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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 12-20 are pending in the application. The Amendment filed on 04/20/2026 in which claims 1, 2, 7 and 10 were amended, and claim 8 was canceled, has been entered. Claims 3, 5-6, 9 and 11 were previously canceled. Claims 12-20 were previously withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 10 are under examination on the merits.
Claim Objections
(Previous objections, withdrawn as to claims 1, 2, 7, 10). Applicant’s amendments submitted on 04/20/2026 to the instant claims have overcome previous objections to claims 1, 2, 7, 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
(Previous rejection, withdrawn as to claims 1, 2, 4, 7-8, and 10) Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being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.
See claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 as submitted on 04/20/2026.
The previous rejections of claim 8 is moot in view of Applicant’s cancelation of this claim.
Applicant’s amendment to the instant claims filed on 04/26/2026 has overcome the previous rejections to claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 10.
(New rejection, necessitated by amendment as to claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10) Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 10 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.
Amended claim 1 (c) recites “wherein the small subunit of the cleavable luciferase is attached to the N-terminus of the hACE2 without the linker”. This recitation is unclear because the ¶ [0044] of instant Specification recites “SmBiT (VTGYRLFEEIL from Promega)-Ala-Gly-Ala was used site-directed insertion between hACE2 amino acid 17th and 18th residues.” Such recitation does not provide any evidence that such Ala-Gly-Ala does not constitute a linker. Further, it is noted that Applicant explicitly referred to the Ala-Gly-Ala sequence as a linker in the Remarks submitted on 02/13/2025 page 15 “three amino acids Ala-Gly-Ala are added in the middle as a linker “. The dependent claims do not provide additional clarity. Therefore, the claims are indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution and applying prior art, the indicated limitation above was interpreted herein as referring to wherein the small subunit of the cleavable luciferase is attached to the N-terminus of the hACE2 with or without the linker.
Amended claim 1 (c) recites “wherein the small subunit forms a recombinant amino acid sequence with alanine (Ala)-glycine (Gly)-Ala, wherein the recombinant amino acid sequence is site- specifically introduced between hACE2 amino acid 17th and 18th residues.” This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what the term “with alanine (Ala)-glycine (Gly)-Ala” means or how it is meant to be understood. For instance, the term does not require that such sequence be fused to the small subunit. Further, the term “site-specifically introduced” is not defined by instant Specification. Further, the recitation of “between hACE2 amino acid 17th and 18th residues” is not clear because the claim does not refer to an specific sequence such as one of an specific SEQ ID NO and thus residues 17 and 18 can vary from one sequence of a hACE2 receptor to another. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The dependent claims do not provide additional clarity. Therefore, the claims are indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution and applying prior art, claim 1 was interpreted herein as reading on a recombinant amino acid sequence comprising the small subunit attached to the hACE2 sequence and an alanine (Ala)-glycine (Gly)-Ala sequence.
Amended claim 1 (c) recites “wherein the small subunit-hACE2 expressing cells are treated with 125-500 ng of RBD-large subunit of the cleavable luciferase.” This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear if it indicates a final step of the claimed method or not. Further, it is unclear if the recitation above requires purified protein, protein lysates or either. The dependent claims do not provide additional clarity. Therefore, the claims are indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution and applying prior art, claim 1 was interpreted herein as reading on a step of incubation of the protein products of the first vector and the second vector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
(New rejection, necessitated by amendment as to claim 4) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the mammalian cells are HeLa cells”. It is not clear how this statement further limits the subject matter recited in claim 1 because claim 1 (b) already recites “transfecting the second DNA vector obtained in step (a) into HeLa cells” and no longer recites “mammalian cells”.
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.
(Previous rejection, withdrawn as to claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10) Claims 1, 2, 7 , 8 and 10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (prior art of record).
See claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10 as submitted on 04/20/2026.
The previous rejections of claim 8 is moot in view of Applicant’s cancelation of this claim.
Applicant’s amendment to the instant claims filed on 04/26/2026 has overcome the previous rejections to claims 1, 2, 7 and 10.
(Previous rejection, withdrawn as to claim 4) Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al., in view of Khan (prior art of record).
See claim 4 as submitted on 04/20/2026.
Applicant’s amendment to the instant claims filed on 04/26/2026 has overcome the previous rejections to claim 4.
(New rejection, necessitated by amendment as to claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 10) Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al., and Khan (prior art of record), further in view of Tim W. Overton “Recombinant protein production in bacterial hosts” Drug Discovery Today, Volume 19, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 590-601, ISSN 1359-6446.
Regarding claims 1, 4, as previously explained, Yang et al. teach a method of detection of protein-protein interactions both in vitro and in vivo between a spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 from a human specimen and the human angiotensin-converting enzyme II (hACE2) using NanoLuc® binary (NanoBiT®) technology, (Abstract; page 2, ¶ ¶ 3-6; Fig. 1B). The method of Yang et al. comprises the following steps:
Constructing a first DNA vector comprising a fragment of the Spike RBD of SARS-CoV-2, and the LgBiT® fragment of the cleavable NanoLuc® luciferase enzyme (page 2, ¶ 8; page 3, ¶ 1, Fig. 1A, B); and constructing a second DNA vector comprising a fragment of the hACE2 receptor, and the SmBiT® fragment of the cleavable NanoLuc® luciferase enzyme (page 2, ¶ 8; page 3, ¶ 1, Fig. 1A, B).
As indicated previously, Yang et al. teach transfecting mammalian HEK293T (human embryonic kidney) cells with the two vectors described above, the first DNA vector comprising a fragment of the Spike RBD of SARS-CoV-2, and the LgBiT® fragment and the second vector comprising a fragment of the hACE2 receptor, and the SmBiT® fragment to establish expression of RBD-LgBiT and/or SmBiT-hACE2 (Abstract; page 3, ¶ 2; Fig. 1D). Yang et al. further teach transfecting the vectors together or alone, and transferring the media collected after 24 hours post transfection onto new cells for in vivo binding analysis (page 4). For in vitro analysis, Yang et al. teach incubation step of the protein products of the first vector and the second vector, followed by measurement of the RLUs (page 5). It is noted that the amount of protein product of 125-500 ng is considered to be one determined by routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05 Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
As indicated previously, Yang et al. teach detecting the interaction between the spike protein receptor binding domain of the coronavirus and the human angiotensin-converting enzyme II by detecting a luminescence signal using fluorescence staining; wherein the first DNA vector comprises a LgBiT® subunit; wherein the second DNA vector comprises a SmBiT® subunit and the SmBiT® subunit is attached the N-terminus of the hACE2 gene and there’s a GS linker in the between the SmBiT® subunit and the hACE2 gene (page 4, ¶ 6, Fig. 1).
As indicated previously, Yang et al. teach an incubation time of 30 minutes followed by detection of biosensor activity (page 4, ¶ 6, Fig. 1). The incubation step of Yang comprises exposure of the protein products of the first vector and the second vector (wherein the small subunit-hACE2 expressing cells are treated with RBD-large subunit, as recited in claim 1), followed by measurement of the RLUs (page 5). It is noted that the amount of protein product of 125-500 ng is considered to be one determined by routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05 Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
Further, as noted previously both, instant application and Yang et al., use a commercially available luciferase assay comprising the Nano-Glo® reagent (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) (Yang et al. page 4, ¶ 4; Specification, page 15), which supplies instructions for incubation periods and detection times, as well as optimization suggestions.
Yang et al. do not teach a HeLa cell nor protein production in E. coli.
However, Khan teaches both HeLa cells and HEK293 cells are widely used for optimal mammalian gene expression (page 2, Table 3). Khan further teaches HeLa cells and HEK293 cells are functional equivalents for the application of the claimed method (mammalian gene expression) and one can be substituted for the other.
Overton was cited for teaching protein expression in E.coli followed by purification to deliver maximum yields of high quality protein (pages 1-3).
It would have been a matter of routine experimentation using standard laboratory techniques available before the effective filing date to determine the optimal detection time with a reasonable expectation of success, given that incubation instructions are supplied by the manufacturer of the Nano-Glo® reagent. Accordingly, the “detection time” recited in claim 1 of 10 minutes is considered to be one determined by routine optimization according to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Yang et al. It is noted that the courts have stated where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” and even when the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have similar properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F2d 775. 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2144.05.01). The courts have also found that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have included a HeLa cells as taught by Khan and protein expression in E. coli as taught by Overton to arrive at the claimed method for the benefit of using a second mammalian cell expression system with signals for synthesis, processing and secretion of eukaryotic proteins properly and efficiently recognized by the HeLa cells as taught by Khan and for the benefit of maximum yields of high quality protein as taught by Overton. See MPEP 2144.06. Substituting Equivalents Known For The Same Purpose. See MPEP 2144.07. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding claim 2, as described above, Yang et al. teach a spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 (Abstract; page 2, ¶ ¶ 3-6; Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 7, as described above, Yang et al. teach a plasmid comprising a fragment of the Spike RBD of SARS-CoV-2 attached to the LgBiT fragment of the cleavable NanoLuc® luciferase enzyme (page 2, ¶ 8; page 3, ¶ 1, Fig. 1A, B). Yang et al. further teach the expression of this plasmid in cells wherein the recombinant RDB-LgBiT protein is used as a ligand for detection (page 4, ¶ 4; Fig. 1C, D).
Regarding claim 10, as previously explained, Yang et al. teach the method described above for validation of small molecules, antibodies, and peptides with potential for treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection (to screen a drug or neutralizing antibodies for treating coronavirus infection, as recited in amended claim 10) (page 5, ¶ ¶ 1, 2). Further, it is noted that intended use in a claim, for example, intended use of a method to screen for a drug, does not carry patentable weight.
Accordingly, the limitations of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10 were prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends on page 9 of the Remarks submitted on 04/20/2026:
The specification provides explicit structural support clarifying this feature. As described in paragraph [0044], the sequence "SmBiT-Ala-Gly-Ala" is not a flexible linker, but rather a defined insertion sequence that is site-specifically introduced between amino acid residues 17 and 18 of hACE2. Thus, Ala-Gly-Ala constitutes part of the insertion fragment integrating SmBiT into the hACE2 polypeptide, rather than serving as a linker between two independently expressed domains.
In response:
The instant rejection is in view of the instant claims merely reciting or reading on an additional amino acid sequence which is not part of the SmBiT® subunit nor the hACE2 receptor sequences. 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). ¶ [0044] of instant Specification recites “SmBiT (VTGYRLFEEIL from Promega)-Ala-Gly-Ala was used site-directed insertion between hACE2 amino acid 17th and 18th residues.” Such recitation does not provide any evidence that such Ala-Gly-Ala does not constitute a linker. Further, linkers are generally part of insertion sequences and thus such feature would not differentiate a linker from a non-linker sequence. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965).Further, it is noted that Applicant explicitly referred to the Ala-Gly-Ala sequence as a linker in the Remarks submitted on 02/13/2025 page 15 “three amino acids Ala-Gly-Ala are added in the middle as a linker “.
Applicant contends on page 9 of the Remarks submitted on 04/20/2026:
“I. Yang fails to disclose or suggest the claimed detection configuration
As amended, independent claim 1 recites a detection system comprising: 1) Expression of RBD-LgBiT protein in prokaryotic cells (E. coli) followed by purification; 2) Establishment of mammalian cells expressing SmBiT-hACE2 on the cell surface; and 3) Exogenous application of purified RBD-LgBiT protein to said cells to detect interaction via luminescence. Yang does not disclose or suggest this configuration. Instead, Yang relies on a co-transfection system, in which both RBD- LgBiT and SmBiT-ACE2 are expressed within the same mammalian cells (e.g., HEK293T cells). In such a system, the interacting components are generated intracellularly, and the measured interaction reflects intracellular or membrane-localized co-expression.” In contrast, the present claims require physical separation of ligand production and receptor expression, and extracellular application of a purified ligand to receptor- expressing cells. This distinction is not merely procedural, but fundamentally alters the biological and functional context of detection.”
In response:
To reiterate, the instant rejection is in view of the instant claim language. 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). Yang et al. teach the precise gene configuration of the second vector as described by Applicant, where the SmBiT® subunit is attached the N-terminus of the ACE2 gene and there’s a GS linker in the middle (Fig. 1A), as well as stable expression of this vector in mammalian cells (Fig, 1C, 1D). Yang et al. described the same stable expression in 293 cells. Both 293 cells and HeLa cells are commonly used in molecular biology and stable expression of mammalian genes in both cell lines is widely practiced (see Khan, previously cited). Overton teach protein expression in E.coli. Further, Yang et al. teach the use of ‘interrupting peptides’ comprising fragments of an RBD and an hACE2 receptor for in vitro assays (page 4), and transfections of the Lg-RBD and Sm-ACE2 vectors alone or together in vivo (page 4). There is nothing unique about the cell line described nor the alleged ‘configuration’. Further, the NanoLuc Binary Technology (NanoBiT®) was developed in 2016 and is widely used in binding assays (see Yang et al. and Wells et al.). NanoLuc Binary Technology (NanoBiT®) comprises physical separation of the ligand and the receptor. Further, it is noted that the claimed invention is directed to a method for enhancing detection activity, and not to a method of producing a ligand and a receptor. It is noted that NanoBiT® is not the subject matter of present application, but instead the present application uses NanoBiT® technology.
Applicant contends on page 13 of the Remarks submitted on 04/20/2026:
“II. The claimed invention represents a different technical paradigm
The claimed method establishes an exogenous ligand-binding assay, in which purified RBD-LgBiT protein approaches and binds to SmBiT-hACE2 expressed on the cell surface from the extracellular space… This RBD-LgBit configuration functionally mimics viral attachment to host cells, i.e., the initial step of SARS-CoV-2 infection…”
In response:
To reiterate, the instant rejection is in view of the instant claims merely reciting or reading on expression of the first and second vectors followed by detection of the interaction between an RBD and an hACE2 protein. 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). Neither intracellular nor extracellular interaction of the binding partners is a required limitation of the instant claims. Further, the method of Yang et al. is not limited to intracellular interaction of the binding partners, nor to co-expression as previously noted. Further, both Yang et al. and instant application (Yang et al. page 4, ¶ 4; Specification, page 15) use the Nano-Glo® reagent (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) which comprises a lysis step. Therefore, detection of luciferase-based luminescence comprises intracellular as well as extracellular interactions of the binding partners in both methods, the one described in instant application and the one taught by Yang et al. Further, as noted above Overton teaches protein expression in E.coli followed by purification to deliver maximum yields of high quality protein.
Applicant contends on page 14 of the Remarks submitted on 04/20/2026:
“III. Lack of motivation or reasonable expectation of success
Even if one were to consider modifying Yang, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to produce RBD-LgBiT as a purified recombinant protein in prokaryotic cells, apply it exogenously to receptor-expressing mammalian cells, and rely on extracellular NanoBiT complementation for detection.
In response:
Yang et al. already teach the use of a purified recombinant protein by a peptide synthesizer (page 4) as explained above. Production of such proteins by cells or peptide synthesizers is routine practice in the art. Applicant has provided no evidence to support that a purified recombinant protein specifically produced by either method would not work in the claimed method. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). As explained above in detail Yang et al. teach all of the steps required by the claimed method and use the same NanoBiT® technology. Further, as noted above Overton teaches protein expression in E.coli followed by purification to deliver maximum yields of high quality protein.
Applicant contends on page 15 of the Remarks submitted on 04/20/2026:
“IV. Technical advantages and unexpected results The claimed configuration provides distinct and non-obvious advantages: 1) Physiological relevance: The assay more accurately reflects viral attachment to host cells, enabling biologically meaningful detection. 2) Rapid detection: The claimed method achieves detection within approximately 10 minutes, representing a significant improvement in assay speed. 3) Drug screening capability: Because the system models extracellular viral binding, it is particularly suited for identifying inhibitors of viral entry an application not enabled by intracellular co-expression systems.”
In response:
To reiterate, the method of Yang et al. is not limited to intracellular interaction of the binding partners, nor to co-expression as previously noted. Further, both Yang et al. and instant application (Yang et al. page 4, ¶ 4; Specification, page 15) use the Nano-Glo® reagent (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) which comprises a lysis step. Therefore, detection of luciferase-based luminescence comprises intracellular as well as extracellular interactions of the binding partners in both methods, the one described in instant application and the one taught by Yang et al. The recitation of 10 minutes was addressed previously and does not constitute a feature that distinguishes the claimed method from the one taught by cited prior art. Therefore, such a result of identifying inhibitors of viral entry are considered entirely expected and consistent with the prior art. It is not clear why Applicant refers to such a result as unexpected.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARLENE V BUCKMASTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5371. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Thomas J. Visone can be reached on (571)270-0684. 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.
/MARLENE V BUCKMASTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1672
/NICOLE KINSEY WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672
Prosecution Insights