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 .
Election/Restrictions and Claim Status
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 6/26/25 are acknowledged.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/26/25 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11213568 and US 11883464 and any patent granted on application number 18165801 and 18535927 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Thus any double patenting rejection based on such patents or applications is withdrawn.
Any other rejection or objection from the 3/28/25 office action that is not addressed below is withdrawn based on the amendments.
Previously, Group 1 was elected.
Claims 3 and 7-12 have been canceled.
Claims 13-18 have been added as new claims.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 13-18 are being examined
Priority
A priority section appeared in the previous office action. Since the claims have been amended and new claims added this section is updated.
The priority information is found in the filing receipt of 12/7/21.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/085,977, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The instant application is properly designated as a CIP. None of Application No. 16/085,977 or PCT/CN2017/077038 or CHINA 20160159303.7 (which is at least partially in a foreign language, only the English language portions have been considered) fully support instant claims 6, 14 and 16-18.
Claims 14, 16 and 18 recite neurotrophic keratitis. Claim 6 recites wound healing. Claim 17 recites spatial cognition and the ability of learning and memory of Alzheimer’s subject and claim 18 recites maintain the integrity of subject’s cornea or repair the damage of corneal nerve.
None of Application No. 16/085,977 or PCT/CN2017/077038 or CHINA 20160159303.7 refer to keratitis or learning or cornea or wound healing. As such, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that there is support for instant claims 6, 14 and 16-18.
In the instant case, claims 6, 14 and 16-18 are not fully supported by Application No. 16/085,977 or PCT/CN2017/077038 or CHINA 20160159303.7. As such, for purposes of searching prior art, a priority date of 11/19/21 is used for claims 6, 14 and 16-18.
Although unclear (see rejection below), claims 1-2, 4-5, 13 and 15 have been interpreted as being fully supported by the parent applications.
Response to Arguments - Priority
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Although applicants refer to a specific section of one of the priority documents, such section does not recite keratitis or learning or cornea or wound healing. As such, there is no reasonable basis to conclude that there is support for instant claims 6, 14 and 16-18.
Although applicants argue that the claims have been amended, the amended claims are addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims were previously rejected under 112. Since the claims have been amended and new claims added the rejection is updated to correspond to the instant claims.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 13-18 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 1 recites ‘wherein the nerve growth factor mutant comprising Phe12Glu with reference to the amino acid positions set forth in a wild-type human nerve growth factor’. Since the claim recites ‘mutant comprising Phe12Glu’ it is unclear if claim 1 is limited to a single mutation. None of claims 2, 4-6 and 13-18 clarify the claim scope. It is unclear if any sequences other than SEQ ID NO:3 are intended to be encompassed by the claim. Since line 4 of claim 1 recites ‘the nerve growth factor mutant comprising Phe12Glu’ it is unclear if there is proper antecedent bases for such phrase (the claim does not previously mention Phe12Glu). Although unclear, claim 1 has been interpreted as requiring the administration of SEQ ID NO:3. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 13 and 15 have been interpreted as being fully supported by the parent applications.
Newly added claims 17-18 depend on claim 5. Claim 5 refers to a subject suffering from diabetic neuropathy. Claim 17 refers to Alzheimer’s disease and claim 18 refers to neurotrophic keratitis. It is unclear if the subjects of claim 17 must have both diabetic neuropathy and Alzheimer’s disease. It is unclear if the subjects of claim 18 must have both diabetic neuropathy and neurotrophic keratitis.
Response to Arguments - 112
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Although applicants argue that the claims have been amended, the amended claims are addressed above.
Although applicants argue about example 7, limitations of the specification are not read into the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims were previously rejected under 103. Since the claims have been amended and new claims added, updated and/or new rejections appear below.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Presta et al. (US 8,101,571 as cited with IDS 3/16/22; ‘Presta’) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2017/157326 09-2017; first cited 3/28/25).
Wang et al. (WO 2017/157326 09-2017) is not in the English language. The English language equivalent US 2019/0105373 (‘Wang’) will be referenced to herein.
The priority of instant claims 6 and 17 is addressed above.
Presta teach NGF variants for treating neuronal disorders (abstract). Presta teach that NGF is known to support neuronal survival, promote neurite outgrowth and enhance neurochemical differentiation (column 2 lines 21-27). Presta shows the sequence of NGF where the 12th residue is F (figure 2). Presta teach F12 as a residue for substitution which increases NGF binding and/or bioactivity (column 10 lines 3-8). Presta teach administration of the NGF variant formulation for those with central nervous system disorders, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy (column 15 lines 5-67 specifically lines 15, 18, 25-26 and 47).
Presta specifically teach the treatment of wounds (column 17 lines 47-50). Presta teach for enhancing learning (column 15 lines 49-64). Presta teach methods of synthesis (column 21 2nd-3rd paragraphs).
Presta does not teach a Phe to Glu substitution as recited in claim 1.
Wang teach nerve growth factor (NGF) mutants that can alleviate side effects (abstract). Wang specifically teach a Phe12Glu substitution (sections 0009 and SEQ ID NO:3 of section 0010, 0014 and sequence listing). Wang teach the Phe12Glu mutant as having activity like that of wild type (figure 2 and Table 1). Wang teach methods of making and purifying the protein (examples 3-4) and methods of administering (example 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Presta because Presta teach NGF variants for treating neuronal disorders (abstract) and specifically teach F12 as a residue for substitution which increases NGF binding and/or bioactivity (column 10 lines 3-8). Thus one would have been motivated to make the specific Phe12Glu mutant as taught by Wang based on the advantages taught by Wang (abstract). Since Presta teach that NGF is known to support neuronal survival, promote neurite outgrowth and enhance neurochemical differentiation (column 2 lines 21-27) and teach administration of the NGF variant formulation for those with Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy (column 15 lines 5-67 specifically lines 18, 25-26 and 47) and specifically refers to the treatment of wounds (column 17 lines 47-50) and enhancing learning (column 15 lines 49-64) one would have been motivated to administer to such subjects. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since methods of synthesis and administration were known. Further, Wang teach the Phe12Glu mutant as having activity like that of wild type (figure 2 and Table 1).
In relation to the mutant as recited in claims 6 and 17, Presta shows the sequence of NGF where the 12th residue is F (figure 2). Wang specifically teach a Phe12Glu substitution (sections 0009 and SEQ ID NO:3 of section 0010, 0014 and sequence listing) which is the same as instant SEQ ID NO:3.
In relation to the administering and subjects of claims 6 and 17, Presta teach administration of the NGF variant formulation for those with central nervous system disorders, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy (column 15 lines 5-67 specifically lines 15, 18, 25-26 and 47) and specifically refers to the treatment of wounds (column 17 lines 47-50) and enhancing learning (column 15 lines 49-64).
Claim(s) 6, 14 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Presta et al. (US 8,101,571 as cited with IDS 3/16/22; ‘Presta’) in view of Esquenazi et al. (US 2007/0218105; ‘Esquenazi’) in view of Wang et al. (WO 2017/157326 09-2017; first cited 3/28/25).
Wang et al. (WO 2017/157326 09-2017) is not in the English language. The English language equivalent US 2019/0105373 (‘Wang’) will be referenced to herein.
The priority of instant claims 6, 14 and 16-18 is addressed above.
Presta teach NGF variants for treating neuronal disorders (abstract). Presta teach that NGF is known to support neuronal survival, promote neurite outgrowth and enhance neurochemical differentiation (column 2 lines 21-27). Presta shows the sequence of NGF where the 12th residue is F (figure 2). Presta teach F12 as a residue for substitution which increases NGF binding and/or bioactivity (column 10 lines 3-8). Presta teach administration of the NGF variant formulation for those with central nervous system disorders, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy (column 15 lines 5-67 specifically lines 15, 18, 25-26 and 47).
Presta specifically teach the treatment of wounds (column 17 lines 47-50). Presta teach for enhancing learning (column 15 lines 49-64). Presta teach methods of synthesis (column 21 2nd-3rd paragraphs).
Presta does not teach a Phe to Glu substitution as recited in claim 1 nor does Presta recite neurotrophic keratitis.
Esquenazi teach administration of nerve growth factor for enhancement of corneal nerve regrowth and to alleviate the symptoms of neurotrophic keratophathies (abstract) and specifically refers to nerve growth factor for neurotrophic keratitis (section 0005).
Wang teach nerve growth factor (NGF) mutants that can alleviate side effects (abstract). Wang specifically teach a Phe12Glu substitution (sections 0009 and SEQ ID NO:3 of section 0010, 0014 and sequence listing). Wang teach the Phe12Glu mutant as having activity like that of wild type (figure 2 and Table 1). Wang teach methods of making and purifying the protein (examples 3-4) and methods of administering (example 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Presta because Presta teach NGF variants for treating neuronal disorders (abstract) and specifically teach F12 as a residue for substitution which increases NGF binding and/or bioactivity (column 10 lines 3-8). Thus one would have been motivated to make the specific Phe12Glu mutant as taught by Wang based on the advantages taught by Wang (abstract). Since Presta teach that NGF is known to support neuronal survival, promote neurite outgrowth and enhance neurochemical differentiation (column 2 lines 21-27) and teach administration of the NGF variant formulation for those with Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy (column 15 lines 5-67 specifically lines 18, 25-26 and 47) and specifically refers to the treatment of wounds (column 17 lines 47-50) and enhancing learning (column 15 lines 49-64) one would have been motivated to administer to such subjects. Further, since Esquenazi teach nerve growth factor for enhancement of corneal nerve regrowth and to alleviate the symptoms of neurotrophic keratophathies (abstract) and specifically refers to nerve growth factor for neurotrophic keratitis (section 0005) one would have been motivated to administer to such subjects. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since methods of synthesis and administration were known. Further, Wang teach the Phe12Glu mutant as having activity like that of wild type (figure 2 and Table 1).
In relation to the mutant as recited in claims 6 and 17, Presta shows the sequence of NGF where the 12th residue is F (figure 2). Wang specifically teach a Phe12Glu substitution (sections 0009 and SEQ ID NO:3 of section 0010, 0014 and sequence listing) which is the same as instant SEQ ID NO:3.
In relation to the administering and subjects of claims 6 and 17, Presta teach administration of the NGF variant formulation for those with central nervous system disorders, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy (column 15 lines 5-67 specifically lines 15, 18, 25-26 and 47) and specifically refers to the treatment of wounds (column 17 lines 47-50) and enhancing learning (column 15 lines 49-64).
In relation to the administering and subjects of claims 6, 14, 16 and 18, Presta teach administration of the NGF variant formulation for those with central nervous system disorders, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy (column 15 lines 5-67 specifically lines 15, 18, 25-26 and 47). Esquenazi teach administration of nerve growth factor for enhancement of corneal nerve regrowth and to alleviate the symptoms of neurotrophic keratophathies (abstract) and specifically refers to nerve growth factor for neurotrophic keratitis (section 0005).
Response to Arguments - 103
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Although applicants argue about the priority date, the priority is addressed in the priority section above.
Although applicants argue that the claims have been amended, the amended claims are addressed above.
Double Patenting
Claims were previously rejected based on application 18037503. Since the claims have been amended, the rejection is updated to correspond to the instant claims.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 13-16, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20-21, 25-26, 28-32 and 39 of copending Application No. 18/037,503 (503) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
503 recites SEQ ID NO:1 (claim 1) and pharmaceutical compositions thereof (claim 31) and administration to those with Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy and neurotrophic keratitis (claim 32).
In relation to the mutant as recited in claim 1, 503 recites SEQ ID NO:1 (claim 1) which comprises Phe12Glu.
In relation to the administering and subjects of claims 1-2, 4-5 and 13-16, 503 recites administration to those with Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy and neurotrophic keratitis (claim 32).
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 13-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20-21, 25-26, 28-32 and 39 of copending Application No. 18/037,503 (503) in view of Presta et al. (US 8,101,571 as cited with IDS 3/16/22; ‘Presta’) in view of Esquenazi et al. (US 2007/0218105; ‘Esquenazi’).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
503 recites SEQ ID NO:1 (claim 1) and pharmaceutical compositions thereof (claim 31) and administration to those with Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy and neurotrophic keratitis (claim 32).
503 does not specifically recites wounds (as in claim 6), learning (as in claim 17) or cornea (as in claim 18).
Presta teach NGF variants for treating neuronal disorders (abstract). Presta teach that NGF is known to support neuronal survival, promote neurite outgrowth and enhance neurochemical differentiation (column 2 lines 21-27). Presta shows the sequence of NGF where the 12th residue is F (figure 2). Presta teach F12 as a residue for substitution which increases NGF binding and/or bioactivity (column 10 lines 3-8). Presta teach administration of the NGF variant formulation for those with central nervous system disorders, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy (column 15 lines 5-67 specifically lines 15, 18, 25-26 and 47).
Presta specifically teach the treatment of wounds (column 17 lines 47-50). Presta teach for enhancing learning (column 15 lines 49-64). Presta teach methods of synthesis (column 21 2nd-3rd paragraphs).
Esquenazi teach administration of nerve growth factor for enhancement of corneal nerve regrowth and to alleviate the symptoms of neurotrophic keratophathies (abstract) and specifically refers to nerve growth factor for neurotrophic keratitis (section 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of 503 because 503 recites SEQ ID NO:1 (claim 1) and pharmaceutical composition thereof (claim 31) and administration to those with Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy and neurotrophic keratitis (claim 32). Since Presta teach that NGF is known to support neuronal survival, promote neurite outgrowth and enhance neurochemical differentiation (column 2 lines 21-27) and teach administration of the NGF variant formulation for those with Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy (column 15 lines 5-67 specifically lines 18, 25-26 and 47) and specifically refers to the treatment of wounds (column 17 lines 47-50) and enhancing learning (column 15 lines 49-64) one would have been motivated to administer to such subjects. Further, since Esquenazi teach nerve growth factor for enhancement of corneal nerve regrowth and to alleviate the symptoms of neurotrophic keratophathies (abstract) and specifically refers to nerve growth factor for neurotrophic keratitis (section 0005) one would have been motivated to administer to such subjects. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since methods of synthesis and administration were known.
In relation to the mutant as recited in claim 1, 503 recites SEQ ID NO:1 (claim 1) which comprises Phe12Glu.
In relation to the administering and subjects of claims 1-2, 4-5 and 13-16, 503 recites administration to those with Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy and neurotrophic keratitis (claim 32).
In relation to the administering and subjects of claims 6, 14, 16-18, Presta teach administration of the NGF variant formulation for those with central nervous system disorders, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetic neuropathy (column 15 lines 5-67 specifically lines 15, 18, 25-26 and 47). Presta teach for enhancing learning (column 15 lines 49-64). Esquenazi teach administration of nerve growth factor for enhancement of corneal nerve regrowth and to alleviate the symptoms of neurotrophic keratophathies (abstract) and specifically refers to nerve growth factor for neurotrophic keratitis (section 0005).
Response to Arguments – double patenting
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the rejections set forth above.
Although applicants argue about painless relief, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., painless relief) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Although applicants argue about the objective of the examples of 503, the issue is not whether or not the objectives are the same the issue is whether or not the claims are taught or suggested. The reasons why 503 teach and or suggest the instant invention are discussed above.
Although applicants argue that the present application does not discuss fusion proteins with long half-life, the relevance of such information is not clear. The issue is whether or not the instant claims are taught or suggested.
Although applicants argue about the priority date of 503, MPEP 804 I 1 b does refer to situations in which a provisional nonstatutory rejection is the only rejection remaining. However, there are numerous other remaining rejections.
Conclusion
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 RONALD T NIEBAUER whose telephone number is (571)270-3059. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 6:30 - 2:30 EST.
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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
RONALD T. NIEBAUER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1658
/RONALD T NIEBAUER/Examiner, Art Unit 1658