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
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2020/021637 filed 06/01/2020. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on JP 2019-103777 filed 06/03/2019. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
Claims 15 and 22 are amended. Claims 17, 27 and 28 are cancelled.
Claims 15, 19-22, 24, 26 and 29-33 are pending (claim set filed 11/06/2025) and are examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawal of Rejections
The response and amendment filed on 11/06/2025 are acknowledged. All of the amendment and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed and considered.
For the purposes of clarity of the record, the reasons for the Examiner's withdrawal and/or maintaining if applicable, of the substantive or essential claim rejections are detailed directly below and/or in the Examiner's response to arguments section.
The previous claims 15, 17, 19-22, 24 and 26-33 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn necessitated by submission of the public availability statement of the Assignee for the biological deposit.
Amendment of Claims (1.121)
“Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).” (MPEP 1.121).
The Applicant has amended claim 22 to recite “a composition comprising an active agent, wherein the active agent consists of” and “wherein the subject is a healthy elderly person, wherein the method improves an amount of muscle activity via a neural response, wherein the method improves walking speed without a change in muscle mass” but has not indicated the status of the claim as “Currently amended”.
The claim 22 is not-compliant, however, in the interest of compact prosecution the Examiner will proceed with the examination of the application.
Maintained/Modified Rejections
The following rejections are maintained and/or modified taking into consideration amendment to claims 15 and 22 filed on 11/06/2025.
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.
Claims 15, 19, 21 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (JP 2016216408 A on record in IDS) in view of Roman (Roman et al. Hepatology Commun., 2019, 3, 632-645) and Franz (Franz and Kram Gait & Posture, 2012, 35, 143-147) as evidenced by Siu (The Physics Factbook, 2003, Mass of Bacterium [retrieved on 07/07/2025]. Retrieved from the internet:<hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/LouisSiu.shtml>).
Regarding claim 15, Sakata teaches muscle degradation inhibitor comprising Lactobacillus curvatus or its extract (Abstract). Sakata discloses Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 strain (accession number; NITE P-02033) in the composition as active agent (paragraph 0010). Sakata describes that muscle degradation develops with aging and leads to reduction in quality of life (QOL) (paragraph 0002). Sakata provides example of the effect of treatment with L. curvatus CP2998 strain preventing muscle degradation in rats (paragraph 0025). Figure 2 shows that the weight of the gastrocnemius muscle was significantly decreased in the dexamethasone-treated group compared to control. Rats treated with the strain CP2998 prior to dexamethasone administration showed tendency for gastrocnemius muscle recovery similar to the positive control of leucine-treated group. The treatment did not increase the muscle mass (Figure 2, paragraphs 0024-0025). Sakata mentions that the muscle decomposition inhibitor can be used as medicine or food or beverages with various excipients and in various forms, such as tablets, pills, powders or syrups (paragraph 0018). The daily dosage amount for the adult is 0.001 to 4 g, preferably 0.01 to 2 g of bacteria (paragraph 0019). Since one bacteria has weight of about 10-12 g as evidenced by Siu and the claim 15 limitation requires 1 x 109 to 1 x 1013 cells as daily intake, that corresponds to 0.01 g to 10 g of bacteria. Therefore, the daily amount of L. curvatus CP2998 taught by Sakata for administration to human adults is within the claimed limitation.
Sakata does not teach improvement of walking speed and improvement of amount of muscle activity via neural response.
Roman teaches effect of a multistrain probiotic on cognitive function and risk of falls in patients with cirrhosis (Abstract). The probiotic contains a mixture of eight strains, including Lactobacillus strains: “Streptococcus thermophilus DSM 24731, Bifidobacterium breve (B. breve) DSM 24732, B. longum DSM 24736, B. infantis DSM 24737, Lactobacillus paracasei (L. paracasei) DSM 24733, L. acidophilus DSM 24735, L. delbrueckii subsp bulgaricus DSM 24734, and L. plantarum DSM 24730” (p. 634, left column, last paragraph and right column, 1st paragraph). Bacteria are administered as live cells themselves in the amount of 450 billion per dose, twice daily, that makes daily intake amount of 9 x 1011 cells (p. 634, right column, 1st paragraph). The subject of the study are human patients (p. 638, Table 1). Roman discloses that patients treated with probiotic mixture had significant increase in the gait speed which is walking speed at the end of the treatment and no changes were found in placebo group (p. 636, right column, 2nd paragraph). The specification defines walking ability improver as: “Therefore, the walking ability improver may be at least one selected from the group consisting of a walking speed improver, a muscle activity improver, and a health-related QOL improver.” (paragraph 0010). Therefore, improvement of walking speed taught by Roman will improve walking ability as well.
Franz teaches the effects of grade and walking speed on leg muscle activations during walking (Abstract). The study was performed on 10 young adults walking on a standard treadmill at seven grades and three walking speeds (Abstract). The electromyographic signals were recorded for several muscles of the right leg (p. 144, left column, 5th paragraph). All muscles at all grades showed increase in myoelectric activity with the increase in walking speed (Abstract, Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that walking requires muscle activity and increase in walking speed correlates with improvement of muscle activity. Therefore, Franz teaching indicates that improvement of muscle activity presented as increase in walking speed is accompanied by improvement/increase in myoelectric activity which is neural response.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Roman teaching and expect that Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 from Sakata teaching will improve walking speed and walking ability as was shown in Roman teaching for composition including Lactobacillus. One would have been motivated to do so since Roman teaches that treatment with the probiotic composition including Lactobacillus significantly increased walking speed compared to placebo in human patients and Sakata showed that L. curvatus CP2998 inhibits muscle degradation without increase in the muscle mass and that can improve walking ability and walking speed that depends on muscle integrity. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in the combination because Roman and Sakata use pharmacological compositions comprising Lactobacillus improving physical condition related to muscle activity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Franz guidance and assume that improvement in walking speed resulting from Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 treatment based on Sakata and Roman teachings will result in the increase of myoelectric potential during walking as taught by Franz and that increase in muscle activity, such as walking, correlates with increase in neural response detected by myoelectric potential. One would have been motivated to do so since Franz described correlation of the increase in walking speed and increase in leg muscle activation by recording electromyographic signals for several leg muscles and during walking at different grades. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in that because Franz and Roman teach measuring of walking speed for human subjects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 composition of Sakata teaching to healthy elderly person. One would have been motivated to do so with reasonably expected success since Sakata describes that L. curvatus CP2998 prevents muscle degradation that develops with age and not related to any disease and thus would be relevant to healthy elderly person. Thus, Sakata, Roman and Franz teachings as evidenced by Siu render claim 15 obvious.
Regarding claims 19 and 21, Roman teaches improvement of the cognitive functions and hence mental health for the probiotic treated group (p. 636, right column, 1st paragraph). Roman describes that analysis of the health related quality of life (HRQOL) profile showed improvement in the domain of social isolation for the probiotic treated group (p. 636, right column, last paragraph).
The Specification defines mental health degree as composed of five concepts: “The "mental health degree" is composed of five intermediate concepts of "general health perception", "vitality", "social functioning", "role functioning (mental)", and "mental health".” (paragraph 0014). Improvement of one of the concepts, i.e. “social functioning” will improve the mental health degree. Therefore, Roman probiotic composition improving social isolation will improve mental health degree as well.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Roman teaching and expect that Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 from Sakata teaching will improve mental health of the subject as was shown in Roman teaching for composition including Lactobacillus. One would have been motivated to do so with reasonably expected success since Roman teaches that treatment with the probiotic composition including Lactobacillus improved the cognitive functions/mental health and social functioning and hence mental health degree. Thus, Sakata, Roman and Franz teachings as evidenced by Siu render claims 19 and 21 obvious.
Regarding claim 31, Franz teaches increase in myoelectric activity with the increase in walking speed as described above (Abstract, Figures 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Franz guidance and expect that improvement in walking speed resulting from Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 treatment based on Sakata and Roman teachings will result in the improvement of myoelectric potential during walking as taught by Franz. One would have been motivated to do so with reasonably expected success since Franz described correlation of the increase in walking speed and increase in leg muscle activation by recording electromyographic signals for several leg muscles and during walking at different grades. Thus, Sakata, Roman and Franz teachings as evidenced by Siu render claim 31 obvious.
Regarding claim 32, Sakata teaches that muscle degradation develops with aging (paragraph 0002) and suggests Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 to be used in pharmaceutical and food compositions as medicine, food or beverage and hence the composition can be used for elderly person as described for claim 15 above. Roman teaches human subjects of 64-65 years age (p. 638, Table 1). Thus, Sakata, Roman and Franz teachings as evidenced by Siu render claim 32 obvious.
Regarding claim 33, Sakata provides example of Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 in animal model where treatment was performed for one week (paragraph 0024). Although Sakata describes pharmaceutical compositions for prevention of muscle degradation in adult humans, Sakata does not provide the treatment regimen. Roman teaches treatment for 12 weeks on human subjects and evaluation following ingestion period of 12 weeks (p. 634, right column, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Roman teaching and treat human subjects with Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 composition from Sakata teaching for 12 weeks as was shown in Roman teaching for composition including Lactobacillus. One would have been motivated to do so with reasonably expected success since Roman teaches that treatment with the probiotic composition including Lactobacillus improved the walking speed and mental health of treated subjects. Thus, Sakata, Roman and Franz teachings as evidenced by Siu render claim 33 obvious.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (JP 2016216408 A on record in IDS) in view of Roman (Roman et al. Hepatology Commun., 2019, 3, 632-645) and Franz (Franz and Kram Gait & Posture, 2012, 35, 143-147) as evidenced by Siu (The Physics Factbook, 2003, Mass of Bacterium [retrieved on 07/07/2025]. Retrieved from the internet: <hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/LouisSiu.shtml>) as applied to claims 15 and 19 above, and further in view of Tsubouchi (US 9623054 B2).
The teachings of Sakata, Roman and Franz have been set forth above.
Sakata, Roman and Franz do not teach improvement of vitality.
Tsubouchi teaches Lactobacillus ONRICb0240 as a QOL, physical health and vitality improving agent (Abstract). Tsubouchi provides example of the study performed on elderly people aged 65 or older including treatment with Lactobacillus ONRICb0240 and evaluation of five health concepts, including vitality based on standard questionnaire of tested subjects (column 12, lines 38-47). The results of the study indicated significant improvement of the vitality in Lactobacillus ONRICb0240 treated subjects compared to placebo treated group (column 14, lines 45-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow guidance of Tsubouchi and evaluate improvement of vitality by Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 composition based on Sakata and Roman teachings. One would have been motivated to do so since Tsubouchi teaches improving or sustaining vitality and fatigue recovery by Lactobacillus composition and evaluation of vitality will provide additional information on the effect of composition in Sakata teaching. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in applying Tsubouchi teaching because Sakata, Roman and Tsubouchi use pharmacological compositions comprising Lactobacillus for improvement of physical activity and QOL in elderly person. Thus, Tsubouchi teaching in combination with Sakata, Roman and Franz teachings render claim 20 obvious.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (JP 2016216408 A on record in IDS) in view of Roman (Roman et al. Hepatology Commun., 2019, 3, 632-645) and Franz (Franz and Kram Gait & Posture, 2012, 35, 143-147) as evidenced by Siu (The Physics Factbook, 2003, Mass of Bacterium [retrieved on 07/07/2025]. Retrieved from the internet: <hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/LouisSiu.shtml>) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Bovi (Bovi et al. Gait & Posture, 2011, 33, 6-13).
The teachings of Sakata, Roman and Franz have been set forth above.
Sakata, Roman and Franz do not teach improvement of stride and cadence.
Bovi teaches a multi-task gait analysis performed on data obtained from young and adult human subjects (Abstract). Bovi discloses that increase in walking speed correlates with the increase in stride length and cadence for subjects of all ages (p. 7, right column, 4th paragraph and Figure 1). The subjects included 20 individuals aged from 22 to 72 years and 20 individuals aged from 6 to 17 years (p. 7, left column, 3rd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Bovi guidance and expect that improvement in walking speed resulting from Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 treatment based on Sakata and Roman teachings will result in the improvement in stride length and cadence during walking as taught by Bovi. One would have been motivated to do so since Bovi described correlation between increase in walking speed and increase in walking parameters, i.e. stride length and cadence, for 40 human subjects of different ages. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in that because Bovi, Roman and Franz teach measuring the walking speed for human subjects. Thus, Sakata, Roman, Franz and Bovi teachings as evidenced by Siu render claims 29 and 30 obvious.
Regarding claims 22, 24 and 26, Sakata teaches muscle degradation inhibitor comprising Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 strain (accession number; NITE P-02033) as active agent (Abstract, paragraph 0010) as described above for claim 15.
Sakata does not teach improvement of amount of muscle activity via neural response, improvement of walking speed and mental health degree and mental health.
Roman teaches effect of a multistrain probiotic on cognitive function and risk of falls in patients with cirrhosis (Abstract) and discloses that patients treated with probiotic mixture including Lactobacillus had significant increase in the gait speed which is walking speed at the end of the treatment and no changes were found in placebo group (p. 636, right column, 2nd paragraph) as described above for claim 15. Roman teaches improvement of the cognitive functions and hence mental health for the probiotic treated group (p. 636, right column, 1st paragraph). Roman describes that analysis of the health related quality of life (HRQOL) profile showed improvement in the domain of social isolation for the probiotic treated group (p. 636, right column, last paragraph) which as described above improves mental health degree as well.
Franz teaches increase in myoelectric activity with the increase in walking speed (Abstract, Figures 1-3) as described above for claim 15. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that walking requires muscle activity and increase in walking speed correlates with improvement of muscle activity. Therefore, Franz teaching indicates that improvement of muscle activity presented as increase in walking speed is accompanied by improvement/increase in myoelectric activity which is neural response.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Roman teaching and expect that Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 from Sakata teaching will improve walking speed and walking ability as was shown in Roman teaching for composition including Lactobacillus. One would have been motivated to do so since Roman teaches that treatment with the probiotic composition including Lactobacillus significantly increased walking speed compared to placebo in human patients and Sakata showed that L. curvatus CP2998 inhibits muscle degradation without increase in the muscle mass and that can improve walking ability and walking speed that depends on muscle integrity. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in the combination because Roman and Sakata use pharmacological compositions comprising Lactobacillus improving physical condition related to muscle activity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Roman teaching and expect that Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 from Sakata teaching will improve mental health degree and mental health of the subject as was shown in Roman teaching for composition including Lactobacillus. One would have been motivated to do so with reasonably expected success since Roman teaches that treatment with the probiotic composition including Lactobacillus improved the cognitive functions/mental health and social functioning and hence mental health degree.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Franz guidance and assume that improvement in walking speed resulting from Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 treatment based on Sakata and Roman teachings will result in the increase of myoelectric potential during walking as taught by Franz and that increase in muscle activity, such as walking, correlates with increase in neural response detected by myoelectric potential. One would have been motivated to do so since Franz described correlation of the increase in walking speed and increase in leg muscle activation by recording electromyographic signals for several leg muscles and during walking at different grades. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in that because Franz and Roman teach measuring of walking speed for human subjects.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 composition of Sakata teaching to healthy elderly person. One would have been motivated to do so with reasonably expected success since Sakata describes that L. curvatus CP2998 prevents muscle degradation that develops with age and not related to any disease and thus would be relevant to healthy elderly person. Thus, Sakata, Roman and Franz teachings as evidenced by Siu render claims 22, 24 and 26 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument (addressing p. 6 and 8-10 of the Remarks) that incorporation of claim 17 into claim 15 makes rejection based on prior art of Roman and Sakata moot, these arguments are not persuasive because the current rejection of claims 15 and 22 is based on combination of prior art of Sakata, Roman and Franz where Franz teaches that increase in muscle activity, such as walking, correlates with increase in neural response detected by myoelectric potential (Abstract) providing motivation to expect muscle activity to improve via a neural response.
Applicant argues (addressing p. 6-8 of the Remarks) that claim 15 is not obvious over Roman and Sakata because Roman describes improvement of walking speed in patients with liver cirrhosis and not healthy person and does not include L. curvatus CP2998 and Sakata does not teach or suggest elderly person, use young rats as subjects with treatment for 1 week and evaluates the gastrocnemius muscle and not the fast twitch muscle. Applicant adds that based on the muscle decomposition recovery of Sakata, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect improvement in walking speed without a change in a mass. These arguments are not persuasive because:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In instant case, Roman teaches that treatment with the probiotic composition including Lactobacillus significantly increased walking speed compared to placebo in human patients (p. 636, right column, 2nd paragraph) and Sakata showed that L. curvatus CP2998 inhibits muscle degradation without increase in the muscle mass (paragraphs 0024-0025) and that can improve walking ability and walking speed that depends on muscle integrity providing motivation to expect that L. curvatus CP2998 from Sakata teaching will improve walking ability as was shown in Roman teaching for composition including Lactobacillus. Although Sakata provides the working example with rats as subjects, Sakata discloses that composition with L. curvatus CP2998 can be used as medicine, food or beverage and provides daily dose for adult which is within the limitation of instant claims (paragraphs 0018, 0019). Since Sakata describes that muscle degradation that develops with aging (paragraph 0002) and thus relevant to healthy elderly person, it provides motivation to apply this composition for healthy elderly person. Although Sakata describes treatment of rats for one week (paragraph 0024), Sakata describes pharmaceutical compositions for prevention of muscle degradation in adult humans and Rowan teaches 12 weeks treatment with the probiotic composition including Lactobacillus improving the walking speed (p. 634, right column, 1st paragraph) and that suggests to treat human subjects with Lactobacillus curvatus CP2998 composition for 12 weeks as was shown in Roman teaching.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., no change in the fast twitch muscle) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although Sakata provides working example evaluating gastrocnemius muscle, this muscle was not shown to increase in mass. Besides, Sakata teaching is not contrary to limitation of improving walking ability without increase in muscle mass because it precludes the muscle mass already present from degradation.
Applicant argues (addressing p. 8 of the Remarks) that the improvement in walking ability and walking speed without a change in a muscle mass are the unexpected benefits of L. curvatus CP2998.
These arguments are not persuasive because the advantage of the improvement in walking ability without a change in a muscle mass recognized by the Applicant does not make the combination of prior art non-obvious because the prior art does not need to point out all advantages if there is a motivation to combine the prior art. MPEP 2145: “The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed that an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). See also Lantech Inc. v. Kaufman Co. of Ohio Inc., 878 F.2d 1446, 12 USPQ2d 1076, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058 (1990) (unpublished — not citable as precedent) ("The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention.")”. In instant case, Sakata provides the instant active agent that can prevent muscle degradation without increase in muscle mass and provides instructions for its application to human subjects indicating its importance to elderly population and Roman describes treatment with similar probiotic composition of elderly subjects resulting in increase in walking speed. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use Sakata composition on elderly human subjects to increase their walking ability.
Applicant’s arguments regarding prior art of Tsubouchi for supporting obviousness of claim 22 are moot since the current rejection of claim 22 does not include prior art of Tsubouchi and is based on combination of prior art of Sakata, Roman and Franz as described above and necessitated by amendment of claim 22.
Applicant argues (addressing p. 9-10 of the Remarks) that Franz does not describe any probiotic and instant strain to improve walking ability via neural response. These arguments are not persuasive and the motivation to add Franz to prior art of Sakata and Roman was addressed above.
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 LIOUBOV G KOROTCHKINA whose telephone number is (571)270-0911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sharmila G 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.
/L.G.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653