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 .
Office Action: Notice
Any objection or rejection of record in the previous Office Action, mailed 5/19/2025, which is not addressed in this action has been withdrawn in light of Applicants' amendments and/or arguments. This action is FINAL.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (First primer species comprising SEQ ID NOs: 1-10 (claim 14)) in the reply filed on January 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/15/2026. Thus claims 1, and 3-20 are under examination (8/18/2025).
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11 and 14-20 have been amended (8/18/2025). Claim 2 has been cancelled (8/18/2025). No new matter was added. Thus claims 1, and 3-20 are under examination (8/18/2025).
Priority
Claims 1, and 3-20 receive a priority date of 5/21/2019, the filing date of PCT/CN2019/087824.
Objections Withdrawn
Specification:
The objections to the specification due to the use of a trademark or tradenames are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The Sequence Listing deficiency, as such that 37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825, has been fulfilled as a result of Applicant’s amendments.
Claims:
The objections to correct stepwise instructions used in claim 10 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments.
New Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 at line 27; “only one stand of the DNA sample” should be replaced with “only one strand of the DNA sample.”
Rejections Withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments of claims 1, 3-6, 11, 16-19 and cancellation of claim 2, to address and further clarify indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The 102 (a) (1) and 102 (a) (2) rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and significant amendments (8/18/2025). Specifically, newly amended independent claim 1 requires both the first specific primer and the second specific primer being designed for only one strand, which Barany does not expressly or inherently disclose under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
New Rejections
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 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, 3-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barany (WO 2018/183723 A1; published 10/4/2018), in view of Taylor et al. (“Construction of Effective Inverted Repeat Silencing Constructs Using Sodium Bisulfite Treatment Coupled with Strand-Specific PCR”, BioTechniques, published 2012).
Regarding claim 1, Barany teaches methods, devices, instruments, processes, and systems for the highly specific, targeted molecular analysis of regions of human genomes and transcriptomes from the blood to identify numeration of mutation, expression, copy number, translocation, alternative splicing, and methylation changes using spatial multiplexing and combined nuclease, ligation, polymerase, and sequencing reactions (Abstract). Specifically, Barany teaches that sequence-ready libraries are generated within one day following the assignment of specified barcodes (Paragraph 18, lines 10-20). Further, Barany teaches that the sequenced products in the previously described method are subjected to a polymerase chain reaction with universal tag primers and probes within the micropores in the product capture subunit (Paragraph 123, lines 10-20), including a plurality of nucleic acid molecules containing a target nucleotide sequence differing from nucleotide sequences in other nucleic acid molecules in the sample, or other samples, by one or more nucleotides, one or more nucleotide insertions or deletions, one or more copy numbers, one or more transcript sequences, one or more translocations, and/or one or more methylated residues are identified (Paragraph 124, lines 5-10).
Further, Barany teaches that optionally, primers containing an RNA base and 3 ' blocking group are unblocked with RNaseH2 only when bound to the correct target, providing additional specificity and avoiding false products and via PCR using target-specific primers with 8-12 unique tag sequence on one primer of the set, and universal sequences on their 5' ends, targeted pathogens can be further determined (Paragraph 282, lines 10-20) following treatment with bisulfite, which converts C but not 5meC to U, and renders individualized strands non-complementary (Figure 31; Paragraph 226, lines 5-10). Barany also teaches that another layer of selectivity can be incorporated into the method by including a 3' cleavable blocking group (Blk 3', i.e., C3 spacer), and an RNA base (r), in the upstream specific primer and upon target-specific hybridization, RNase H (star symbol) removes the RNA base to liberate a 3 ΌΗ group which is a few bases upstream of the mutation, and suitable for polymerase extension (Figure 31, step B; Paragraph 226, lines 5-10), while downstream primers contain identical or universal 8-11 base tails on their 5' ends to prevent primer dimers (Figure 17; Paragraph 175, lines 1-5; Paragraph 226, line 10).
Barany also teaches that the original target-specific second primers may also be used as sequencing primers to generate secondary amplification products (Paragraph 443, lines 1-5). Specifically, Barany teaches that after ligation, the ligation products of each Primary LDR Reaction Chamber are distributed into micro-wells or micro-pores that contain the appropriate UniTaq primer pairs (Figure 20, step E) and for detection, the ligation product containing Ai (a first primer- specific portion), Bi' (a UniTaq detection portion), and Ci' (a second primer-specific portion) is primed on both strands using a first oligonucleotide primer having the same nucleotide sequence as Ai, and a second oligonucleotide primer that is complementary to Ci' (i.e., Ci) or designed for only one strand (Paragraph 189, lines 1-5).
Regarding claims 3-4, Barany teaches that the previously described methylated sequencing library comprises locus-specific primer pairs, across overlapping regions (i.e., one or more exons for a cancer-specific gene) are provided to amplify overlapping target sequences, each primer pair comprising of: (i) a first locus-specific primer, said primer comprising of a first 5' universal or tag sequence portion, a locus-specific 3' portion, a cleavable base such as a ribo-nucleotide and a blocking group on the 3' end; and (ii) a second locus-specific primer with two or more dU bases throughout the primer sequence, said primer comprising of a second 5' universal or tag sequence portion, which differs slightly from the first universal or tag sequence, a fragment identifier sequence, and a locus-specific 3' portion, a cleavable base such as a ribo-nucleotide and a blocking group on the 3' end (Figures 41-41; Paragraph 285, lines 1-10).
Regarding claims 5-7, Barany teaches that the previously described methylated sequencing library comprises treatment with bisulfite, which converts C but not 5meC to U, and renders individualized strands non-complementary (Figure 31; Paragraph 226, lines 5-10). Further, Barany teaches that these locus-specific primer pairs are provided to amplify target sequences, each primer pair comprising of: (i) a first locus-specific primer, said primer comprising of a first 5' universal or tag sequence portion, a locus-specific 3' portion, a cleavable base such as a ribo-nucleotide and a blocking group on the 3' end; and (ii) a second locus-specific primer with two or more dU bases throughout the primer sequence, said primer comprising of a second 5' universal or tag sequence portion (Paragraph 299, lines 20-40) via using strand-displacement polymerase lacking 5 '-3' nuclease activity, perform combined isothermal and thermo-cycling amplification (Figure 37; Paragraph 272, lines 1-5).
Further, Barany teaches that between the single and double reads, over 90% of the strands are covered, and since that distribution is essentially random (Paragraph 293, lines 20-30) and is composed of 8-12 bases of unique sequence in-between the universal primer and the target-specific sequence of the nested PCR primer and is composed of an initial of four bases on the 5’ side (i.e., A, T, C) (Paragraph 280, lines 5-10).
Barany also teaches that the previously described universal sequence incudes an end hat is suitable for ligating to an adapter to the sequence (Paragraph 18, lines 10-15), including 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (Paragraph 14, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 8, Barany teaches that the previously described methylated sequencing library comprises a blunt end is dA-tailed with terminal transferase, allowing for ligation of a hairpinned loop sequence or universal sequence to the single- stranded dA overhang (Paragraph 18, lines 10-15) followed by treatment with bisulfite (Figure 31; Paragraph 226, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 9, Barany teaches that the previously described methylated sequencing library comprises options for methylated DNA enrichment for using methyl-specific binding protein or antibody to methylated DNA taking place either within the cartridge, or prior to entering the methyl-enriched DNA into the cartridge and after bisulfite treatment, the initial multiplexed PCR may be divided into two steps (i) Single-sided multiplexed primer linear extension with or without blocking primer to suppress extension of unmethylated DNA, and (ii) Addition of the complementary primers for limited or extended PCR amplification of the initial extension products for each respective type of strand (Figure 25; Paragraph 231; lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 10, Barany teaches that the previously described methylated sequencing library comprises includes universal or target-specific primers, enzymes (i.e., transposase), reagents, buffers, targets, or pre-amplified targets (Paragraph 141, lines 1-5). Further, Barany teaches the treatment of the previously described DNA sample with universal sequences via treatment with bisulfite (Figure 31; Paragraph 226, lines 5-10).
Regarding claims 12-13, Barany teaches that the previously described methylated sequencing library comprises obtaining the immobilized target nucleic acid molecules via carrying out sequencing reactions in the micro-pores (Paragraph 28, lines 5-10); specifically through high-throughput methods (Paragraph 12, line 1).
Barany further teaches that the previously described sequencing occurs via the upstream oligonucleotide probe having a sequence specific for detecting the methylation status of the CpG of interest further contains a 5' primer-specific portion (Ai) to facilitate subsequent detection of the ligation product and the downstream oligonucleotide probe contains a 3' primer-specific portion (Ci') that, together with the 5' primer specific portion (Ai) of the upstream probe having a sequence specific for detecting the mutation, permit subsequent amplification and detection of only methylation-specific ligation products (Figure 31; Paragraph 227, lines 1-10).
Barany does not teach or suggest that both the first specific primer and the second specific primer being designed for only one strand.
Taylor teaches that RNA silencing constructs have been shown to be stabilized with introns and efficiently induce RNA silencing, and further found that the Pdk intron did not stabilize South African cassava mosaic virus (SACMV) silencing constructs, and therefore developed a method for producing long SACMV IR constructs through bisulfite-induced base pair mismatches on the sense arm prior to IR assembly, where expression of SACMV BC1 mismatched IR constructs in the model test plant Nicotiana benthamiana resulted in a reduction in viral BC1 transcript levels, hence viral replication, upon SACMV infection (Abstract). Further, Taylor teaches that mismatched SACMV AC1 IR constructs induced PTGS more efficiently in a N. benthamiana callus system than nonmismatched IR constructs, and developed a novel method for IR construct generation should be applicable to many sequences where the generation of these constructs has proven difficult in the past (Abstract). Additionally, Taylor teaches sodium bisulfite-mediated deamination reactions were performed on 120 ng BC1 PCR product using the EZ DNA Methylation-Gold kit, and reactions were performed for 5, 10, or 15 min to determine deamination efficiency (Mutation of gene fragments and strand-specific amplification: Paragraph 1). Specifically, Taylor teaches that sodium bisulfite-treated SACMV BC1 fragments were PCR-amplified using modified primers [BC1 (mod+XhoI+SpeI) F (5’-GATCCTCGAGACTAGTAAATATTCTACGGACATACG-3’) and BC1 (mod +BglII) R (5’-GATCAGATCTTAGTAGCCCAATCTAAGACCTTGT-3’)] (Figure 1), where these primers were designed to preferentially amplify the positive strand of the sodium bisulfite-treated DNA template and in addition, they result in restriction endonuclease sites that are added on to the 3’- and 5’-ends of the PCR products (Figure 1; Mutation of gene fragments and strand-specific amplification: Paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Barany to design the first specific primer and the second specific primer to target only one strand of a bisulfite-treated DNA sample, as taught by Taylor. Barany teaches methods for constructing sequencing libraries using locus-specific primers, universal primers, and amplification of bisulfite-treated DNA, as shown above, but does not explicitly teach that both specific primers are designed for only one strand of the DNA sample. Taylor, however, teaches that one in the context of bisulfite-treated DNA, primers are designed to preferentially amplify a specific strand of the converted DNA template due to the loss of complementarity between strands following bisulfite conversion (Figure 1). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the strand-specific primer design of Taylor to the system of Barany in order to improve amplification specificity and ensure accurate targeting of bisulfite-converted DNA sequences, since bisulfite treatment converts to cytosine residues and renders the two DNA strands non-complementary, thereby necessitating strand-specific primer design for reliable amplification. Incorporating such strand-specific primer design into the Barany method would have predictably resulted in improved specificity and efficiency of amplification of the target region.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because both Barany and Taylor operate within the same field of bisulfite-treated DNA amplification and sequencing, and Taylor provides explicit guidance on designing primers to selectively amplify a single strand of bisulfite-converted DNA. Applying this known primer design strategy to the Barany system would have involved only routine optimization of primer sequences based on known principles of nucleic acid hybridization and bisulfite conversion, yielding predictable results.
Applicant’s Response: The Applicant argues that Barany fails to teach or suggest the amended limitation requiring that both the first and second specific primers are designed for only one strand of the DNA sample, asserting instead that Barany expressly discloses primers designed for amplification of both strands. Applicant further contends that this strand-specific design reduces primer-dimer formation and solves problems unique to bisulfite-treated DNA, which Barany addresses through different mechanisms (primer tailing).
Examiner’s Response to Traversal: Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and fully considered and are found to be partially persuasive, as discussed below.
Notably these claim limitations are now rejected under 35 USC 103, Barany in view of Taylor, as shown above. Specifically, while Barany teaches amplification using primers on both strands, Barany nevertheless provides the underlying sequencing library construction framework employing locus-specific primers for bisulfite-treated DNA. Further, Taylor expressly teaches that, in bisulfite-treated DNA, primers are designed to preferentially amplify a single strand due to loss of complementarity between strands. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barany’s primers to target a single strand, as taught by Taylor, to improve amplification specificity and reduce artifacts such as non-specific amplification or primer-dimer formation, which are known concerns in bisulfite PCR.
The substitution of one known primer design strategy for another to obtain predictable results constitutes obviousness (see MPEP 2143 and 2144.01). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the strand-specific primer design of Taylor to the Barany system, as both references operate in the field of bisulfite-treated DNA amplification and provide compatible methodologies. Accordingly, the new 35 USC 103 rejection is applicable to the Applicant’s amendments.
Rejections Maintained
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barany (WO 2018/183723 A1; published 10/4/2018) in view of Taylor et al. (“Construction of Effective Inverted Repeat Silencing Constructs Using Sodium Bisulfite Treatment Coupled with Strand-Specific PCR”, BioTechniques, published 2012), as applied to claims 1, 3-10 and 12-13 above, and in further view of Adey et al. (“Ultra-low-input, tagmentation-based whole-genome bisulfite sequencing”, Genome Res., published 6/2012). This rejection has been amended in response to Applicant’s amendments (8/18/2025).
As described above, Barany teaches methods, devices, instruments, processes, and systems for the highly specific, targeted molecular analysis of regions of human genomes and transcriptomes from the blood to identify numeration of mutation, expression, copy number, translocation, alternative splicing, and methylation changes using spatial multiplexing and combined nuclease, ligation, polymerase, and sequencing reactions (Abstract). Specifically, Barany teaches that sequence-ready libraries are generated within one day following the assignment of specified barcodes (Paragraph 18, lines 10-20). Further, Barany teaches that the sequenced products in the previously described method are subjected to a polymerase chain reaction with universal tag primers and probes within the micropores in the product capture subunit (Paragraph 123, lines 10-20), including a plurality of nucleic acid molecules containing a target nucleotide sequence differing from nucleotide sequences in other nucleic acid molecules in the sample, or other samples, by one or more nucleotides, one or more nucleotide insertions or deletions, one or more copy numbers, one or more transcript sequences, one or more translocations, and/or one or more methylated residues are identified (Paragraph 124, lines 5-10). Additionally, Taylor teaches sodium bisulfite-mediated deamination reactions were performed on 120 ng BC1 PCR product using the EZ DNA Methylation-Gold kit, and reactions were performed for 5, 10, or 15 min to determine deamination efficiency (Mutation of gene fragments and strand-specific amplification: Paragraph 1). Specifically, Taylor teaches that sodium bisulfite-treated SACMV BC1 fragments were PCR-amplified using modified primers [BC1 (mod+XhoI+SpeI) F (5’-GATCCTCGAGACTAGTAAATATTCTACGGACATACG-3’) and BC1 (mod +BglII) R (5’-GATCAGATCTTAGTAGCCCAATCTAAGACCTTGT-3’)] (Figure 1), where these primers were designed to preferentially amplify the positive strand of the sodium bisulfite-treated DNA template and in addition, they result in restriction endonuclease sites that are added on to the 3’- and 5’-ends of the PCR products (Figure 1; Mutation of gene fragments and strand-specific amplification: Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 11, Barany teaches that the previously described methylated sequencing library comprises includes universal or target-specific primers, enzymes (i.e., transposase), reagents, buffers, targets, or pre-amplified targets (Paragraph 141, lines 1-5). Further, Barany teaches the treatment of the previously described DNA sample with universal sequences via treatment with bisulfite (Figure 31; Paragraph 226, lines 5-10).
Barany does not teach or suggest that the universal sequence is a transposase effector sequence or a Tn5 effort sequence, preferably comprised of methylated cytosine.
Adey teaches that DNA methylation is a widespread epigenetic modification that plays a pivotal role in the regulation of the genomes of diverse organisms (Introduction: Paragraph 1). Further, Adey teaches that the most comprehensive, highest resolution method for detecting 5mC is whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS); however, a transposase-based in vitro shotgun library construction method (tagmentation) allows for construction of sequencing libraries from greatly reduced amounts of DNA (Introduction: Paragraphs 3-4). Adey also teaches that the method utilizes a hyperactive derivative of the Tn5 transposase loaded with discontinuous synthetic oligonucleotides to simultaneously fragment and append adaptors to genomic DNA (Introduction: Paragraphs 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barany’s methylated DNA sequencing library construction, in view of Taylor’s specified primers in bisulfite conditions, with Adey’s specific teaching of using Tn5 transposase effector sequences, as all references address sequencing library construction and Adey specifically teaches the advantages of both transposase-based methods for bisulfite sequencing applications. The combination would provide the benefit of Adey’s efficient transposase-based library construction method applied to Barany’s methylated DNA sequencing approach. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making this combination because all references operate in the same field of DNA sequencing library construction, and Adey specifically demonstrates that transposase-based methods are compatible with bisulfite sequencing for methylation detection. The modification would simply involve substituting Barany’s universal sequence with Adey’s specifically disclosed Tn5 transposase effector sequencing.
Applicant’s Response: The Applicant argues that Barany fails to teach or suggest the amended limitation requiring that both the first and second specific primers are designed for only one strand of the DNA sample, asserting instead that Barany expressly discloses primers designed for amplification of both strands. Applicant further contends that this strand-specific design reduces primer-dimer formation and solves problems unique to bisulfite-treated DNA, which Barany addresses through different mechanisms (primer tailing).
Examiner’s Response to Traversal: Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and fully considered and are not found persuasive, as discussed below.
These claim limitations are now rejected under 35 USC 103, Barany in view of Taylor, and in further view of Adey as shown above. Specifically, while Barany teaches amplification using primers on both strands, Barany nevertheless provides the underlying sequencing library construction framework employing locus-specific primers for bisulfite-treated DNA. Further, Taylor expressly teaches that, in bisulfite-treated DNA, primers are designed to preferentially amplify a single strand due to loss of complementarity between strands. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Barany’s primers to target a single strand, as taught by Taylor, to improve amplification specificity and reduce artifacts such as non-specific amplification or primer-dimer formation, which are known concerns in bisulfite PCR.
With respect to claim 11, Adey further teaches transposase-based library construction using Tn5 transposase effector sequences for efficient preparation of sequencing libraries from bisulfite-treated DNA. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Adey’s transposase-based universal sequence approach into the Barany system, as both references are directed to sequencing library preparation and Adey teaches improved efficiency and reduced input requirements. The combination would have yielded predictable results.
The substitution of one known primer design strategy for another to obtain predictable results constitutes obviousness (see MPEP 2143 and 2144.01). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the strand-specific primer design of Taylor and the transposase-based library construction of Adey to the Barany system, as all references operate in the field of bisulfite-treated DNA amplification and provide compatible methodologies. Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection is applicable to the Applicant’s claim limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 14, while Barany in view of Taylor and further in view of Adey teaches sequencing library construction methods using bisulfite-treated DNA, universal sequences, and primers, the prior art fails to teach or suggest a kit comprising (i) a tagged primer set forth in SEQ ID NO: 23, (ii) a first universal primer set forth in SEQ ID NO: 21, (iii) a second universal primer set forth in SEQ ID NO: 22, (iv) a first specific primer comprising a sequence set forth in SEQ ID NOs: 1-10 and (v) a second specific primer comprising a sequence set forth in SEQ ID NOs: 11-20. In particular, as discussed above, Barany teaches amplification using primers designed for both strands, and while Taylor teaches strand-specific amplification, it does not teach or suggest the specific combination of claimed primer sequences set forth within the claimed kit of sequencing library construction as presently recited. Accordingly, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of structural and functional limitations.
Therefore, claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-20 depend from claim 14, and include all of the limitations thereof. Accordingly, claims 15-20 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 14, but are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected based claim. Claims 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of claim 14 and any intervening claims.
Conclusions
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 ELIZABETH ROSE LAFAVE whose telephone number is (703)756-4747. The examiner can normally be reached Compressed Bi-Week: M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at 571-272-2876. 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.
/ELIZABETH ROSE LAFAVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1684
/HEATHER CALAMITA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1684