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 .
Status of Application, Amendments, And/Or Claims
The Applicants amendments/remarks received 9/11/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 1 and 9 are amended; claims 2, 4 and 10 are canceled; no claims are withdrawn; claims 19-23 are new; claims 1, 3, 5-9 and 11-23 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 7/14/2025, 10/30/2025 and 12/8/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 15 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “an average diameter of 50 um to 800 um” in line 2 which should be “an average diameter of 50 µm to 800 µm” because µm not um is the symbol for micrometer.
Claim 15 recites “a temperature of 50°C to 150°C” which should be “a temperature of 50 °C to 150 °C” because there should be a space between the numeric value and the unit.
Claim 23 recites “an average diameter of 50 um to 800 um” in line 2 which should be “an average diameter of 50 µm to 800 µm” because µm, not um, is the symbol for micrometer.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9 and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as set forth at pp. 2-3 of the previous Office Action, is withdrawn in view of the amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claims 9 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as set forth at pp. 3-6 of the previous Office Action, is withdrawn in view of the amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as set forth at pp. 6-7 of the previous Office Action, is withdrawn in view of the amendment of the claims.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the foam core has a smooth outer surface” in line 7 which constitutes new matter. The instant disclosure does not disclose that the outer surface of the foam core is smooth. To the contrary, Fig. 4 of the instant disclosure discloses that the outer surface of the foam core is rough with microcracks; hence, the limitation clearly constitutes new matter. Claims 3, 5-8 and 18 depend from claim 1 and also constitute the new matter; hence, claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement by constituting new matter.
Claims 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the foam core has a non-porous outer surface that is free of pores” in line 7 which constitutes new matter. The instant disclosure does not disclose that the outer surface of the foam core is non-porous and free of pores. To the contrary, Fig. 4 of the instant disclosure discloses that the outer surface of the foam core is rough with microcracks, which would constitute pores under a broadest reasonable interpretation of pores; hence, the limitation clearly constitutes new matter. Claims 20-23 depend from claim 10 and also constitute the new matter; hence, claims 129-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement by constituting new matter.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9 and 11-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while presumably being enabling for producing microcarriers wherein the foam core has a closed cell structure wherein the foam core is produced from proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem, does not reasonably provide enablement for producing microcarriers wherein the foam core has a closed cell structure wherein the foam core is produced with a physical foaming agent, a chemical foaming agent or an inorganic foaming agent.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required are summarized in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. While all of these factors are considered, a sufficient number are discussed below so as to create a prima facie case.
The claims are not overly broad in that independent claim 9 is drawn to a method of producing a microcarrier comprising a foam core comprising a closed cell structure. The nature of the invention is biotechnology, i.e., the physiological arts, which are known to be unpredictable (MPEP 2164.03); however, the skill of the ordinary artisan in such arts is generally high (usually Ph. D. level). No prior art reference anticipates the method of producing the microcarrier of claim 9; hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have necessarily had to rely on the direction and working examples provided by the inventor to practice the method of producing the microcarrier without undue experimentation.
Applicant only discloses a method for producing said microcarrier wherein the foam core is produced from proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem (Examples 1-3 and Comparative Example 3).
Applicant does not provide guidance or working examples for producing microcarriers wherein the foaming agent is a physical foaming agent, a chemical foaming agent or an inorganic foaming agent, nor does Applicant provide guidance or working examples for producing microcarriers wherein the heating an aqueous solution containing polystyrene containing a foaming agent (independent claim 9) wherein the polystyrene containing a foaming agent is anything OTHER THAN proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem. Methods which require reagents which are proprietary and not commercially available, wherein the exact generic equivalent is not disclosed, are necessarily not enabled to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the required reagents to practice the method are unavailable or not disclosed. The instant disclosure does not provide any enabling method for producing the microcarriers meeting the claimed limitations OTHER THAN heating an aqueous solution comprising the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem.
Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have had to engage in undue experimentation to practice the method of producing a microcarrier commensurate in scope with the claims; therefore, claims 9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to provide a disclosure which enables the practicing of the invention commensurate in scope with the claims without undue experimentation.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18-23, because the instant disclosure does not provide an enabling method for producing the microcarriers without the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem, the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem are not disclosed as being available to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing nor is an enabling method for producing the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided; production of the claimed microcarriers of claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18-23 is not enabled; hence, claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as not being enabled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments of the Applicant’s Response on pp. 7-10 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and §112(a) are moot as the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 9 and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for scope of enablement, Applicant argues (pp. 8-9) that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been able to use the claimed method without undue experimentation based upon the very generic teaching of the specification at lines 2-14 of p. 9. This is completely unpersuasive as the cited passage does not disclose what the foaming agent is, what the concentration of the foaming agent is, what the initiator is, what the concentration of the initiator is, what the concentration of the styrene monomer is, what the surfactant is, what the concentration of the surfactant is, what the reactor is, what temperature the components are incubated at in the reactor, what the length of time the components are in the reactor nor the rate of injection of the foaming agent into the reactor; hence, it is completely unpersuasive that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been able to use the claimed method without undue experimentation; hence, claims 9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to provide a disclosure which enables the practicing of the invention commensurate in scope with the claims without undue experimentation. As described above, because the instant disclosure does not provide an enabling method for producing the microcarriers without the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem, the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem are not disclosed as being available to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing nor is an enabling method for producing the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided; production of the claimed microcarriers of claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18-23 is not enabled; hence, claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as not being enabled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutsche et al., 1994 (cite U, PTO-892, 7/17/2024; herein “Gutsche”) in view of Cho et al., KR20140056014 (Foreign patent document cite 18, IDS, 7/22/2021; Espacenet English machine translation relied on in the rejection is cite N, PTO-892, 7/17/2024; herein “Cho”) in light of “Corning polystyrene microcarrier” (cite V, PTO-892, 7/17/2024).
Gutsche teaches a microcarrier for cell culture comprising a foam (i.e., porous) core containing polystyrene for culturing fibroblasts and chicken hepatocytes (Abst.; Figs. 3a-c; NOTE: Figs. 3a-c are two-dimensional images of three-dimensional transparent or translucent polystyrene foam cores; hence, the closed cell pores in the middle of the microcarrier in Fig. 3b are pores in the interior of the foam bead. The smooth perimeter of the bead demonstrates that the outer surface of the bead is smooth and non-porous).
Regarding the limitation of claim 1 that the microcarrier has a density of 0.80 g/cm3 to 0.99 g/cm3, “Corning polystyrene microcarrier” is cited as evidence that polystyrene microcarriers without internal pores have a density of ~1.026 g/cm3, while the microcarriers of Gutsche would necessarily have a lower density because the polystyrene is foamed (see Fig. 3b). Gutsche teaches that heptane, i.e., a physical foaming agent, was the porogen for the manufacture of the foam core polystyrene microcarriers, wherein the porogen was 60% by weight of the monomer (pp. 802-3, “Microcarrier Fabrication”). The density of the microcarrier could be easily controlled by adjusting the amount of porogen in the preparation of the foam core polystyrene microcarriers; hence, microcarriers with a density of 0.80 g/cm3 to 0.99 g/cm3 are prima facie obvious over the disclosure of Gutsche.
The closed cell pores in the interior of the foam core of the microcarriers of Gutsche do not appear to connect to the outside of the microcarrier (Fig. 3b) and the closed cell pores which do intersect with the outside of the foam core do not appear to connect to the other closed cell pores, rather, they are cavities or depressions in the exterior surface of the foam core (Fig. 10). Additionally, the smooth perimeter of the bead in Fig. 3b demonstrates that the outer surface of the bead is smooth and non-porous. Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the foam core of the microcarriers made obvious by Gutsche prevents culture medium from penetrating into the microcarrier during cell culture because the internal pores do not connect to the outside of the microcarrier and the pores which intersect with the surface of the microcarrier do not connect to the internal pores.
Gutsche does not teach that the microcarrier comprises a primer polymer layer or a cell-adhesion inducing layer comprising the components listed in claims 6, 13 and 17; however, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify Gutsche’s microcarrier to comprise a primer polymer layer and a cell-adhesion inducing layer for culturing stem cells in view of the disclosure of Cho.
Cho teaches polymer supports for culturing stem cells wherein the polymer support is coated with polydopamine, i.e., a polymer containing dopamine (i.e., a primer polymer layer formed on a polystyrene surface), then cell adhesion proteins or peptide are conjugated to the polydopamine, i.e., a cell adhesion-inducing layer formed on the surface of the primer polymer layer; Abst.; [0007], [0009], [0020-24], [0032]). Cho teaches that polymer support can be polystyrene [0007] and that the cell adhesion layer comprises vitronectin ([0007], [0014], [0023-24]). Cho teaches that the polymer support coated with polydopamine then vitronectin allowed for stable attachment of human induced pluripotent stem cells which were able to proliferate without animal-derived support cells [0016].
The foam core of the microcarriers of Gutsche have a closed cell structure as seen in Fig. 3b; hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the microcarriers made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho have a foam core with a closed cell structure.
Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to produce the microcarriers of Gutsche, comprising a foam core with a closed cell structure and a smooth, non-porous surface, with a density of 0.80 g/cm3 to 0.99 g/cm3; to coat the microcarriers of Gutsche with polydopamine and then with fibronectin, giving a microcarrier for cell culture comprising a foam core with a closed cell structure and a smooth, non-porous surface containing polystyrene, a primer polymer layer formed on a surface of the foam core comprising a derivative of dopamine; and a cell adhesion-inducing layer formed on the surface of the primer polymer layer comprising vitronectin, so that the microcarriers could effectively be used to culture stem cells without animal-derived support cells; therefore, claims 1, 5-6, 18-19 and 21-22 are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 3 and 20, the foam core of the microcarriers of Gutsche appear to have an internal porosity of ~ 30% (Fig. 3B); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the microcarriers made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho would have an internal porosity of ~ 30%; therefore, claims 3 and 20 are prima facie obvious.
Additionally, Gutsche teaches that heptane, i.e., a physical foaming agent, was the porogen for the manufacture of the foam core polystyrene microcarriers, wherein the porogen was 60% by weight of the monomer (pp. 802-3, “Microcarrier Fabrication”). The internal porosity of the microcarrier could be easily controlled by adjusting the amount of porogen in the preparation of the foam core polystyrene microcarriers; hence, microcarriers with an internal porosity of 2-30% are prima facie obvious over the disclosure of Gutsche; therefore, claims 3 and 20 are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 7 and 23, Gutsche teaches that the dry microcarriers were from 20 µm to several hundred micrometers (p. 803, 1st ¶) and demonstrates that they are about 300 - 400 µm when hydrated (Fig. 3B); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the microcarriers made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho would have an average diameter of 50 – 800 µm; therefore, claims 7 and 23 are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 8 and 23, Gutsche does not disclose the surface area of the microcarriers; however, because 125 – 212 µm polystyrene microcarriers without internal pores and a density of 1.026 g/cm3 have a surface area of 360 cm2/g (see “Corning polystyrene microcarrier”), a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the microcarriers made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho would have a specific surface area of 50 cm2/g to 2000 cm2/g; therefore, claims 8 and 23 are prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9 and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gutsche in view of Cho in light of “Corning polystyrene microcarrier”, Applicant presents 7 pages (pp. 10-16) of repetitive arguments replete with fraudulent quotations of Gutsche wherein the alleged quoted passages do not appear anywhere in Gutsche’s reference. For example, on pp. 10-11 of the Remarks, Applicant states “Specifically, Gutsche discloses microcarriers in various states; (a) SEM of dry microcarriers; (b) derivatized microcarrier "in water" (see Fig. 3 at page 805, Gutsche). Further, Gutsche discloses that upon incubation in "aqueous medium", the microcarriers swelled up to approximately seven times their initial weight in water and became somewhat "porous outer surface" (see Fig. 3b, Gutsche).” Gutsche does state “in water” in the legend of Fig. 3, does state “aqueous medium” (p. 805, “Materials Characterization”, ¶2) but does not state “porous outer surface” anywhere in the entire article. Applicant continues with the fraudulent quotations on p. 13: “More specifically, as the foam core of Gutsche has an open cell structure and "porous outer surface" rather than a closed cell structure, there is a problem that a culture medium (fibroblasts of Fig. 10 in Gutsche) penetrates into the pores of the microcarrier during culture, thereby increasing the density of the microcarrier.” Again implying that Gutsche states a “porous outer surface” while Gutsche does not disclose a porous outer surface anywhere in the disclosure. Applicant continues with the fraudulent quotations on p. 14: “However, when observing a SEM image of the foam core upon incubation in aqueous medium, the foam core of Gutsche has a "porous surface." Therefore, the foam core in Gutsche has a "foam core having an open cell structure," which means that there is an exchange of material between the inside and outside of the foam core.” Gutsche does not disclose a “porous surface” nor a “foam core having an open cell structure”; hence, the quotations are misleading at the very least. Applicant continues with the fraudulent quotations on pp. 14-15: “Specifically, Gutsche discloses microcarriers in various states; (a) SEM of dry microcarriers; (b) derivatized microcarrier "in water" (see Fig. 3 at page 805, Gutsche). Further, Gutsche discloses that upon incubation in "aqueous medium", the microcarriers swelled up to approximately seven times their initial weight in water and became somewhat "porous outer surface containing pores" (see Fig. 3b, Gutsche).
Namely, Gutsche merely discloses a "foam core having a porous outer surface containing pores," as the SEM image of the microcarrier appearance with a "porous surface containing pores" was obtained in a water-cultured state (see Fig. 3b, Gutsche).”
Gutsche does state “in water” in the legend of Fig. 3, does state “aqueous medium” (p. 805, “Materials Characterization”, ¶2) but does not state “porous outer surface containing pores”, “foam core having a porous outer surface containing pores” nor “porous surface containing pores” anywhere in the entire article.
Applicant continues with the fraudulent quotations on p. 16: “But, when observing the SEM image of the foam core upon incubation in aqueous medium, the foam core of Gutsche has a "porous outer surface containing pores." Therefore, the foam core in Gutsche has a "foam core having an open cell structure," which means that there is an exchange of material between the inside and outside of the foam core.” Gutsche does not disclose a “porous outer surface containing pores” nor a “foam core having an open cell structure”; hence, the quotations are misleading at the very least.
Hence, the discussion of Applicant regarding the rejection over Gutsche in view of Cho is deemed as practitioner’s argument without any basis in evidence, as apparent by the multiple misquotations of the Gutsche reference, and is weighted as such.
Applicant’s allegations that Gutsche’s polystyrene foam core has an open cell structure or lacks a closed cell structure is unpersuasive because A) Fig. 3b of Gutsche clearly shows a closed cell structure of pores occupying about 30% of the microcarrier’s interior, and B) the depressions and cavities seen in Gutsche Fig. 10, do not appear to connect to interior pores; thus, they are closed cell pores, some of which happened to be at the surface of the microcarrier during production which resulted in depressions and cavities. Thus, Gutsche does not present carriers with an open pore system in which the pores are interconnected; hence, Applicant’s allegations appear to be practitioner’s argument not based on evidence and are unpersuasive; therefore, the rejection is maintained with modification to address the amended claims and for clarity.
It is noted that A) the specification is explicit that porous structures can comprise both closed pores and opened pores (p. 4, ll. 23-26), B) the claim recites that the foam core has a closed cell structure, i.e., that the foam core comprises closed cells, C) Applicant has not shown that Gutsche’s microcarriers lack closed cells nor addressed the clearly visible closed cells evident in Fig. 3b; hence, even if it is shown that some of the pores in Gutsche’s microcarriers connect, which Applicant clearly has not done, the claimed microcarriers are still obvious over Gutsche in view of Cho because the foamed polystyrene core clearly comprises a closed cell structure as evident in Fig. 3b of Gutsche.
It is also noted that Gutsche characterizes the foam cores as smooth and nonporous “When observed by SEM, the derivatized microcarriers appeared smooth and nonporous (Fig. 3a).” (Gutsche, p. 805, “Materials Characterization”, ¶2); hence, Applicant’s attempts to characterize Gutsche’s microcarriers as having a surface which is anything other than smooth and non-porous is completely unpersuasive and contrary to Gutsche’s disclosure itself.
Applicant’s arguments (pp. 10-15) regarding the method of making are moot as claims 9 and 11-17 are not rejected in the rejection set forth above.
Hence, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained with modification to address claim amendments, new claims and for clarity.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Trent R Clarke whose telephone number is (571)272-2904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 MST.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/TRENT R CLARKE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1651
/DAVID W BERKE-SCHLESSEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651