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 Claims
Amendment filed on 03/30/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 and 11-18 remain withdrawn. Claims 9-10 remain cancelled.
Claim 8 is amended.
Claim 8 is the single pending claim and being examined on the merits herein.
Priority
This instant application 17457624, filed on 12/03/2021, claims foreign priority to Republic of Korea 10-2020-0168665, filed on 12/04/2020.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
All previous claim Objection(s) / Rejection(s) as set forth in the previous Office action (mailed 12/01/2025) that are not repeated and/or maintained in the instant Office action are withdrawn, in light of applicant’s amendment and remark filed on 03/30/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites “in vivo”, and it is unclear how the steps perform in vivo after applying the second magnetic field, as instantly claimed, because the only experimental example in instant specification is seen in [0089] shows a thoracic aortic model having blood vessel stenosis (T-S-N 005, Geneva, Elastrat), not in vivo. The instant claim indicates the magnetic cells would move and attach to a correct lesion site, further, the magnetic cells would arrange in such that all directions toward the pipe lumen for each magnetic cell are N-poles. However, the experimental model neither presents “in vivo” lesion site, nor the movement or attachment of magnetic cells to such correct lesion site. Further, It is unclear how the second magnetic field is applied “in vivo” on the body containing numerous blood vessels to enable the magnetic cells with N-poles directing toward a pipe lumen.
Claim Interpretation
Some phrases in claim 8 are interpreted as following:
The phrase “for controlling a shape of pipe with fluid flow” is interpreted as “intended use”, because it does not structurally contribute to the steps of the method.
The phrase “for forming a permanent magnet” in “a ferromagnetic material for forming a permanent magnet” is interpreted as “intended use” or property of a ferromagnetic material, because it does not contribute structurally to the method step.
The phrase “to convert the plurality of magnetic cells into magnetic cells in a ferromagnetic state having a permanent magnetic force in a desired direction” is interpreted as “intended use” or property, because the conversion does not require structural step of method and it would naturally occur when both magnetic force and ferromagnetic material present.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, “ … arranges the plurality of magnetic cells so that all directs toward the pipe lumen for each magnetic cell are N-poles to cause a repulsive force of magnetism” is interpreted as property or “intended use” of the magnetic field, because it does not structurally contribute to the steps of the method, rather it is the effect or property of the magnetic field.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Consigny (US6203487, 03/20/2001, IDS of 01/23/2024), in view of Forbes et al. (US20060041182, 02/23/2006) and Ochi (US20060264690, 11/23/2006).
Consigny discloses a method of using a magnetic field can be placed externally over the target tissue or vessel, e.g., artery (as a type of blood vessel), to generate desirable focal delivery of magnetic cells (as plurality of inner wall cells) and manipulate the gravity-independent activity (Column 6, Lines 40-50). Therefore, Consigny teaches using magnetic cells with externally placed magnetic field to manipulate focal delivery and position of the magnetic inner wall cells in the vessel, which spontaneously results in changes on the vessel shape due to magnetic field force and controls pipe shape with fluid flow, corresponding to producing a magnetic cell for controlling shape of a pipe with fluid flow.
Consigny teaches preparing magnetic particle-containing cells selected from the group consisting of neurons, glial cells, endothelial cells, fibroblasts, smooth muscle cells, respiratory epithelial cells, islet cells and hepatocytes (e.g., Claim 10). Consigny points out that desirable local delivery of cells can be normal or genetically modified endothelial cells, fibroblasts, smooth muscle cells or other cells (e.g., Col. 8, Lines 6-12). As many of these cells are from inner wall cells of biological pipes or vessels, this corresponds to preparing a plurality of inner wall cells of an elastic pipe with fluid flow.
Consigny teaches that magnetic particles are inserted into the cells by culturing the cells (which would be naturally plurality of cells) with magnetic particles (corresponding to sprinkling magnetic materials on surface of the mold, e.g., culture plate) under conditions in which the cells internalize the magnetic particles or manually inserting the magnetic particles into the cells by known techniques (Column 2, Lines 28-34), which naturally have portions of inner wall cells exposed, corresponding to the fixing the plurality of inner wall cells to a mold (e.g., in culture plate) so that a portion of the inner wall cell is exposed, sprinkling magnetic materials on a surface of the mold. Consigny tests the influence of magnetic field in adhesion of microsphere-containing endothelial cells onto matrix coated glass cover slip constructed from a culture dish (Col. 2, Lines 62-64), compared to influence of gravity alone (e.g., Col. 3, Lines 9-10 to Col. 4, Lines 7-10), showing cell adhesion for microsphere-containing endothelial cells for the 5 minute attachment period being significantly greater than for normal endothelial cells (Col. 4, Lines 13-16), indicating better fixation or attachment achievable with magnetic field force, corresponding to a magnetic field being applied to the mold in a state of applying a weak magnetic field to the mold to treat surface of inner wall cells to form a plurality of magnetic cells.
Consigny teaches that "Magnetic particle" is meant to include, but not limited to, microspheres, conjugates, micelles, colloids, aggregates and complexes of ferromagnetic (materials well known including magnetite and an oxide of iron, Fe3O4, iron), paramagnetic or superparamagnetic materials. Consigny exemplifies method of generating magnetic cells for target delivery in vitro and in vivo (Col. 2, Lines 42-55). Microvascular endothelial cells were established (being fixed) in culture, and exposed to albumin-coated superparamagnetic microspheres (tosyl-activated super-paramagnetic polystyrene microspheres, 4.5 micron diameter) (corresponding to average particle diameter of 300 to 600 nm), Dynabeads ® M-450 Dynabead5) at a microsphere to cell ratio of 4: 1, resulting in sprinkling the magnetic material on to the surface of the culture dish and cells (Col. 2, Lines 42-55), corresponding to magnetic materials binding the inner wall cells to form a plurality of magnetic cells; the magnetic material can be a ferromagnetic material.
In light of claim interpretation, the phrase “for forming a permanent magnet” in “the magnetic material is a ferromagnetic material for forming a permanent magnet” is interpreted as intended use. As Consigny teaches that magnetic cells can be in ferromagnetic state as ferromagnetic material, as discussed above, for forming a permanent magnet would be capable of being achieved as intended use of the ferromagnetic material.
Consigny specifies that after the cells are prepared, on the day of cell delivery, two groups of cells are removed from their culture dishes, and the cells are processed, e.g., being washed, resuspended in culture media, and mixed together in a final volume of 2 ml (e.g., Col. 5, Lines 31-40), corresponding to plurality of magnetic cells are removed from the mold prior to the administration.
Consigny indicates that the magnetic particle-containing cells are delivered either by direct injection into the selected tissue or to a remote site and allowed to passively circulate to the target site or be actively directed to the target site (e.g., blood vessels including arteries and veins, Col. 7, Lines 19-20) with a magnet (e.g., Claim 7, Col. 9, Lines 1-3; Claim 15, Col. 10, Lines 4-6; Col. 7, Lines 1-5), which obviously teaches the plurality of magnetic cells can be released in vivo via injection to an inner wall of elastic pipe with fluid flow.
Consigny discloses a method of delivering normal or genetically modified cells to a target tissue in an animal comprising: (a) inserting magnetic particles into the cells to produce magnetic particle-containing cells; (b) administering the magnetic particle-containing cells to an animal; (c) placing a magnetic field (corresponding to second magnetic field application device) around or near the target tissue to facilitate delivery and attachment of the magnetic particle-containing cells to the target tissue (e.g., Claim 1, Col. 8, Lines 47-55; Col. 1, Summary of the invention). Consigny specifies that the selected cells are administered to a subject and manipulated or guided to the target tissue by a magnetic field located near the target tissue (Col. 2, Lines 35-41), which can include delivery magnetic cells applicable to a variety of diseases or surgical problems, such as diseased blood vessels (which would naturally contain pipe lumen, and magnetic cells would be released into the pipe lumen via injection) including arteries and veins, e.g., atherosclerosis, postangioplasty restenosis, plaque fracture, thrombosis and vasculitis can be treated by the local delivery of either normal or genetically modified endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells, fibroblasts or other cells to the vessel (Col. 7, Lines 18-26), corresponding to move and attach the plurality of magnetic cells to a correct lesion site, and the elastic pipe with fluid flow can be a blood vessel comprising pipe lumen, and the magnetic cells are released into the inner wall of the pipe lumen.
Consigny states that prior to delivery of cells containing the magnetic particles, a magnet is placed adjacent to the target tissue and the magnet can be positioned superficial to the body surface or can be placed internal to the body surface using surgical or percutaneous methods inside or outside the target tissue for local delivery, then the magnetic cells can be delivered by injection into the selected tissue or to a remote site and allowed to passively circulate to the target site or be actively directed to the target site with a magnet (e.g., Col. 6 Line 62-Col. 7 Line 5), desirable alterations on arrangement of magnetic cells can be achieved by adjustment of the magnet structure and movement, such as circumferential coverage can be obtained by surrounding the target tissue with magnets and delivering only magnetic particle-containing cells (Col. 7, Lines 6-17), which can be magnetic cells in ferromagnetic state (Col. 2, Lines 42-55). In light of claim interpretation, “to convert the plurality of magnetic cells into magnetic cells in a ferromagnetic state having a permanent magnetic force in a desired direction” is interpreted as “intended use” or property, because the conversion would naturally occur when both magnetic force and ferromagnetic material present, which does not require structural step of method. As discussed, Consigny teaches applying second magnetic force to the magnetic cells in ferromagnetic state, the magnetic cells would be capable of being converted into a permanent magnetic force in a desired direction.
In addition, “ … arranges the plurality of magnetic cells so that all directs toward the pipe lumen for each magnetic cell are N-poles to cause a repulsive force of magnetism” is interpreted as property or “intended use” of the magnetic field, because it does not structurally contribute to the steps of the method, rather it is the effect or property of the magnetic field. Consigny teaches applying the second magnetic field to guide and direct the magnetic cells in an elastic pipe with fluid flow, e.g., blood vessel, by placing the magnet device inside the body above or surrounding the pipe or outside the body above the target site, as discussed above in detail, the magnetic cells would be capable of being arranged in the desirable way such that all directions of magnetic cells toward pipe lumen being N-poles to cause a repulsive force of magnetism.
Consigny does not teach the cells are autologous cells induced to form induced pluripotent stem cell that is differentiated. Consigny also does not teach inner wall cell-specific antibody to prepare antibody-coated magnetic material. Consigny does not teach magnetic material particles have smaller sizes, such as, average diameter of 300 to 600 nm.
Forbes throughout the reference teaches a cell delivery system comprising a magnetizable particle associated with a cell and an external source of a magnetic field capable of magnetizing the magnetizable particle for delivering the magnetizable particle to a location, e.g., artery (e.g., Fig. 1A, cover figure) pipe with blood flow, the primary lesion site [0011], in a body (e.g., Abstract).
Forbes teaches the magnetic particles for all pipe flow experiments having magnetic particles as 20% γ-Fe2O3, having a nominal diameter of 350 nm with 10% variance (e.g., [0133]); magnetizable particle diameter can be from about 10 nm to about 1000 nm (e.g., [0168]) (overlapping the particle diameter of 300 to 600 nm as instantly claimed). Forbes teaches electromagnetic theory and equations that magnetizable spherical beads correlate with an external magnetic field magnetic force, e.g., Fz (the force in the z direction on a particle by a bar of magnetic material directly placed along the lumen of the vessel) (e.g., [0112]-[[0114]]. Forbes shows that stronger magnetic field externally, e.g. exceeding 30 Oe (1 Oe = 1 Gauss), up to 300 Oe, magnetic particles of various sizes lead to faster and more pronounced attraction toward the walls (e.g., [0117]), suggesting that the magnetic particles or magnetic-containing cells would be aligned in desirable directions, e.g., all N poles directing toward pipe lumen, when external magnetic force is properly implemented at required strength.
Forbes teaches that the magnetic cell delivery is accomplished by the use of two source method for magnetic drug delivery to magnetizable implantable surfaces: biological cells including but not limited to endothelial and stem cells can be loaded with magnetizable particles (e.g., super-paramagnetic nanoparticles) and form magnetic cells, and cells can be isolated from the patients themselves (corresponding to autologous cells), then magnetic cells can be delivered to the body by arterial puncture injection, catheter release, or intravenous injection (e.g., [0036]). Adult or embryonic stem cells as well as endothelial cells can be used for would healing, in vivo engineering of new healthy tissues, targeted delivery of cells with magnetic drug for local targeting of pathologies ( e.g., [0037]), in many cases, autologous cells sources can be utilized with ease [0164]. For artisans in the field, to implement autologous cell is obviously advantageous, and to form induced pluripotent stem cell that is differentiated would naturally flow with logic based upon the teaching of Forbes.
Ochi teaches magnetite is particularly desirable [0033], and magnetic particle can be included within the cell, or bound to the cell surface, or bound to the cell surface via a linker [0036]. Ochi points out that as long as the magnetic material is magnetic, there are no particular limits on the magnetic material used in the invention, which may be paramagnetic, super-paramagnetic or ferromagnetic and the term "ferromagnetic" may include either ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic. Specific examples of the magnetic material include magnetite (Fe2O3) and maghemite as well as compound particles of iron, cobalt, nickel and other ferromagnetic elements. Of these ferromagnetic materials, magnetite and maghemite are desirable because they exhibit no toxicity towards living bodies and are stable [0033]. Ochi teaches that the magnetic particle can be a liposome comprising a magnetic material and a drug and can be encapsulated [0022]. Ochi indicates that the diameter of the capsule is not particularly limited but is preferably from tens to hundreds of nanometers [0031]
Ochi teaches that the magnetic field can be applied from outside the body or can be applied by embedding a magnet in the body. In this case, a neodymium magnet is preferred from the standpoint of magnetic force of the magnet, stability and strength; the magnetic field preferably means a field of 60 gauss (hereinafter "G") or more for purposes of magnetizing the magnetic particle, and 70 G or more is preferred for purposes of retaining the particle in a specific location and preventing dispersion within the body (e.g., [0054]).
Ochi discloses that in magnetic cells magnetic particles may be comprised in the cell, may be bound to the cell surface, or may be bound to the cell surface via a linker [0036]. Ochi teaches a technique for modifying with an antibody on the surface of a magnetic bead and using an antigen-antibody reaction to isolate and produce a cell [0003], and a method for retaining the magnetic cell by moving the magnetic cell to a disease site in order to place the magnetic cell therein and retaining the magnetic cell at the target site for a long time by means of a magnetic field [0013]. Ochi exemplifies in detail, e.g., preparation of magnetic cells, of fixing of antibodies to the magnetic beads and binding of antibody-fixed beads to the cells [0074-0075], during which a neodymium magnet (corresponding to a magnetic field is applied during treating a surface of cells with antibody-coated magnetic material) is used to enrich the magnetic cells, and the beads are coated with Rat CD44 antibodies or RGDS peptides, which allows antibody-specific cell enrichment.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate teachings from Forbes autologous cell types, and Ochi antibody-coating magnetic beads into the general magnetic cell producing method and application of magnetic field from Consigny to arrive at current invention. Those skilled in the art would have motivation to take advantage of the teachings by using autologous cells and magnetic beads over-coated with antibodies to bind to the cell surface, not only because these are routine experimentations in the art, but also autologous cells would be more in ease for in vivo applications, and antigen-antibody interaction makes the binding more specific and selective, an artisan with ordinary skill in the field would have reasonable expectation of success using the established methods from Forbes and Ochi to improve the magnetic cell producing method of Consigny. This renders obviousness as “use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way” or as “applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. See MPEP §2143. (I)(C) and (I)(D). It also renders obviousness as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see In Supreme Court KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to change and optimize in size or shape as matter of choices. Changes in size and shape do not support patentability of the subject. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) in MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. (Changes in Size/Proportion); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) in MPEP 2144.04 IV.B. (Changes in Shape). MPEP §2144.05(I) states that “A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For this instance, Ochi indicates that the diameter is not particularly limited, and Forbes teaches the preferable magnetic particle size that overlaps with that in instant claims. Furthermore, “[i]t would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize additive amount through nothing more than “routine experimentation,” because of a reasonable expectation of success resulting from the optimization for desirable features of intended use of the composition (MPEP §2144.05 (II)). See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Regarding further the intended use or property of applying the second magnetic field in claim, e.g., to convert magnetic cells into ferromagnetic state, to direct magnetic cells with all N poles pointing toward pipe lumen, to control the shape of the pipe with fluid flow, in light of claim interpretation as discussed above, Consigny teaches using magnetic force both inside the body or outside above the target lesion site to guide and manipulate with the magnetic cells in ferromagnetic state, adjusting magnetic field to achieve desirable effects of the fluid flow pipe is routine experimentation for artisans in the field, while repulsive force of magnetism is a common feature related to magnetism. The function of the magnetic force is inherent property or intended use of the magnetism and magnetic cells, which is taught by prior art. In addition, as evidenced by instant specification’s sole experimental example 1 [0089], a magnetic field application device applying 80 G magnetic field would be able to convert the injected magnetic cells into ferromagnetic state, and a repulsive force between the injected magnetic cells can be caused. Ochi teaches a magnetic field application 70 G or more, and Forbes teaches using magnetic force more than 30 G up to 300 G would lead to faster and more pronounced attraction of magnetizable particles toward vessel wall, and direct the particles in desirable orientation in pipe lumen. Therefore, the magnetic field applied in prior art, in the same strength range as instantly described, would be capable of achieve the same intended use and properties/effects, e.g., magnetic cells conversion into ferromagnetic state, and consequentially, directions of the magnetic cells be all N-poles pointing towards pipe lumen, and repulsive force of magnetism of the elastic pipe with fluid flow such as blood vessel, as a result, the intended use to control the shape of the pipe as instantly claimed would be capable of being achieved.
MPEP 2144.01 points out "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). MPEP 0700.707.07(f) states “a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.” Moreover, MPEP 2145 II. states that “prima facie obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present but not recognized in the prior art”, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Appellant argued that the presence of DEHP as the plasticizer in a blood collection bag unexpectedly suppressed hemolysis and therefore rebutted any prima facie showing of obviousness. However, the closest prior art utilizing a DEHP plasticized blood collection bag inherently achieved same result, although this fact was unknown in the prior art.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed on 03/30/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant points out that Consigny and Ochi does not teach the amended features in claim regarding the “applying a second magnetic field, via …”.
In light of applicant’s remarks and claim amendments, office action has presented above new grounds of rejections. Prior art Forbes is combined with Consigny and Ochi to address the amended features. The most relevant paragraph is copied below for reference:
Regarding further the intended use or property of applying the second magnetic field in claim, e.g., to convert magnetic cells into ferromagnetic state, to direct magnetic cells with all N poles pointing toward pipe lumen, to control the shape of the pipe with fluid flow, in light of claim interpretation as discussed above, Consigny teaches using magnetic force both inside the body or outside above the target lesion site to guide and manipulate with the magnetic cells in ferromagnetic state, adjusting magnetic field to achieve desirable effects of the fluid flow pipe is routine experimentation for artisans in the field, while repulsive force of magnetism is a common feature related to magnetism. The function of the magnetic force is inherent property or intended use of the magnetism and magnetic cells, which is taught by prior art. In addition, as evidenced by instant specification’s sole experimental example 1 [0089], a magnetic field application device applying 80 G magnetic field would be able to convert the injected magnetic cells into ferromagnetic state, and a repulsive force between the injected magnetic cells can be caused. Ochi teaches a magnetic field application 70 G or more, and Forbes teaches using magnetic force more than 30 G up to 300 G would lead to faster and more pronounced attraction of magnetizable particles toward vessel wall, and direct the particles in desirable orientation in pipe lumen. Therefore, the magnetic field applied in prior art, in the same strength range as instantly described, would be capable of achieve the same intended use and properties/effects, e.g., magnetic cells conversion into ferromagnetic state, and consequentially, directions of the magnetic cells be all N-poles pointing towards pipe lumen, and repulsive force of magnetism of the elastic pipe with fluid flow such as blood vessel, as a result, the intended use to control the shape of the pipe as instantly claimed would be capable of being achieved.
Combined prior art Consigny, Forbes, and Ochi teaches the instant invention.
Please refer to the entire office action as presented above as a complete response to the argument.
Conclusion
No claim 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 DONGXIU ZHANG SPIERING whose telephone number is (703)756-4796. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm (Except for Fridays).
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, SUE X. LIU can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/DX.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights