaches that their invention may be optimized by routine experimentation. Wittwer provides evidence that the concentrations and amplification conditions used in the instant claims have been used previously in the prior art, and only the recitation of these conditions in the methods of Wittwer that are related to that of Ankenbauer in view of Bray (i.e. RT-PCR systems) are used to inform the obviousness rejection. In the statement of rejection for combining these references, it is not asserted by the Examiner that the rapid RT-PCR methods of Wittwer be utilized in the methods of Ankenbauer in view of Bray. MPEP 2141.03 I states, “"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396… The "hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art." Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988).” Thus, Wittwer performs a RT-PCR method related to that of Ankenbauer in view of Bray, and so these references are in the same field of endeavor and would be known the ordinary artisan. Subsequently, the ordinary artisan would be capable, through ordinary capability and creativity, of using the reaction conditions described by Wittwer to aid in optimizing the reaction conditions in Ankenbauer in view of Bray. This is particularly supported by the fact that Ankenbauer teaches that their reaction conditions may be optimized, and because the rationale used to combine these references does not rely on teachings or motivations regarding the RT-PCR methods of Wittwer. Altering reaction conditions is well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, and it is noted that the instant claims currently have no requirement that a particular efficiency or amount of product be achieved. As Wittwer is specifically used to inform primer concentrations, polymerase concentrations, and amplification cycling conditions, without fundamentally altering the RT-PCR of Ankenbauer in view of Bray, the ordinary artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving some amount of amplification product. Regarding Applicant’s Example 1 in the instant specification, Applicant is directed to MPEP 716.02 for a discussion of the requirements for a determination of unexpected results. These include an explanation to establish why the results are unexpected and significant, a comparison with the closest prior art, and a showing that the results are commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. While Example 1 does include manganese salt in the concentration claimed in instant claim 1 and a polymerase in the concentration claimed in instant claim 1, this example is generally much more specific than the invention of instant claim 1 – particular amplification reagents are used in specific concentrations, a specific polymerase is used, and particular primer sequences are recited. Furthermore, the example recites the use of a probe, which is not described in the claims. The example is thus not considered commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Additionally, the discussion of this example merely states that “Surprisingly, a 0 second RT paired with Fast PCR cycling conditions yielded a product,” (page 12). There is no further discussion of why such results would be surprising. Thus, Example 1 is not considered to show unexpected results, particularly in view of Ankenbauer, which also teaches 0 second reverse transcription and rapid PCR. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive, and the 35 USC 103 Rejections are maintained for all currently pending claims. As the rationale for these rejections has not changed, this action has been made final . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: in line 1 of step (b), “reverse transcribing the RNA” should read “reverse transcribing the target RNA” to better match the language used earlier in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 11-12 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. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cofactor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “a cofactor” is not recited earlier in the claim, or in claim 1, from which this claim depends. It will be interpreted as though the cofactor is referring to the manganese salt in claim 1. Claim 12 is also rejected due to its dependence on rejected claim 11. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, 5, 7, 10-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ankenbauer (US 2008/0248535 A1), in view of Bray et al. ( Human Mutation , 2001), and in view of Wittwer et al. (WO 2017/079636 A1) . Ankenbauer teaches performing rapid one-step RT-PCR (Abstract). This method involves providing a sample, providing reagents necessary to perform reverse transcription and amplification, performing a reverse transcription incubation for a time interval of 0 seconds to 40 seconds, and performing amplification with denaturing and annealing steps (paras. 32-39, 42, and 45; instant claims 13-14 and 16-17 ). The enzyme used is a polymerase with DNA-dependent and RNA-dependent activity (para. 46). The reagents used specifically include buffers, primers, and dNTPs (para. 37) As for specific polymerases for use in the method of Ankenbauer, para. 46 notes that DNA polymerase of Thermus thermophilus is preferred. Para. 7 of Ankenbauer specifically notes that such a polymerase, referred to as Tth polymerase, shows reverse transcriptase activity only in the presence of manganese ions. Bray teaches that Tth polymerase is “an RNA polymerase that acts as a DNA polymerase in the presence of manganese chloride,” (page 298, column 2, para. 1) Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ankenbauer and Bray to arrive at the general inventive method of instant claims 1 and 10. Ankenbauer teaches that in the one-step RT-PCR, elements can be added that are generally needed for reverse transcription and amplification (paras. 32-37). The reference also teaches that a Tth polymerase would be preferable to use. Bray teaches that such an enzyme acts in a DNA-dependent and RNA-dependent fashion when in the presence of manganese chloride, and so it would be prima facie obvious for the ordinary artisan to add this reagent into the method of Ankenbauer to ensure that the polymerase works as intended. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as Ankenbauer generally teaches the addition of manganese compounds into their RT-PCR -methods (see para. 69). However, neither of these references discuss the primer concentrations of claims 1 and 5, the polymerase concentrations of claims 1 and 7, or the amplification conditions of claim 19, though Ankenbauer does note that, “an optimization of concentrations used in the context of the present invention can be obtained through routine experiments,” (para. 37). Wittwer teaches methods, kits, and mixtures for performing rapid RT-PCR (Abstract). This involves rapid reverse transcription, lasting as little as 1 second (Figures 27 and 28, paras. 74 and 75). In this 1 second embodiment, an RSV primer pair and KlenTaq were used along with PCR master solution (para. 210). KlenTaq is a DNA polymerase (para. 132). 2 μM of KlenTaq was used, corresponding to over 0.8 U/μL of polymerase (paras. 210 and 117). Wittwer also teaches PCR methods where the polymerase concentration is 1 μM (i.e. 0.8 U/μL, as taught in para. 117, paras. 135 and 140; instant claim 7 ). In additional embodiments, Wittwer teaches RT-PCR methods where primer concentration is 6 μM each (para. 196), reverse transcription occurred for 20 seconds, forward and reverse primers were used, and amplification involved denaturation (para. 196, which also references Example 13 which discusses their PCR parameters in para. 186). The reference notes that in extreme PCR, primer concentrations of 1.5-20 μM each are used “to obtain excellent annealing efficiency despite annealing times of 0.05 - 0.3 seconds,” and that these concentrations are needed when polymerase concentrations of “0.4 - 12 U/μl of any standard polymerase (0.5-16 μM of KlenTaq),“ are used (paras. 111 and 117; instant claim 5 ). Finally, Wittwer also teaches various PCR parameters in Table 2, including one embodiment for the NQO1 gene where denaturation occurs at 90°C and annealing/extension occurs at 72°C. The annealing/extension occurs in 1 second, and with a 1.93 second total cycle time, leaving 0.93 seconds for denaturation (Table 2). This table also shows denaturation temperatures up to 92°C, annealing/extension temperatures of 60°C and 65 °C, as well as annealing/extension times of up to 5 seconds. Wittwer also discloses embodiments involving momentary (i.e. “0” second) denaturation at 95°C (paras. 178 and 8; instant claim 19 ). Though the methods generally described by Wittwer are not the exact same as those described by Ankenbauer in view of Bray, Wittwer does teach methods for rapid RT-PCR reactions. The methods and conditions described by Wittwer above relate to the amplification portion of the RT-PCR reactions, and so can provide the ordinary artisan with useful information about how to optimize the amplification reactions of Ankenbauer in view of Bray. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)… Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” Because Wittwer discloses concentration, temperature, and time ranges that encompass those recited in claims 1, 5, 7, and 19, and also recites a specific embodiment where the recited temperatures and times are close to those in claim 19, it would be obvious to use these claimed concentration, temperature, and time ranges in the method of Ankenbauer in view of Bray. Though some of the embodiments in Table 2 of Wittwer do not encompass RT-PCR, it would still be obvious to use these parameters in a RT-PCR method, as once the target sequence has been reverse transcribed, the protocol for amplifying the resulting cDNA is the same as for other DNA samples, and the resulting product is the same – namely amplified DNA of interest. Additionally, MPEP 2144.05 II (A) states, “Generally, differences 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).” Applicant has not provided evidence that the concentrations, temperatures, and times recited in claims 1, 5, 7, and 19 are critical. Though Applicant’s does provide a working example of their invention (i.e., Example 1), as noted above in the “Response to Applicant’s Arguments” section, this example does not provide evidence of unexpected results. Therefore, the concentrations, temperatures, and times recited in claims 1, 5, 7, and 19 are considered routine optimization, and the specific claimed parameters are not viewed as inventive. Thus, claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 13-14, 16-17, and 19 are prima facie obvious over Ankenbauer, in view of Bray, and in view of Wittwer. Regarding claim 3, Ankenbauer teaches that the primers associated with the PCR portion of their one-step RT-PCR are forward and reverse primers (para. 55), and also shows forward and reverse primers in Example 1 (para. 64). Regarding claims 11-12, Ankenbauer teaches an example in which manganese acetate is provided at a concentration of 3.25 mM for the PCR reaction (para. 69). As manganese chloride is used in the rejection of claim 1 described above, it would be prima facie obvious to use the same or a similar concentration for this cofactor in the method of Ankenbauer, in view of Bray, and in view of Wittwer. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)… Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” Additionally, MPEP 2144.05 II (A) states, “Generally, differences 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).” Applicant has not provided evidence that the concentrations recited in claims 11-12 are critical. Though in Applicant’s working example of their invention (i.e., Example 1), the cofactor concentration taught in claim 12 is used (4 mM McCl 2 ), the discussion of this example does not explain that this concentration is vital to the success of the method (instant specification pages 11-12). Applicant mainly compares the use of manganese versus magnesium (page 12), but does not discuss if concentration is important in said comparison. See also the “Response to Applicant’s Arguments” section above, which explains that this example does not provide evidence of unexpected results. Therefore, the concentrations recited in claims 11-12 are considered routine optimization, and the specific claimed parameters are not viewed as inventive. Regarding claim 18, Ankenbauer teaches that the reverse transcription can occur anywhere from 20°C to 65°C (para. 32). MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)… Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).” Additionally, MPEP 2144.05 II (A) states, “Generally, differences 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).” Applicant has not provided evidence that the temperature recited in claim 18 is critical. Though in Applicant’s working example of their invention (i.e., Example 1), the temperature taught in claim 18 is used, the discussion of this example does not explain that these temperatures are vital to the success of the method (instant specification pages 11-12). Applicant does state that “Surprisingly, a 0 second RT paired with Fast PCR cycling conditions yielded a product,” (page 12), but this is focused on the length of reverse transcription, and not the temperature of said reaction. Though Applicant’s does provide a working example of their invention (i.e., Example 1), as noted above in the “Response to Applicant’s Arguments” section, this example does not provide evidence of unexpected results. Therefore, the temperature recited in claim 18 is considered routine optimization, and the specific claimed parameters are not viewed as inventive. Regarding claims 20-21, Ankenbauer teaches the use of “multiple cycles” for the amplification reaction (see paras. 12 and 32) with specific examples having 45 cycles (pars. 72). It is noted that claim 20 requires the thermal cycling to comprise at least 30 amplification cycles and claim 21 requires that it comprise 40 amplification cycles. The use of the word “comprises” indicates that this language is open ended, and so additional components (such as additional cycles) may be included. Thus, these teachings of Ankenbauer read on these claims. Conclusion No claims are currently allowable. 07-42-09 AIA 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 FRANCESCA F GIAMMONA whose telephone number is (571)270-0595. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5pm. 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, Gary Benzion can be reached at (571) 272-0782. 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. /F.F.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1681 /ANGELA M. BERTAGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 2 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 3 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 4 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 5 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 6 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 7 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 8 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 9 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 10 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 11 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 12 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 13 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 14 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 15 Art Unit: 1681 Application/Control Number: 17/421,677 Page 16 Art Unit: 1681
Prosecution Insights