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 .
Priority
The present application was filed on 12/23/2021. This application claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 63/130,857 filed on 12/28/2020 and 63/194,188 filed on 05/28/2021.
Claim status
Claims 5, 8 and 12 are canceled. Claims 1, 13 and 14 are amended. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are pending and examined herein.
Objections/Rejections status
The rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-15 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Koliha in view of Chen-598 and Chen-195 is withdrawn in view of the amendment of the claims.
New grounds rejection is made in view of the amendment of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In the Remarks filed 01/14/2026, page 6, Entry of Amendments, Applicant states that the recitations "wherein the plurality of first protrusions and the body are integrally formed and seamlessly connected" and "a specimen comprising" in claim 1 are deleted. However, the recitations are not struck through.
In the Remarks filed 01/14/2026, page 6, Entry of Amendments, Applicant states that Applicant amends claim 13 depended from claim 1, instead of claim 12. The number “12” is not struck through.
In the Remarks filed 01/14/2026, page 11 last paragraph and page 12 first paragraph disclose the amended claim 14 without the recitations "wherein the plurality of first protrusions and the body are integrally formed and seamlessly connected" and "a specimen comprising". However, these recitations are not struck through in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claims are read based on the Remarks.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 10, recites “the at least one first ligand is performed to recognize and directly bind to a target on the surface of the specimen”, which means that the first ligand originally cannot bind to a target and needs to be performed to bind to the target. However, it is unclear what kind of performance is used to make the first ligand bind to a target. The specification does not disclose any performance to support this limitation either.
Claim 1, line 9, recites “analytes which are located on a surface of a specimen.” Claim 1, line 11, recites “a target on the surface of the specimen.” Using different terms, such as “analyte” and “target,” to refer the same thing on the surface of the specimen can lead to confusion. Paragraph 55 in the specification states that the target may be identical or different from any one of the analytes. However, when reading the claim, one cannot determine that “analyte” and “target” can be identical because they are called with different terms. If “analyte” is indeed different from “target”, it is unclear how they differ since both terms refer to a similar concept. To maintain consistency, it would be more effective to use either “analyte” or “target” exclusively.
Claims 9-11 depend on claim 8. Since claim 8 is canceled. Claims 9-11 are indefinite.
All dependent claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spetzler et al. (US20160069889) in view of Chen et al. (US20190206598, herein Chen-598), Chen et al. (US20190203195, herein Chen-195).
Regarding claim 1, Spetzler teaches a method of detecting multiple analytes (see par.16) comprising:
a microparticle coupled with at least one first ligand (see par.90: teaching to detect biomarkers or capturing sample components by molecules immobilized to a substrate as capture agents; see par.98: teaching that multiple capture molecules are disposed on the substrate, e.g., proteins, peptides or additional nucleic acid molecules; see par.91, 110 and 112: teaching that a bead substrate (e.g., a magnetic particle) can provide a platform for attaching one or more binding agents; see par.113: teaching that one or more aptamers of the invention can be used with any bead based substrate),
the first ligand is coupled to the surface of the body of the microparticle (see par.90, 91, 98 and 112),
mixing the microparticle with a variety of analytes which are located on a surface of a specimen to form a first complex (see Fig.1B, 1D, par.16-17, 78 and 84: teaching that a specimen is vesicle or cell and a population of vesicles is captured with one or more capture agents against biomarkers on vesicles ’surfaces; par.162: teaching vesicle has a variety of surface antigens, e.g., disease-specific and cell-specific biomarkers),
and the at least one first ligand is performed to recognize and directly bind to a target on the surface of the specimen (see Fig.1D ii, par.79, 88 101: teaching that a population of vesicles is captured with one or more capture agents against cell-of-origin biomarkers and/or disease biomarkers; par.119: teaching that the method detects at least one of the target molecules, e.g., a microvesicle surface antigen).
The method further comprises mixing the first complex with a variety of second ligands carrying a variety of first labels, such that the variety of second ligands bind to the variety of analytes in the first complex and form a second complex (see Fig.1A and 1B, par.77: teaching that second ligands are detector antibodies substituted with labels, and “one or more capture agents to a general vesicle biomarker, a cell-of-origin marker, and/or a disease marker are used along with detection agents against general vesicle biomarker”),
and detecting the variety of first labels in the second complex, so that a detection result represents the relative contents of the analytes on the surface of the specimen (see par.86-88: teaching that a biosignature can be detected qualitatively or quantitatively by detecting a presence, level or concentration of a circulating biomarker, e.g., vesicle).
Spetzler teaches that a biomarker combination is used to characterize the phenotype of interest (see Fig.1D, par.79).
However, Spetzler does not teach the bead (i.e., microparticle) comprising a body and a plurality of first protrusions formed on a surface of the body, wherein the plurality of first protrusions and the body are integrally formed and seamlessly connected. Spetzler does not teach that the claimed ratio of an average volume of the protrusion to an average volume of the body is 1x10-7 to 2x10-2 and a total volume of the protrusions to an overall volume of the microparticle is 1x10-1 to 6x10-1.
Chen-598 teaches a magnetic particle having a copolymer core and a plurality of protrusions on the surface of the body (see par. 41 and Fig.1: teaching that the surface of the magnetic substance layer may have small protrusions or rough surface, which thereby reads on the first protrusions). Chen-598 teaches that the particle is widely used in the field of biomedicine such as in immune-quantitative analysis (see Abstract and par.3), purification and separation, or cell stimulation and amplification (see par.64).
For the claimed ratio of an average volume of the protrusion to an average volume of the body is 1x10-7 to 2x10-2 and a total volume of the protrusions to an overall volume of the microparticle is 1x10-1 to 6x10-1, it is interpreted as the size of the protrusion relatively to the size of the body of the particle, and the size of the protrusion relatively to the size of the whole particle.
Chen-598 further provides the average diameter of the particle and average height of the protrusion (see par.35-36: teaching that an average diameter of the magnetic particle ranges 1 μm -50 μm, an average height of the protrusions ranges from 100 nm to 5000 nm, so the size of the protrusion is about 1/10 or 1x10-1 the size of the particle), whereas the average diameter of the knobby copolymer core and the average height h of the protrusions are also disclosed (see par.55: teaching that an average diameter D is measured about 4.5 μm, and an average height h of the protrusions is measured about 1000 nm, so the size of the protrusion is about 1/4.5 or 2x10-1 the size of the particle; see par.57: teaching that an average diameter D is measured about 2.5 μm, and an average height h of the protrusions is measured about 500 nm, so the size of the protrusion is about 0.5/2.5 or 2x10-1 the size of the particle). While Chen-598 does not specifically teach the volume ratio between the particle and the protrusion, one having ordinary skills in the art can calculate that ratio based on the range of diameter of the protrusion, the core and the particle as taught by Chen-598. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the volume ratio by normal optimization procedures known in the art. The motivation to do so is that the surface area of the magnetic particle can be greatly increased, thereby contributing to the close packing of the magnetic particles (see par.64).
Chen-195 provides a method for in vitro activation and/or expansion of immune cells (see Abstract). The method comprises providing magnetic particle having a copolymer core and a plurality of protrusions (see Abstract). On the surface of the particle, there is at least one type of immune-inducing substance, e.g., antibody (see at least par. 9, 17 and 35), which assists the contacting of the magnetic particle with the immune cells (see at least Abstract and par.27). This teaching indicates that the magnetic particle with protrusions can bind to a target via a ligand on its surface, and thereby it anticipates the claimed particle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Spetzler, substituting the capture bead with the particle taught by Chen-598 because the knobby surface particle would provide larger surface area and conform to the biomimetic concept simultaneously in compared with the equal volume sphere particle (see par.3-4). Moreover, the knobby polymer particle can adsorb more magnetic substance precursors to achieve the effect of high magnetic quantization (see par.26). Also, Chen-598 teaches that the particle is widely used in the field of biomedicine such as in immune-quantitative analysis (see Abstract and par.3) and Chen-195 proves that the multi-protrusion particle coupled with a ligand on its surface can bind to a target (see Abstract and par.35). Therefore, one having ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the particle taught by Chen in Spetzler because the multi-protrusion particle taught by Chen is functional equivalent to the capture bead taught by Spetzler as discussed above.
Regarding claims 2-3, Spetzler, Chen-598 and Chen-195 teach the invention as discussed above. Spetzler doesn’t teach the structure of the microparticle. However, Chen-598 discloses that the particle has a knobby copolymer core, a polymer layer, a magnetic substance layer and a silicon-based layer from the inside to the outside (see Par.34 and Fig.1). Fig.1 shows that there is a plurality of protrusions formed on a surface of the copolymer core 110 (see Fig.1 and par.34). The average height of the plurality of protrusions is 100 nm to 5000 nm (see par.8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Spetzler and Chen, substituting the capture bead with the magnetic particle taught by Chen for the benefit of vesicle or cell sorting because the particles can be manipulated using magnets (see Spetzler par.113 and 127, see Chen-598 par.3).
One having ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the particle taught by Chen in Spetzler because the multi-protrusion magnetic particle taught by Chen is functional equivalent to the capture bead taught by Spetzler as discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Spetzler, Chen-598 and Chen-195 teach the invention as discussed above. Spetzler fails to teach the ratio of an average height of the first protrusions to an average diameter of the body is 0.005 to 0.25.
However, Chen-598 discloses that the average diameter D and the average height of the core protrusions are 4.5 μm:1000 nm (see par.55), or 2.5 μm:500 nm (see par.57), or 8.5 μm:900 nm (see par.59). So the ratio may range from 0.1-0.22.
Chen further shows that the polymer layer 120, the magnetic substance layer 130, and the silicon-based layer 140 sequentially formed on the knobby copolymer core 110 do not substantially change the morphology of the knobby copolymer core 110, the resulting magnetic particles 100 still have knobby appearance (see par.43), and therefore it appears that the ratio of average diameter D and the average height of the core protrusions is similar to the ratio of average diameter D and the average height of the surface protrusions. Therefore, this teaching anticipates the claim.
While Chen does not specifically teach the same height of the protrusion of the particle, as the same ratio of an average height of the protrusion to an average diameter of the particle body, they do suggest varying the height of the protrusion attached on the surface of the particle. It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of an average height of the surface protrusion on the surface of an particle.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claim 4 (the ratio of the height of the protrusion and the diameter of the particle) is for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem and the prior art teaches that limitation often varies, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the height of the protrusion or the claimed ratio by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Spetzler and Chen, using the magnetic particle taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because the reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Spetzler, Chen-598 and Chen-195 teach the invention as discussed above. Spetzler fails to teach that an average number of the first protrusions is 5 to 500, and an average diameter of the microparticle is 1 μm to 20 μm.
However, Chen-598 teaches that the average diameter of the microparticle may be from 4-20 μm (see par.35). Chen-598 also discloses that a range of an average diameter is greater than 1 μm; particularly, it may range from 1-50 μm or 2-40 μm or 3-30 μm (see par.35).
Chen-598 also discloses the particle has a plurality of protrusions on its surface (see par.8 and par.34).
While Chen does not specifically teach the same claimed number of the first protrusions and the same claimed diameter of the microparticle, they do suggest varying values of diameter of the microparticle and a plurality number of the protrusion attached on the surface of the particle.
It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claim 6 (the number of the protrusion on the particle and the average diameter of the microparticle) is for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem and the prior art Chen provides the microparticle having compatible structural and functional properties of the claimed particle, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the number of the protrusion and the average diameter of the microparticle by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Spetzler and Chen, using the magnetic particle taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because the reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Spetzler, Chen-598 and Chen-195 teach the invention as discussed above. Spetzler doesn’t teach that the particle is non-spherical. However, Chen-598 teaches that the particle may have a rough surface which provides larger surface area and conforms to the biomimetic concept simultaneously (see par.3-4 and 41), thus, Chen-598 teaches non-spherical particles.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Spetzler and Chen, using the magnetic particle taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success because the reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Spetzler, Chen-598 and Chen-195 teach the invention as discussed above. Spetzler discloses the at least one first ligand comprises a first specific antibody, and the first specific antibody comprises an antibody against a surface antigen on the human exosome, an antibody against a surface antigen on the human blood cell, an antibody against a surface antigen on the human immune cell, an antibody against a surface antigen on the human tumor cell, or a combination thereof.
See par.28: teaching that a particle bead coated with a capture agent, such as an aptamer or antibody, which captures vesicles expressing the target antigen of the capture agent; see par.76, 158, 162: teaching that the binding agent is an antibody for a surface antigens on the exosome.
Regarding claim 10, Spetzler, Chen-598 and Chen-195 teach the invention as discussed above. Spetzler discloses the specimen comprising human exosomes (see par.145 and 158) and the variety of analytes comprise a surface antigen on the human exosome (see Fig.1C, par.77).
Regarding claim 11, Spetzler, Chen-598 and Chen-195 teach the invention as discussed above. Spetzler discloses that the variety of second ligands comprise a variety of second specific antibodies, and the variety of second specific antibodies comprise an antibody against a surface antigen on the human exosome (see par.78: teaching that detectors are used to detect the captured vesicles, wherein detectors include labeled antibodies or aptamers to a vesicle antigen of interest).
Regarding claim 13, Spetzler, Chen-598 and Chen-195 teach the invention as discussed above. Spetzler teaches the variety of first ligands comprise a variety of nucleic acid probes and the variety of nucleic acid probes comprise a variety of primers or aptamers (see par.87: teaching that a capture agent can comprise an antibody or aptamer, i.e., nucleic acid probes).
Spetzler teaches the variety of analytes comprise a variety of nucleic acid sequences carrying a variety of second labels and the variety of second labels comprise a variety of antigenic epitopes (see par.63 teaching that the aptamers is used to assess presence or level of biomarkers in a biological sample, e.g., biological entities of interest such as proteins, nucleic acids; see par.30 and 84: teaching assessing nucleic acid or proteins present in the isolated vesicles which comprises a variety of antigenic epitopes).
Regarding claim 14, Spetzler teaches a method of detecting multiple analytes (see par.16) comprising:
a microparticle coupled with a variety of ligands (see par.90: teaching to detect biomarkers or capturing sample components by molecules immobilized to a substrate as capture agents; see par.98: teaching that multiple capture molecules are disposed on the substrate, e.g., proteins, peptides or additional nucleic acid molecules; see par.91, 110 and 112: teaching that a bead substrate (e.g., a magnetic particle) can provide a platform for attaching one or more binding agents; see par.113: teaching that one or more aptamers of the invention can be used with any bead based substrate),
the first ligand is coupled to the surface of the body of the microparticle (see par.90, 91, 98 and 112),
mixing the microparticle with a variety of analytes which are located on a surface of a specimen to form a complex (see Fig.1B, 1D, par.16-17, 78 and 84: teaching that a specimen is vesicle or cell and a population of vesicles is captured with one or more capture agents against biomarkers on vesicles’ surfaces; see par.63 teaching that the aptamers is used to assess presence or level of biomarkers in a biological sample, e.g., biological entities of interest such as proteins, nucleic acids; see par.30 and 84: teaching to assess nucleic acid or proteins present in the isolated vesicles).
The method further comprises mixing the complex with a variety of second ligands carrying a variety of labels, such that the variety of second ligands bind to the variety of biomarkers in the first complex and form a second complex (see Fig.1A and 1B, par.77: teaching that second ligands are detector antibodies substituted with labels, and “one or more capture agents to a general vesicle biomarker, a cell-of-origin marker, and/or a disease marker are used along with detection agents against general vesicle biomarker”), and detecting the variety of first labels in the second complex, so that a detection result represents the relative contents of the analytes on the surface of the specimen (see par.86-88: teaching that a biosignature can be detected qualitatively or quantitatively by detecting a presence, level or concentration of a circulating biomarker, e.g., vesicle). This teaching of Spetzler encompasses the limitation of the claim “the variety of analytes carry a variety of labels and detecting the variety of labels in the complex” because the variety of analytes on vesicle which comprises a variety of antigenic epitopes bound to detectors to the epitopes. The detectors comprises antibodies conjugated with labels.
Spetzler teaches that a biomarker combination is used to characterize the phenotype of interest (see Fig.1D, par.79).
However, Spetzler does not teach the bead (i.e., microparticle) comprising a body and a plurality of first protrusions formed on a surface of the body, wherein the plurality of first protrusions and the body are integrally formed and seamlessly connected. Spetzler does not teach that the claimed ratio of an average volume of the protrusion to an average volume of the body is 1x10-7 to 2x10-2 and a total volume of the protrusions to an overall volume of the microparticle is 1x10-1 to 6x10-1.
Chen-598 teaches a magnetic particle having a copolymer core and a plurality of protrusions on the surface of the body (see par. 41 and Fig.1: teaching that the surface of the magnetic substance layer may have small protrusions or rough surface, which thereby reads on the first protrusions). Chen-598 teaches that the particle is wildly used in the field of biomedicine such as in immune-quantitative analysis (see Abstract and par.3), purification and separation, or cell stimulation and amplification (see par.64).
For the claimed ratio of an average volume of the protrusion to an average volume of the body is 1x10-7 to 2x10-2 and a total volume of the protrusions to an overall volume of the microparticle is 1x10-1 to 6x10-1, it is interpreted as the size of the protrusion relatively to the size of the body of the particle, and the size of the protrusion relatively to the size of the whole particle.
Chen-598 further provides the average diameter of the particle and average height of the protrusion (see par.35-36: teaching that an average diameter of the magnetic particle ranges 1 μm -50 μm, an average height of the protrusions ranges from 100 nm to 5000 nm, so the size of the protrusion is about 1/10 or 1x10-1 the size of the particle), whereas the average diameter of the knobby copolymer core and the average height h of the protrusions are also disclosed (see par.55: teaching that an average diameter D is measured about 4.5 μm, and an average height h of the protrusions is measured about 1000 nm, so the size of the protrusion is about 1/4.5 or 2x10-1 the size of the particle; see par.57: teaching that an average diameter D is measured about 2.5 μm, and an average height h of the protrusions is measured about 500 nm, so the size of the protrusion is about 0.5/2.5 or 2x10-1 the size of the particle). While Chen-598 does not specifically teach the volume ratio between the particle and the protrusion, one having ordinary skills in the art can calculate that ratio based on the range of diameter of the protrusion, the core and the particle as taught by Chen-598. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the volume ratio by normal optimization procedures known in the art. The motivation to do so is that the surface area of the magnetic particle can be greatly increased, thereby contributing to the close packing of the magnetic particles (see par.64).
Chen-195 provides a method for in vitro activation and/or expansion of immune cells (see Abstract). The method comprises providing magnetic particle having a copolymer core and a plurality of protrusions (see Abstract). On the surface of the particle, there is at least one type of immune-inducing substance, e.g., antibody (see at least par. 9, 17 and 35), which assists the contacting of the magnetic particle with the immune cells (see at least Abstract and par.27). This teaching indicates that the magnetic particle with protrusions can bind to a target via a ligand on its surface, and thereby it anticipates the claimed particle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Spetzler, substituting the capture bead with the particle taught by Chen-598 because the knobby surface particle would provide larger surface area and conform to the biomimetic concept simultaneously in compared with the equal volume sphere particle (see par.3-4). Moreover, the knobby polymer particle can adsorb more magnetic substance precursors to achieve the effect of high magnetic quantization (see par.26). Also, Chen-598 teaches that the particle is wildly used in the field of biomedicine such as in immune-quantitative analysis (see Abstract and par.3) and Chen-195 proves that the multi-protrusion particle coupled with a ligand on its surface can bind to a target (see Abstract and par.35). Therefore, one having ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the particle taught by Chen in Spetzler because the multi-protrusion particle taught by Chen is functional equivalent to the capture bead taught by Spetzler as discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, Spetzler, Chen-598 and Chen-195 teach the invention as discussed above. Spetzler teaches wherein the variety of ligands comprise a variety of nucleic acid probes (see par.87: teaching that a capture agent can comprise an antibody or aptamer, i.e., nucleic acid probes), the variety of labels comprise a variety of fluorescent labels, a variety of luminescent labels, or a combination thereof (see par.92), and the variety of analytes comprise a variety of nucleic acid sequences (see par.63 teaching that the aptamers is used to assess presence or level of biomarkers in a biological sample, e.g., biological entities of interest such as proteins, nucleic acids; see par.30 and 84: teaching assessing nucleic acid or proteins present in the isolated vesicles).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection is made in view of the amendment of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAU N.B. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3663. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-6:30 CT.
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, Bao-Thuy L Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-0824. 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.
/CHAU N.B. TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1677
/BAO-THUY L NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1677 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights