DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Support for the amendments are within the amended instant application specification dated 7/24/2025. It is noted, Applicant’s priority date for claims 1, 3-7, 9, 19-20 has changed due to Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 to recite ‘positions 20, 21, 29, and 30 of SEQ ID NO: 2’ and ‘positions 6, 69, 73, 87, 92, 114, 121, and 138 of SEQ ID NO: 2.’ See Maintained Objection and 112(a) New Matter rejection below.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 14-22 are pending.
Claims 2, 8, 11-13, 23-57 are canceled.
Claims 14-18, 21-22 stand withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 19-20 are pending and examined on the merits to the extent that claim 10 reads on elected species SEQ ID NO: 6.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/21/2025 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 8/22/2025 have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive to overcome at least one of the rejections and/or objections as previously applied.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in the instant action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s species election without traverse of species 6 in the reply filed on 5/30/2024 is acknowledged. Upon further consideration, the species election between SEQ ID NO: 6, 8, 10, 12, set forth in claim 10 has been reconsidered and is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 14-22 are pending.
Claims 2, 8, 11-13, 23-57 are canceled.
Claims 14-18, 21-22 stand withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 19-20 are pending and examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Rejections
The objection under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure is withdrawn in view of amino acid positions referencing seq id no:2 being recited in the previous claim set.
The new matter rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 19-20 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112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn is in view of amino acid positions referencing seq id no:2 being recited in the previous claim set.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 19-20 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 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 to recite ‘wherein the substituted luciferase has amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 20, 21, 29, and 30 of SEQ ID NO: 2 wherein the substituted luciferase has least one amino acid substitution from positions consisting of: 6, 69, 73, 87, 92, 114, 121, and 138 of SEQ ID NO: 2: and, wherein the substituted luciferase polypeptide exhibits bioluminescence in the presence of a substrate’ and claim 10 to recite ‘wherein the substituted luciferase polypeptide exhibits bioluminescence in the presence of a substrate.’
The scope of enablement rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 19-20 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph because the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 to recite ‘wherein the substituted luciferase has amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 20, 21, 29, and 30 of SEQ ID NO: 2 wherein the substituted luciferase has least one amino acid substitution from positions consisting of: 6, 69, 73, 87, 92, 114, 121, and 138 of SEQ ID NO: 2: and, wherein the substituted luciferase polypeptide exhibits bioluminescence in the presence of a substrate’ and claim 10 to recite ‘wherein the substituted luciferase polypeptide exhibits bioluminescence in the presence of a substrate.’
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 to recite, ‘wherein said substituted luciferase polypeptide comprises an amino acid sequence at least 92% identical to SEQ ID NO: 2; wherein the substituted luciferase has amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 20, 21, 29, and 30 of SEQ ID NO: 2 wherein the substituted luciferase has least one amino acid substitution from positions consisting of: 6, 69, 73, 87, 92, 114, 121, and 138 of SEQ ID NO: 2: and, wherein the substituted luciferase polypeptide exhibits bioluminescence in the presence of a substrate.’
.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Ai et al (US Patent No. 10,202,584 B2, Filing Date: Sep. 1, 2017, Date of Patent: Feb. 12, 2019) {herein Ai} are maintained.
The applied reference has a common Inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
As amended, claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 are drawn to a bioluminescent protein, comprising a substituted luciferase polypeptide, wherein said substituted luciferase polypeptide comprises an amino acid sequence at least 92% identical to SEQ ID NO: 2; wherein the substituted luciferase has amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 20, 21, 29, and 30 of SEQ ID NO: 2 wherein the substituted luciferase has least one amino acid substitution from positions consisting of: 6, 69, 73, 87, 92, 114, 121, and 138 of SEQ ID NO: 2: and, wherein the substituted luciferase polypeptide exhibits bioluminescence in the presence of a substrate.
Previously presented claim 19 is drawn to a combination comprising a bioluminescent protein of claim 1 and a luciferin.
With respect to claims 1, 3-4, Ai teaches a bioluminescent protein, comprising a substituted luciferase polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 with amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 21 and 166 of SEQ ID NO: 1, and comprising one or more amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 3, 16, 20, 29, 30, 71, 87, 114 and 144 of SEQ ID NO: 1 (Appendix A and B and column 43, claim 1). Examiner is interpreting SEQ ID NO: 1 taught by Ai to read on the claimed limitation of ‘wherein said substituted luciferase polypeptide comprises an amino acid sequence at least 92% identical to SEQ ID NO: 2 with amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 20, 21, 29, and 30 of SEQ ID NO: 2 and with amino acid substitutions at one or more of positions corresponding to positions 6, 69, 73, 87, 92, 114, 121, and 138 of SEQ ID NO: 2 (claim 1) since adding a substitution at positions 20, 21, 29, 30 on SEQ ID NO: 1 resulted in a protein that is at least 92% identical to SEQ ID NO: 2 (Appendix B). Additionally, Ai clearly anticipates substitutions at positions 20, 21, 29, and 30 of SEQ ID No: 2 and with amino acid substitutions at four or more positions selected from positions corresponding to positions 6, 20, 21, 29, 30, 69, 73, 87, 92, 114, 121, and 138 of SEQ ID NO: 2 with the teaching of ‘a bioluminescent protein, comprising a substituted luciferase polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 with amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 21 and 166 of SEQ ID NO: 1, and comprising one or more amino acid substitutions at one or more positions corresponding to positions 3, 16, 20, 29, 30, 71, 87, 114 and 144 of SEQ ID NO: 1’ (column 43, claim 1).
With respect to claim 6, Ai teaches the bioluminescent protein of claim 1, further comprising a fluorescent protein connected to the substituted luciferase polypeptide (column 43, claim 4).
With respect to claim 7, Ai teaches the bioluminescent protein of claim 4, wherein the
fluorescent protein is connected to the substituted luciferase polypeptide so as to allow bioluminescence resonant energy transfer (BRET) between the substituted luciferase polypeptide and the fluorescent protein (column 44, claim 6).
With respect to claim 19, Ai teaches a combination comprising a bioluminescent protein of
claim 1 and a luciferin (column 45, claim 9).
For the reasons stated herein, the teachings of Ai anticipates claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 19.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant’s in summary contend that Ai '584 does not contain all elements of independent claim 1 as above presented. The claims require a bioluminescent protein that is at least 92 % identical to SEQ ID NO: 2 and contains EACH of the four mandatory substitutions at positions 20, 21, 29 and 30 together with at least one additional substitution chosen from the expressly listed sites. Applicant contends that the disclosure of Ai '584 never teaches that complete combination.
This argument is found to be not persuasive.
This is because claim 1 does not make it clear that each of the positions 20, 21, 29 and 30 are all required in the substituted luciferase polypeptide. As of now Examiner has taken the position that the substituted luciferase polypeptide is limited to having any one of the amino acid at position 20, 21, 29 and 30 are changed. That is, Examiner reads the claim as, the substituted luciferase polypeptide NOT requiring all of the 4 amino acid positions at 20, 21, 29 and 30 be changed. If applicant means to include all the four positions to be included for the change then they need to amend the claim as such to make that fact clear. Examiner contends that Ai teaches a bioluminescent protein, comprising a substituted luciferase polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 with amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 21 and 166 of SEQ ID NO: 1, and comprising one or more amino acid substitutions at one or more positions corresponding to positions 3, 16, 20, 29, 30, 71, 87, 114 and 144 of SEQ ID NO: 1 (Appendix A and B and column 43, claim 1). As such, Examiner contends that the recited ‘wherein said substituted luciferase polypeptide comprises an amino acid sequence at least 92% identical to SEQ ID NO: 2; wherein the substituted luciferase has amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 20, 21, 29, and 30 of SEQ ID NO: 2 wherein the substituted luciferase has at least one amino acid substitution from positions consisting of: 6, 69, 73, 87, 92, 114, 121, and 138 of SEQ ID NO: 2: and, wherein the substituted luciferase polypeptide exhibits bioluminescence in the presence of a substrate’ is anticipated based on the teachings of Ai. In addition, Examiner contends that based on amended claim 1 (deletion of the word ‘and’ in line 6 of the instant application claim 1), the 4 amino acid positions 20, 21, 29 and 30 are not mandatory. Furthermore, Examiner contends that the amendment of claim 1 to recite, “wherein the substituted luciferase has at least one amino acid…” is not commensurate in scope with Applicant’s arguments that the 4 amino acid positions 20, 21, 29 and 30 are mandatory and the rest of them “further comprising”.
Maintained 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ai et al (US Patent No. 10,202,584 B2, Filing Date: Sep. 1, 2017, Date of Patent: Feb. 12, 2019) {herein Ai}, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 19 in view of Yeh et al (Date Published: 2019 May 17, HHS Public Access, cited on PTO-892 dated 8/22/2025) {herein Yeh} is maintained.
Original claim 20 is drawn to the combination of claim 19, wherein the luciferin comprises a luciferin selected from pyCTZ, 6pyDTZ, and 8pyDTZ.
The teachings of Ai as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 19.
However, Ai does not teach the product of claim 20, wherein the luciferin comprises a luciferin selected from pyCTZ, 6pyDTZ, and 8pyDTZ (claim 20).
With respect to claim 20, Yeh teaches in the presence of corresponding pyridyl substrates (i.e., pyCTZ, 6pyDTZ, or 8pyDTZ), LumiLuc generates highly bright blue, teal, or yellow bioluminescence (abstract).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Ai et al of a bioluminescent protein, comprising a substituted luciferase polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 with amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 21 and 166 of SEQ ID NO: 1, and comprising one or more amino acid substitutions at one or more positions corresponding to positions 3, 16, 20, 29, 30, 71, 87, 114 and 144 of SEQ ID NO: 1 (Appendix A and column 43, claim 1) or combine the teachings of Yeh because Yeh teaches in the presence of corresponding pyridyl substrates (i.e., pyCTZ, 6pyDTZ, or 8pyDTZ), LumiLuc generates highly bright blue, teal, or yellow bioluminescence (abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to either use the teachings of Ai et al. by itself or combine the teachings of Yeh because Yah provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize pyCTZ, 6pyDTZ, or 8pyDTZ as the luciferin for bioluminescent reporters as Yeh teaches pyCTZ, 6pyDTZ, or 8pyDTZ have broad applications because of their ATP-independency, excellent biocompatibility (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art knowing the benefit of measuring bioluminescent activity on cells based on the teachings Ai and Yeh would have a reasonable expectation of success to combine both a bioluminescent protein comprising a substituted luciferase polypeptide and pyCTZ, 6pyDTZ, or 8pyDTZ luciferins because one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them both to result in improved in vivo imaging.
One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to make and use the claimed bioluminescent reporters because Yeh provides the basic function of the luciferins and its uses and methods of making them. Ai provides the teachings of a bioluminescent protein, comprising a substituted luciferase polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 with amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 21 and 166 of SEQ ID NO: 1, and comprising one or more amino acid substitutions at one or more positions corresponding to positions 3, 16, 20, 29, 30, 71, 87, 114 and 144 of SEQ ID NO: 1 (Appendix A and column 43, claim 1). Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the above invention. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 8 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant’s in summary
contends that the dependent claim is allowable by virtue of its dependency on an allowable base claim and for the additional, patentable, subject matter contained within.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that Yah provides the motivation for Ai to utilize pyCTZ, 6pyDTZ, or 8pyDTZ as the luciferin for bioluminescent reporters as Yeh teaches pyCTZ, 6pyDTZ, or 8pyDTZ have broad applications because of their ATP-independency, excellent biocompatibility (abstract).
Maintained Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 19 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 9 of US Patent No. 10,202,584 B2 which are commonly owned, have common inventors and filed before the instant application is maintained. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are drawn to a bioluminescent protein, comprising a substituted luciferase polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 with amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 21 and 166 of SEQ ID NO: 1, and comprising one or more amino acid substitutions at one or more positions corresponding to positions 3, 16, 20, 29, 30, 71, 87, 114 and 144 of SEQ ID NO: 1. It is noted that SEQ ID NO: 2 of the instant application is at least 92% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the reference patent (appendix A and B).
The instant application claims 1, 3-5 are not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘584 because claim 1 of ‘584 recites ‘a bioluminescent protein, comprising a substituted luciferase polypeptide comprising the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 with amino acid substitutions at positions corresponding to positions 21 and 166 of SEQ ID NO: 1, and comprising one or more amino acid substitutions at one or more positions corresponding to positions 3, 16, 20, 29, 30, 71, 87, 114 and 114 of SEQ ID NO: 1,’ which is not patentably distinct from the instant application claims 1, 3-4.
The instant application claim 6 is not patentably distinct from claim 4 of ‘584 because claim 4 of ‘584 recites ‘the bioluminescent protein of claim 1, further comprising a fluorescent protein connected to the substituted luciferase polypeptide,’ which is not patentably distinct from the instant application claim 6.
The instant application claim 7 is not patentably distinct from claim 6 of ‘584 because claim 6 of ‘584 recites ‘the bioluminescent protein of claim 4, wherein the fluorescent protein is connected to the substituted luciferase polypeptide so as to allow bioluminescence resonant energy transfer (BRET) between the substituted luciferase polypeptide and the florescent protein,’ which is not patentably distinct from the instant application claim 7.
The instant application claim 19 is not patentably distinct from claim 9 of ‘584 because claim 9 of ‘584 recites ‘a combination comprising a bioluminescent protein of claim 1 and a luciferin,’ which is not patentably distinct from the instant application claim 19.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 9 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant’s in summary
contends that In view of the possibility that claims in the present application will be further amended before allowance, Applicant will defer responding to this provisional rejection until claims in the present application are otherwise allowable, and it is determined whether the provisional rejection becomes an actual rejection.
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that claims 1, 4, 6, 9 of US Patent No. 10,202,584 B2 are patentably indistinct from the instant application. Examiner contends that based on the amended claim 1 (deletion of the word ‘and’ in line 6 of the instant application claim 1), the 4 amino acid positions 20, 21, 29 and 30 are not mandatory. As such, ‘584 remains patentably indistinct from the instant application claims. As such, Examiner contends that the nonstatutory rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is allowed.
Claim 9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
Status of claims
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 14-22 are pending.
Claims 2, 8, 11-13, 23-57 are canceled.
Claims 14-18, 21-22 stand withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 19-20 are rejected.
Claim 10 is 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 ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0360. The examiner can normally be reached mf 7:30a - 4:30p.
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.
/ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Appendix A
Instant Application SEQ ID NO: 2 vs Ai SEQ ID NO: 1
Query Match 97.8%; Score 877; DB 1; Length 171;
Best Local Similarity 98.2%;
Matches 168; Conservative 1; Mismatches 2; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MVFTLEDFVGDWRQTAGYNLSQVLEQGGVSSLFQNLGVSVTPIQRIVLSGENGLKIDIHV 60
|||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MVFTLEDFVGDWRQTAGYNLDQVLEQGGVSSLFQNLGVSVTPIQRIVLSGENGLKIDIHV 60
Qy 61 IIPYEGLSGDQMGQIEKIFKVVYPVDNHHFKVILHYGTLVIDGVTPNMIDYFGRPYEGIA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||:|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 IIPYEGLSGDQMGQIEKIFKVVYPVDDHHFKVILHYGTLVIDGVTPNMIDYFGRPYEGIA 120
Qy 121 VFDGKKITVTGTLWNGNKIIDERLINPDGSLLFRVTINGVTGWRLHERILA 171
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||
Db 121 VFDGKKITVTGTLWNGNKIIDERLINPDGSLLFRVTINGVTGWRLCERILA 171
Appendix B
Instant Application SEQ ID NO: 2 with substitutions noted a X at positions 20, 29, 30 vs Ai SEQ ID NO: 1
Query Match 97.5%; Score 863; DB 1; Length 171;
Best Local Similarity 96.5%;
Matches 165; Conservative 1; Mismatches 5; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 MVFTLEDFVGDWRQTAGYNXSQVLEQGGXXSLFQNLGVSVTPIQRIVLSGENGLKIDIHV 60
||||||||||||||||||| ||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MVFTLEDFVGDWRQTAGYNLDQVLEQGGVSSLFQNLGVSVTPIQRIVLSGENGLKIDIHV 60
Qy 61 IIPYEGLSGDQMGQIEKIFKVVYPVDNHHFKVILHYGTLVIDGVTPNMIDYFGRPYEGIA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||:|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 IIPYEGLSGDQMGQIEKIFKVVYPVDDHHFKVILHYGTLVIDGVTPNMIDYFGRPYEGIA 120
Qy 121 VFDGKKITVTGTLWNGNKIIDERLINPDGSLLFRVTINGVTGWRLHERILA 171
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||
Db 121 VFDGKKITVTGTLWNGNKIIDERLINPDGSLLFRVTINGVTGWRLCERILA 171
Prosecution Insights