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 .
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 1-24, 43 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 “A computer-implemented platform comprising:(a) a sampling device configured to:(i) receive a biologic sample comprising cell-free DNA from a user, wherein the cell-free DNA comprises a plurality of methylation markers, wherein the plurality of methylation markers comprises a cancer biomarker;(ii) analyze the biologic sample to detect a quantity, a presence, or both of a cancer biomarker by:
1. fragmenting a long region of the cell-free DNA comprising the plurality of methylation markers:
2. sequencing the methylation markers in the cell-free DNA to obtain a plurality of sequencing reads: and
3. detecting the cancer biomarker based on the plurality of sequencing reads; and (b) a mobile processor configured to provide a mobile application, the mobile application comprising:(i) a user sourced information module receiving user biological data; and(c) a data processor configured to provide a recommendation application, the recommendation application comprising:(i) a reception module receiving the user biological data and at least one of a quantity of the cancer biomarker or a presence of the cancer biomarker;(ii) a recommendation generation module determining a recommendation based on the user biological data and at least one of the quantity of the cancer biomarker or the presence of the cancer biomarker; and(iii) a transmission module transmitting the recommendation to the mobile processor; wherein at least one of the mobile processor and the data processor are further configured to provide a sample module receiving the quantity of the cancer biomarker, the presence of the cancer biomarker, or both. “
The specification does not provide support for these amendments. The spec. states in para. 201 : “ In some instances, the nucleic acid detector comprises reagents and components required for bisulfate sequencing to detect epigenetic modifications. For instance, a long region with many methylation markers can be fragmented. Here, each fragment carrying a methylation marker can be an independent signal. Signals from all the fragments are sufficient in combination to obtain useful genetic information.” This is the only mention of methylation marker and it is not clear what the cancer biomarker would refer to. Para. 203 states “detecting an epigenetic modification of the DNA. In some embodiments, the epigenetic modification comprises DNA methylation at a genetic locus, a histone methylation, histone, ubiquitination, histone acetylation, histone phosphorylation, micro RNA (miRNA). In some embodiments, the DNA methylation comprises CpG methylation or CpH methylation.” Again no specific cancer biomarker is mentioned. The only specifically described detection of a cancer biomarker in the specification is in para. 282 which states: “The process can begin at 101B by a user performing a prostate cancer test that identifies the presence of a biomarker (e.g., “sampling device” determining the presence and quantity of prostate-specific antigen, or other biomarker).” However, there is no connection to methylation markers. Thus, there is no support for the limitation “wherein the plurality of methylation markers comprises a cancer biomarker” and there is no support for “detecting the cancer biomarker based on the plurality of sequencing reads” since there is no described connection between the sequencing with the detection of a cancer biomarker. There is also support for “a reception module receiving the user biological data and at least one of a quantity of the cancer biomarker or a presence of the cancer biomarker”, the specification only describes “a reception module receiving the user biological data and at least one of a quantity of the analyte or a presence of the analyte” (see para. 104). This same distinction applies to “a sample module” where the specification only refers to receiving analyte and not cancer biomarker. In conclusion these amendments do not have support in the specification and are considered new matter.
Claim 5 recites “a template selection module selecting at least one recommendation template from the plurality of recommendation templates based on the user biological data and at least one of the quantity of the cancer biomarker or the presence of the cancer biomarker”. There is no support in the specification of templates with consideration specifically of cancer biomarkers.
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 1-24, 43 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 recites the limitations “receive a biologic sample comprising cell-free DNA from a user, wherein the cell-free DNA comprises a plurality of methylation markers, wherein the plurality of methylation markers comprises a cancer biomarker;(ii) analyze the biologic sample to detect a quantity, a presence, or both of a cancer biomarker by: 1. fragmenting a long region of the cell-free DNA comprising the plurality of methylation markers: 2. sequencing the methylation markers in the cell-free DNA to obtain a plurality of sequencing reads: and 3. detecting the cancer biomarker based on the plurality of sequencing reads; and (b) a mobile processor configured to provide a mobile application, the mobile application comprising:(i) a user sourced information module receiving user biological data; and(c) a data processor configured to provide a recommendation application, the recommendation application comprising:(i) a reception module receiving the user biological data and at least one of a quantity of the cancer biomarker or a presence of the cancer biomarker;(ii) a recommendation generation module determining a recommendation based on the user biological data and at least one of the quantity of the cancer biomarker or the presence of the cancer biomarker; and(iii) a transmission module transmitting the recommendation to the mobile processor; wherein at least one of the mobile processor and the data processor are further configured to provide a sample module receiving the quantity of the cancer biomarker, the presence of the cancer biomarker, or both “. As discussed above, these limitations lack support from the specification and thus also lack clarity in scope as well. It is unclear what the cancer biomarker is and its relation to methylation markers. It is unclear how the step of detecting the cancer biomarker based on the plurality of sequencing reads is performed. Overall the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Krishnan (PGPub 2018/ 0322941).
Re Claim 1, as best understood, Krishnan discloses a computer-implemented platform (claim 1) comprising: (a) a sampling device (claim 1; para. 35, 58, 85, 111, 118, 186, 210; Fig. 1) configured to: (i) [receive a biologic sample comprising cell-free DNA from a user, wherein the cell-free DNA comprises a plurality of methylation markers, wherein the plurality of methylation markers comprises a cancer biomarker] (para. 186); (ii) [analyze the biologic sample to detect a quantity, a presence, or both of a cancer biomarker] by: 1. [fragmenting a long region of the cell-free DNA comprising the plurality of methylation markers]: 2. [sequencing the methylation markers in the cell-free DNA to obtain a plurality of sequencing reads]: and 3. [detecting the cancer biomarker based on the plurality of sequencing reads] (claim 1; para. 183-191; Fig. 1);and (b) a mobile processor configured to provide a mobile application (claim 1; para. 35, 58, 85, 111, 118, 210; Fig. 1), the mobile application comprising: (i) a user sourced information module receiving user biological data; and (c) a data processor configured to provide a recommendation application, the recommendation application comprising: (i) a reception module receiving the user biological data and at least one of a quantity of the cancer biomarker or a presence of the cancer biomarker; (ii) a recommendation generation module determining a recommendation based on the user biological data and at least one of the quantity of the cancer biomarker or the presence of the cancer biomarker; and (iii) a transmission module transmitting the recommendation to the mobile processor; wherein at least one of the mobile processor and the data processor are further configured to provide a sample module receiving the quantity of the cancer biomarker, the presence of the cancer biomarker, or both (claim 1; para. 35, 58, 85, 111, 118, 210; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed.
Re Claim 2, Krishnan discloses at least one of the user sourced information module or the reception module further receive an externally sourced data (claim 1; para. 35, 58, 85, 111, 115, 118, 210; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 3, Krishnan discloses the externally sourced data comprises a website, a video, a document file, a medical record, a pharmacy record, a medication history, a health insurance information, a subscription information, metabolic activity data, physical activity data, heart rate data, blood pressure data, metabolite data, sleep data, augmentation data, genetic data, genomic data, epigenetic information, family history information, microbiome information, pathogen or infectious disease information, vaccination information, proteomic and transcriptomic information, immune repertoire information, pharmacogenetics, medication, drug dosing, or drug-drug interactions, or any combination thereof (claim 1-4; para. 35, 47, 58, 85, 111, 118, 210; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 4, Krishnan discloses the recommendation application further comprises a database having a plurality of recommendation templates (claim 1-4; para. 35, 47, 58, 85, 111, 118, 210; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 5, as best understood, Krishnan discloses the recommendation application further comprises a template selection module selecting at least one recommendation template from the plurality of recommendation templates based on the user biological data and at least one of the quantity of the cancer biomarker or the presence of the cancer biomarker (claim 1-4; para. 35, 47, 58, 85, 111, 118, 210; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 6, Krishnan discloses the recommendation generation module further determines the recommendation based on the at least one selected recommendation templates (claim 1-4; para. 35, 47, 58, 85, 111, 118, 210; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 7, Krishnan discloses the at least one recommendation template comprises a trigger, a rule, or both (claim 1-4; para. 35, 47, 58, 85, 111, 118, 210; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 8, Krishnan discloses the recommendation is further based on the trigger, the rule, or both (claim 1-4; para. 35, 47, 58, 85, 111, 118, 210; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 9, Krishnan discloses the at least one recommendation template is a pre-defined template or a custom template (claim 1-4; para. 35, 47, 58, 85, 111, 118, 210; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 10, Krishnan discloses the at least one recommendation template is determined by a machine-learning algorithm (claim 1-4; para. 35, 47, 58, 85, 111, 118, 210; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 11, Krishnan discloses the recommendation application further comprises an access control module confirming an access of the recommendation to the user, a third party, or both (claim 1-4; para. 35, 47, 58, 85, 111-112, 118, 210, 213-214; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 12, Krishnan discloses the transmission module transmits the recommendation to the user, the one or more service agents, or both based on the confirmation of access (claim 1-4; para. 11, 35, 47, 58, 85, 111-112, 118, 210, 213-214; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 13, Krishnan discloses the recommendation generation module determines the recommendation by a machine learning algorithm (claim 1-4; para. 11, 35, 47, 58, 85, 111-112, 118, 210, 213-214; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 14, Krishnan discloses the user biological data comprises a weight, blood pressure, height, heart rate, food intake, nutritional history, activity history, sleep history, geolocation, body temperature, step count, body fat percentage, an emergency contact, a family contact, a friend contact, genetic data, genomic data, epigenetic information, microbiome information, proteomic and transcriptomic information, immune repertoire information, pharmacogenetics, blood oxygen levels, travel information, or drug-drug interactions, or any combination thereof (claim 1-4; para. 11, 35, 47, 58, 85, 111-112, 118, 210, 213-214; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Re Claim 15, Krishnan discloses the recommendation comprises a fitness recommendation, nutrition recommendation, mental health recommendation, a recommendation for further testing, or any combination thereof (claim 1-4; para. 11, 35, 47, 58, 85, 111-112, 118, 210, 213-214; Fig. 1, 6D, 6E).
Claim(s) 1-19, 21, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Holmes (PGPub 2018/0374582).
Re Claim 1, as best understood, Holmes discloses a computer-implemented platform (claim 1) comprising: (a) a sampling device configured to: (i) [receive a biologic sample comprising cell-free DNA from a user, wherein the cell-free DNA comprises a plurality of methylation markers, wherein the plurality of methylation markers comprises a cancer biomarker]; (ii) [analyze the biologic sample to detect a quantity, a presence, or both of a cancer biomarker] by: 1. [fragmenting a long region of the cell-free DNA comprising the plurality of methylation markers]: 2. [sequencing the methylation markers in the cell-free DNA to obtain a plurality of sequencing reads]: and 3. [detecting the cancer biomarker based on the plurality of sequencing reads]; and (b) a mobile processor configured to provide a mobile application, the mobile application comprising: (i) a user sourced information module receiving user biological data; and (c) a data processor configured to provide a recommendation application, the recommendation application comprising: (i) a reception module receiving the user biological data and at least one of a quantity of the cancer biomarker or a presence of the cancer biomarker; (ii) a recommendation generation module determining a recommendation based on the user biological data and at least one of the quantity of the cancer biomarker or the presence of the cancer biomarker; and (iii) a transmission module transmitting the recommendation to the mobile processor; wherein at least one of the mobile processor and the data processor are further configured to provide a sample module receiving the quantity of the cancer biomarker, the presence of the cancer biomarker, or both (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 425, 465, 484-487). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed.
Re Claim 2, Holmes discloses at least one of the user sourced information module or the reception module further receive an externally sourced data (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 3, Holmes discloses the externally sourced data comprises a website, a video, a document file, a medical record, a pharmacy record, a medication history, a health insurance information, a subscription information, metabolic activity data, physical activity data, heart rate data, blood pressure data, metabolite data, sleep data, augmentation data, genetic data, genomic data, epigenetic information, family history information, microbiome information, pathogen or infectious disease information, vaccination information, proteomic and transcriptomic information, immune repertoire information, pharmacogenetics, medication, drug dosing, or drug-drug interactions, or any combination thereof (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 4, Holmes discloses the recommendation application further comprises a database having a plurality of recommendation templates (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 5, as best understood, Holmes discloses the recommendation application further comprises a template selection module selecting at least one recommendation template from the plurality of recommendation templates based on the user biological data and at least one of the quantity of the cancer biomarker or the presence of the cancer biomarker (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 6, Holmes discloses the recommendation generation module further determines the recommendation based on the at least one selected recommendation templates (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 7, Holmes discloses the at least one recommendation template comprises a trigger, a rule, or both (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 8, Holmes discloses the recommendation is further based on the trigger, the rule, or both (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 9, Holmes discloses the at least one recommendation template is a pre-defined template or a custom template (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 10, Holmes discloses the at least one recommendation template is determined by a machine-learning algorithm (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 11, Holmes discloses the recommendation application further comprises an access control module confirming an access of the recommendation to the user, a third party, or both (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 12, Holmes discloses the transmission module transmits the recommendation to the user, the one or more service agents, or both based on the confirmation of access (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 13, Holmes discloses the recommendation generation module determines the recommendation by a machine learning algorithm (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 14, Holmes discloses the user biological data comprises a weight, blood pressure, height, heart rate, food intake, nutritional history, activity history, sleep history, geolocation, body temperature, step count, body fat percentage, an emergency contact, a family contact, a friend contact, genetic data, genomic data, epigenetic information, microbiome information, proteomic and transcriptomic information, immune repertoire information, pharmacogenetics, blood oxygen levels, travel information, or drug-drug interactions, or any combination thereof (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 15, Holmes discloses the recommendation comprises a fitness recommendation, nutrition recommendation, mental health recommendation, a recommendation for further testing, or any combination thereof (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487).
Re Claim 16, Holmes discloses the sampling device comprises:(a) a sample purifier [for removing a cell from a biological fluid sample to produce a cell-depleted sample]; and (b) at least one of a detection reagent and a signal detector [for detecting a plurality of cell-free DNA fragments in the cell-depleted sample] (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed.
Re Claim 17, Holmes discloses the sample purifier comprises a filter, and wherein the filter has a pore size of about 0.05 microns to about 2 microns (para. 368).
Re Claim 18, Holmes discloses the filter is a vertical filter (para. 368-369).
Re Claim 19, Holmes discloses the sample purifier comprises a binding moiety selected from an antibody, antigen binding antibody fragment, a ligand, a receptor, a peptide, a small molecule, and a combination thereof (para. 255, 276, 368).
Re Claim 21, Holmes discloses the sampling device further comprises at least one nucleic acid amplification reagent, wherein the at least one nucleic acid amplification reagent comprises an isothermal amplification reagent (para. 255, 276, 283, 550, 368).
Re Claim 23, Holmes discloses the data processor and the sampling device are contained in a single housing (para. 255, 276, 368, 299, claim 1).
Re Claim 24, Holmes discloses the sampling device is capable of detecting the plurality of biomarkers in the cell-depleted sample within about five minutes to about twenty minutes of receiving the biological fluid (para. 255, 257, 276, 354, 368, 384).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-19, 21, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Holmes.
Re Claim 16-19, 21, 23-24, Krishnan does not disclose the sampling device comprises:(a) a sample purifier for removing a cell from a biological fluid sample to produce a cell-depleted sample; and (b) at least one of a detection reagent and a signal detector for detecting a plurality of cell-free DNA fragments in the cell-depleted sample, the sample purifier comprises a filter, and wherein the filter has a pore size of about 0.05 microns to about 2 microns, the filter is a vertical filter, the sample purifier comprises a binding moiety selected from an antibody, antigen binding antibody fragment, a ligand, a receptor, a peptide, a small molecule, and a combination thereof, the sampling device further comprises at least one nucleic acid amplification reagent, wherein the at least one nucleic acid amplification reagent comprises an isothermal amplification reagent, the data processor and the sampling device are contained in a single housing, the sampling device is capable of detecting the plurality of cell-free DNA fragments in the cell-depleted sample within about five minutes to about twenty minutes of receiving the biological fluid. Holmes teaches the sampling device comprises:(a) a sample purifier [for removing a cell from a biological fluid sample to produce a cell-depleted sample]; and (b) at least one of a detection reagent and a signal detector [for detecting a plurality of cell-free DNA fragments in the cell-depleted sample], the sample purifier comprises a filter, and wherein the filter has a pore size of about 0.05 microns to about 2 microns, the filter is a vertical filter, the sample purifier comprises a binding moiety selected from an antibody, antigen binding antibody fragment, a ligand, a receptor, a peptide, a small molecule, and a combination thereof, the sampling device further comprises at least one nucleic acid amplification reagent, wherein the at least one nucleic acid amplification reagent comprises an isothermal amplification reagent, the data processor and the sampling device are contained in a single housing, the sampling device is capable of [detecting the plurality of cell-free DNA fragments in the cell-depleted sample within about five minutes to about twenty minutes of receiving the biological fluid] (para. 241, 346, 377, 413, 465, 484-487, 255, 257, 276, 354, 368, 384; claim 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize these features, as taught by Holmes, for the purpose of ensuring samples are clean and analyzed accurately. The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the tool, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (or Krishnan in view of Holmes) in further view of Joyce (PGPub 20170014450).
Re Claim 20, Krishnan or Holmes does not disclose the binding moiety is capable of binding an extracellular vesicle. Joyce teaches the binding moiety is capable of binding an extracellular vesicle (para. 27). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize binding moiety is capable of binding an extracellular vesicle, as taught by Joyce, for the purpose of gaining the advantage of enabling increased capabilities of the binding agent and increased adaptability.
Re Claim 22, Krishnan or Holmes does not disclose the signal detector is a lateral flow strip. Joyce teaches the signal detector is a lateral flow strip (para. 27). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize signal detector is a lateral flow strip, as taught by Joyce, for the purpose of gaining the advantage of enabling increased capabilities of signal detection and increased adaptability.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan (or Holmes) in further view of Song (PGPub 20190017109).
Re Claim 43, Krishnan or Holmes does not disclose the long region comprises at least 1000 nucleotides. However, Song teaches a long region comprises at least 1000 nucleotides (para. 32). It would be obvious to utilize 1000 nucleotides, as taught by Song, for the purpose of enabling testing to be performed on desired specimens and since Song teaches such use readily known since Any sample containing nucleic acid, e.g., genomic DNA made from tissue culture cells or a sample of tissue, may be employed herein. A nucleic acid sample can be made from any suitable source, including a sample of tooth, bone, hair or bone, etc (para. 30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that that none in the art of record teaches or discloses "fragmenting a long region of the cell-free DNA comprising a plurality of methylation that comprises a cancer biomarker" prior to sequencing and detecting the markers cancer biomarker based on sequence reads. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the 102 and 103 rejections be withdrawn. -In response, note that the amendments are considered new matter and do not have support in the specification and further are unclear. As best understood, the references are determined to read on the claims as best understood under the circumstances.
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 RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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 Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799