DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the paper filed on 7/24/2026. Claims 1-10 and 15-20 are currently pending (claim set as filed on 7/24/2026). Claims 11-14 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10 are amended. Claims 15-20 are new.
Newly submitted claims 15-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the new claims are directed towards a composition whereas the invention addressed in the previous correspondence was directed towards a method and use thereof.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 1-10 are under examination.
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CL3094-2019, filed on 10/28/2019.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. Although the applicant argues that an updated translated specification was provided, this does not satisfy the requirement because an English translated copy of the entire application must be provided. Until such a copy is provided, the effective filing date of this application is 1/3/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “extramophilic” and “biodisingrating” are grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required to change to “extremophilic” and “bio-disintegrating” respectively.
Claims 2-5 are objected to for depending on claim 1.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said bacterial” is incorrect grammar. Appropriate correction is required to change to “said bacteria”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the naming convention of “1008 cells/ml” should be consistent with the naming convention of 108 cells/ml as recited in previous claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The invention appears to employ novel biological materials, specifically bacteria and a bacteria consortium comprising Leptospirillum sp and Leptospirillum ferriphilum deposited in the Chilean Collection of Genetic and Microbial Resources. Since the biological materials are essential to the claimed invention they must be obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification or otherwise readily available to the public. If the biological materials are not so obtainable or available, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 may be satisfied by a deposit of the biological materials.
If the deposit is made under the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating that the specific biological materials have been deposited under the Budapest Treaty and that the biological materials will be irrevocably and without restriction or condition released to the public upon the issuance of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein. If the deposit has not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.801-1.809, Applicant may provide assurance of compliance by an affidavit or declaration, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, showing that:
(a) during the pendency of this application, access to the invention will be afforded to
the Commissioner upon request;
(b) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon
granting of the patent;
(c) the deposit will be maintained in a public depository for a period of 30 years or 5
years after the last request or for the effective life of the patent, whichever is longer;
(d) a test of the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit will be made
(see 37 C.F.R. § 1.807); and
(e) the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become inviable.
Applicant's attention is directed to M.P.E.P. §2400 in general, and specifically to §2411.05, as well as to 37 C.F.R. § 1.809(d), wherein it is set forth that "the specification shall contain the accession number for the deposit, the date of the deposit, the name and address of the depository, and a description of the deposited material sufficient to specifically identify it and to permit examination." The specification should be amended to include this information, however, Applicant is cautioned to avoid the entry of new matter into the specification by adding any other information.
The aforementioned 112a rejection was noted in the non-final and was not corrected upon applicant amending the claims. Therefore the rejection still stands.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites that the culturing temperature range is from “about 18[Symbol font/0xB0]C to about 45[Symbol font/0xB0]C”. The limitation of “about” modifying the low and high ends of the range is not supported by the instant specification and is new matter. The recitation in the specification regarding this temperature range reads as follows:
“In order to obtain the greatest amount of microorganisms grouped in one sample, all the samples obtained from the El Tatio Geothermal Field were mixed to generate a single sample, which was cultured in an enriched medium for the development of chemolyttrophic microorganisms, with the addition of of basal salts and the use of ferrous sulfate (FeSO4) as an energy source in an aerobic environment, with agitation and at temperature (Range; 18°C to 45°C).” (see specification pg. 16, ¶ 3).
As this recitation only refers to the specified range of 18[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 45[Symbol font/0xB0]C, further modification of “about” broadens the scope of the temperature range, which is new matter.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Claims 5 and 7 newly recite that the bacteria and bacterial consortium comprises a “Leptospirillum ferriphilum” species. The limitation of “Leptospirillum ferriphilum” modifying the type of bacteria is new matter. The only recitation in the instant specification regarding this bacterial species reads as follows:
“Thus, the present invention refers to a method to Biodisintegrate metal scrap in a 9K culture medium enriched with ferrous sulfate (FeSO4) and using a consortium of bacteria tolerant to ferrous sulfate (FeSO4) and ferric sulfate (Fe2(SO4)3) - access number of the Bank of Genetic and Microbial Resources, Chile, RGM 2972 of October 16, 2019 (Chilean Collection of Genetic and Microbial Resources, which includes species of the genus Leotospirillum.” (see specification pg. 8, ¶ 2).
As this recitation only refers to bacteria of the genus Leptospirillum, modification of the further limiting species “ferriphilum” narrows the scope of the bacteria comprising thereof, which is new matter.
Claim 9 is rejected for depending on claim 7.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “culturing bacteria in the buffered solution at temperature from about 18[Symbol font/0xB0]C to about 45[Symbol font/0xB0]C to become extremophilic microorganisms” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how merely culturing microorganisms could change an inherent property such as their taxonomic classification. Additionally, the recitation of “wherein the cultured bacteria has the accession number RGM 2972 and DNA SEQ ID Nos. 1-4” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the bacteria are encompassed by all four sequences or just one of the four. For examination purposes, the claims are interpreted to mean the cultured bacteria has one of the DNA SEQ ID Nos. 1-4, and the prior art will be applied accordingly.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of “pH adjusted to a variation”, “variable shaking”, and “variable temperature” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear the conditions listed as mean to be adjusted to a single value within the given ranges or if they vary over some indeterminate amount of time. Additionally, the term “higher” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, the phrase “gpl” is undefined in application and its meaning is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(a). Thus, the phrase “increasing concentrations of Ferrous Sulfate (FeSO4), exceeding 180 gpl” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if all concentrations need to exceed 180 gpl or merely exceed that value. Further, the recitation of “NH4SO4” renders the claim indefinite as this is not a known chemical structure. Applicant is suggested to correct the naming convention to the proper formula “(NH4)2SO4”.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, the recitations of “species of the genus Leptospirillum sp and Leptospirillum ferriphilum genus” and “species of Leptospirillum sp and Leptospirillum ferriphilum genus” are indefinite as Leptospirillum ferriphilum. Since Leptospirillum sp is a genus but a species; it is unclear if the claim is attempting to further limit the species to Leptospirillum ferriphilum. The examiner suggests amending the claim to “wherein said bacteria comprises Leptospirillum ferriphilum.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “Use of a solution comprising a bacterial consortium” renders the claim indefinite as there are no actionable steps provided in the claimed process. The claim merely recites the use of the bacterial consortium solution to eliminate surface corrosion of a metal, but it does not recite any active steps to limit how the use is practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claims 7-10 are rejected for depending on claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation of “variable shaking”, and “variable temperature” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear the conditions listed as mean to be adjusted to a single value within the given ranges or if they vary over some indeterminate amount of time. Furthermore, it is unclear what the terms within the parentheses following “culture media 9K” entail, and if they are mean to be included in the media, if they define the media components, or if there are merely exemplary of what the media may include as thus renders the claim indefinite. Regarding claim 10, the recitation of “said solution is applied as an aerosol solution on a metal surface said metal device/apparatus is treated with a solution by bath or immersion or initial irrigation” renders the claim indefinite. The claim language is unclear if the solution is meant to be applied as an aerosol and via treatment with bath, immersion, or initial irrigation, or if this is merely incorrect grammar.
The aforementioned 112b rejections for claims 4-5, 7, 9 and 10 were noted in the non-final and were not corrected upon applicant amending the claims. Therefore the rejections still stand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it attempts to recite a process of use without also properly setting forth any active steps for carrying out said process. Thus the claimed invention is not supported by a specific utility. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claims 7-10 are rejected for depending on claim 6.
Withdrawal of Objections
Any objections of record not particularly addressed above are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments and/or applicant’s comments.
Withdrawal of Rejections
Any rejections of record not particularly addressed below are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments and/or applicant’s comments.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballor (Ballor et al., “Recovery of Scrap Iron Metal Value Using Biogenerated Ferric Iron”, 2006 Jan 26, Wiley Interscience, pgs. 1089-1094) and further in view of Han (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2014/0193316 A1 – date of publication 7/10/2014).
Ballor’s general disclosure relates to the culturing of the extremophilic microorganism Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans to use in recycling scrap iron metal (see abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Ballor teaches the culturing of Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans extremophilic bacteria in a ferrous sulfate medium at 35[Symbol font/0xB0]C (see pg. 1090, ¶ 3) which falls within the claimed temperature range of about 18-45[Symbol font/0xB0]C. As noted in the 112a rejection above, the further limitation of “about” is considered to be new matter. Ballor teaches that scrap metal was washed with the extremophilic bacteria-ferrous sulfate medium to leach metal, such as copper, out of it (see pg. 1090, ¶ 5).
Ballor does not teach the bacteria had a DNA sequence identity match to SEQ ID NO. 1-4.
Han’s general disclosure relates to the use of extremophilic bacteria to recycle iron and copper metal ions (see [0037-0038]).
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches a Tepidimonas fonticaldi bacterial species that is not affected by extreme conditions (see [0038]), thus an extremophilic bacteria, and has a SEQ ID NO. 2 that is a 100% DNA sequence identity match to the DNA sequence of the claimed extremophilic microorganism (see pg. 6, Sequence Listing – SEQ ID NO 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the extremophilic bacteria as described in claimed SEQ ID NO. 1-4 taught in Han within the metal disintegration method as taught in Ballor. One would be motivated to do so because Han teaches the bacteria Tepidimonas fonticaldi is also an extremophilic microorganism that is capable of binding to metals such as iron and copper (see Han [0037-0038]). Therefore, this would be an advantage to Ballor’s disclosure which needs extremophilic bacteria to interact with metal to extract iron and copper (see Ballor pg. 1090, ¶ 5) and the ordinary artisan could have improved upon their teachings by using such an additional bacterium in the metal recycling process.
Regarding claims 2-3, the combined references teach the extremophilic bacteria bind to metal ions in liquid such as geothermal waters (see Han [0040]), which reads on ponds. As geothermal waters naturally have gas bubbles and extremely high temperatures, the leaching of the metal ions in such an environment would allow for aeration, heat, and agitation.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation of “use of” language renders the claim indefinite as there are no actionable steps provided in the claimed process. The claim merely recites the use of the bacterial consortium solution to eliminate surface corrosion of a metal, but it does not recite any active steps to limit how the use is practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q). For compact prosecution purposes, the “use of” language has been interpreted to read on the use of recycling scrap metal (see Ballor abstract) using the extremophilic bacteria with a matching sequence identity (see Han pg. 6, Sequencing Listing – SEQ ID NO 2) to the deposited microbe as claimed.
Claims 4-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballor (Ballor et al., “Recovery of Scrap Iron Metal Value Using Biogenerated Ferric Iron”, 2006 Jan 26, Wiley Interscience, pgs. 1089-1094), in view of Han (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2014/0193316 A1 – date of publication 7/10/2014), and further in view of Nicolay (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2016/0138128A1 – date of publication 5/19/2016).
The general disclosure of the combined references has been set forth above.
Regarding claims 4 and 8-9, the combined references teach culturing extremophilic bacteria Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans in a ferrous sulfate medium at 35[Symbol font/0xB0]C (see pg. 1090, ¶ 3) which falls within the claimed temperature range of 18-45[Symbol font/0xB0]C. As noted in the 112b rejection above, the limitation of “exceeding 180 gpl” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what gpl refers to and further it is unclear if all concentrations need to exceed 180 gpl or merely exceed that value. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is interpreted to mean the media is enriched with ferrous sulfate.
However, the combined references do not teach the bacteria were cultured in 9K medium with shaking between 50-200 rpm and achieving a cell growth of 1 x 108 cells/mL.
Nicolay’s general disclosure relates to bioleaching scrap metal by culturing extremophilic bacteria Leptospirillum ferriphilum (see [0032] and [0091]) in ferrous iron-containing 9K medium. It is further disclosed that the culture can be diluted to remove residual iron (see [0101]) and the bacteria are bioleach combined metals such as iron and copper (see [0033]).
Regarding claims 4 and 8-9, Nicolay teaches culturing extremophilic bacteria in 9K culture medium comprising 0.5 g/L of K2HPO4, 0.5 g/L of MgSO4, and 4 g/L of (NH4)2SO4 (see [0101]). Nicolay teaches the culture medium can be supplemented with ferrous sulfate or also washed free of iron to generate an iron-free media (see [0101]). Nicolay discloses a culture pH of 1.75 (see [0101]) which falls within the claimed range of 1.0-3.5, and further discloses the culture was agitated at 150 rpm (see [0101]) which falls within the claimed range of 50-200 rpm. Nicolay also discloses that the cells were grown to a density of 1 x 108 cells/mL (see [0101]).
Nicolay does not specify that the concentrations of the components of the 9K media were as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the concentrations of the 9K media components as taught in Nicolay to the claimed concentrations. One would have been motivated to do so because Nicolay teaches that the culture can be diluted to remove residual iron in the medium (see [0101]). Therefore, one could dilute the culture as needed to remove the iron present and could subsequently modulate the concentrations of the media components by doing so.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, the combined references teach the culturing of extremophilic bacteria Leptospirillum ferriphilum (see [0091]). As noted in the 112b above, it is unclear if the claim is attempting to further limit the species to Leptospirillum ferriphilum. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is interpreted to mean the bacteria comprises Leptospirillum ferriphilum species.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the Leptospirillum ferriphilum bacteria as taught by Nicolay to the metal disintegration method as taught in the combined references. One would have been motivated to do so because Nicolay teaches that Leptospirillum ferriphilum is also an extremophilic microorganism that is capable of leaching metals such as iron and copper (Nicolay [0033]). Therefore, this would be an advantage to the disclosure of the combined references which need extremophilic bacteria to interact with metal to extract iron and copper (see Ballor pg. 1090, ¶ 5) and the ordinary artisan could have improved upon their teachings by using such an additional bacterium in the metal recycling process.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballor (Ballor et al., “Recovery of Scrap Iron Metal Value Using Biogenerated Ferric Iron”, 2006 Jan 26, Wiley Interscience, pgs. 1089-1094), in view of Han (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2014/0193316 A1 – date of publication 7/10/2014), and further in view of Kino (Kino et al., “Biochemical Rust Removal by Thiobacillus ferrooxidans”, 1981 Jun, European Journal of Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 13, pgs. 128-132).
The general disclosure of the combined references has been set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, the combined references teach the use of recycling scrap metal (see Ballor abstract) using the extremophilic microbe with a matching sequence identity (see Han pg. 6, Sequencing Listing – SEQ ID NO 2) to the deposited microbe as claimed.
However, the combined references do not teach the use of the bacterial solution to eliminate surface corrosion on a metal surface by immersing the surface in a treatment.
Kino’s general disclosure relates to rust removal of an iron plate by immersion in extremophilic Thiobacillus ferrooxidans bacterial culture medium (see abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Kino teaches the use of the extremophilic bacterial culture to dissolve rust surface corrosion off the surface of an iron metal plate by immersing the plate in the bacterial culture (see abstract and pg. 129, ¶ 2). As noted in the 112b above, it is unclear if the solution is meant to be applied as an aerosol and via treatment with bath/immersion/initial irrigation, or if this is merely incorrect grammar. For examination purposes, the claim language is interpreted to mean the solution was applied as an aerosol solution or via treatment with bath, immersion, or initial irrigation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the extremophilic bacteria to remove surface corrosion as taught in Kino to the metal disintegration method as taught by the combined references. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do so because Kino teaches the extremophilic bacteria remove rust from metal surfaces and into the culture medium (see Kino abstract). This would be an advantage to the disclosure of the combined references which teach that the extremophilic bacteria use ferrous iron as a substrate to grow (see Ballor abstract), and as rust contains ferrous iron the use of removing surface corrosion would result in a feedback loop that would continue the bacterial culture growth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Previous prior art references Ballor and Kino were used and new prior art references Han and Nicolay as necessitated by the amendments to the claims and by the new claims brought forth.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 (and subsequently dependent claims 2-5) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the specific combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that a person of relevant skill in the art could not come up with such an invention comprising the bacterial gene sequence and a composition comprising bacteria, an intermediate solution, and a final solution to oxidize Fe(II) to Fe(III) to recover copper. However, the prior art reference Han teaches the claimed bacteria have a 100% sequence identity match to the prior art bacterial sequence. Prior art reference Ballor teaches the claimed bacterial composition and the intermediate and final oxidizing solutions to extract copper. Thus a person of relevant skill in the art could arrive at such an invention and the rejection of the claims still stands.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emmalee R. Williams whose telephone number is (571)272-5472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/EMMALEE R WILLIAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
