DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 3, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 2-15, 17, and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 16, 18, and 19 are pending and currently under consideration.
3. In view of applicant’s amendment, following rejections are set forth.
4. 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.
5. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
6. Claims 1, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kavanaugh et. al. (Kavanaugh 1, Arthritis Rheumatology. 2017, Vol 69(11), pages 2151-2161) in view of Kavanaugh et. al. (Kavanaugh 2, American College of Rheumatology. 2012, Vol 64(8), pages 2504-2517), and Mease (Arthritis Care & Research. 2011, 63;S11:S64-S85) as evidenced by the disclosure in the instant specification in page 78 that the heavy and light chain amino acid sequence of the anti-TNF antibody golimumab are SEQ ID NOs: 36 and 37, respectively, for the reasons of record.
Kavanaugh 1 teaches the intravenous administration of the anti-TNF antibody, golimumab, to patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) (Objective, left col in page 2151, Patients, left col in page 2152). Golimumab consists of a heavy chain amino acid sequence of instant application’s SEQ ID NO: 36 and a light chain amino acid sequence of instant application’s SEQ ID NO: 37 (see instant application’s page 78, example anti-TNF antibody sequences). Kavanaugh 1 further teaches that the anti-TNF antibody was administered at a dose of 2 mg/kg at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 8 weeks thereafter twice at weeks 12 and 20 with or without methotrexate (see entire document but specifically Patients and Methods, paragraph 2, page 2152). Patients were adults aged on average of 45.7 years old and 81.3% had greater than 3% body surface area involvement with psoriasis (Table 1). By week 24, 33.6% of patients achieved minimal disease activity, 76.8% achieved an ACR20 response, and 64.8% achieved a PASI75 response (Figure 3, Table 2). Kavanaugh 1 teach that patients with PsA treated with IV golimumab at 2 mg/kg at weeks 0, 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter experienced significantly greater improvements in measures of disease activity and radiographic progression compared with patients receiving placebo and the study will continue through 1 year (52 weeks) including with the same patients and including patients who crossed over from placebo to golimumab at week 24 (e.g. see last paragraph in left col.).
The teachings of Kavanaugh 1 differ from the instant by disclosing administering the anti-TNF antibody every 8 weeks for 16 weeks but not every 8 weeks for at least 52 weeks, and Kavanaugh 1 also does not teach measuring whether the patient has achieved, e.g. at week 52 a Disease Activity in PsA (DAPSA),
Nevertheless, Kavanaugh 1 teaches that the study will be continue through 1 year which is 52 weeks (e.g. see last paragraph in left col. in page 2160).
Kavanaugh 2 teaches treating adult human patient with active PsA with subcutaneous injection of the same anti-TNF antibody at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks and maintained subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks from week 24 on to week 52 (e.g. see Study Design in right col. in page 2505). Kavanaugh 2 teaches that administration maintaining once every 4 weeks onto week 52 ( 1 year) shows clinical efficacy including improvement in joint and skin responses and physical function maintained through 1 year and the frequency/types of adverse events were similar to those reported through week 24. (e.g. see Results in left col in page 2505). Kavanaugh 2 teaches that it was known that at week 24, subcutaneously administering anti-TNF antibody golimumab achieved ACR20, DAS28-CRP and PASI175 in significantly compared to placebo-treated patients. Kavanaugh 2 teaches that the efficacy of golimumab in reducing signs and symptoms of PsA and improving physical function and quality of life was maintained at week 52 (e.g. see right col. in page 2515). As such, Kavanaugh 2 determines that the patient is a responder to treatment with the antibody at week 52 by stating that “treatment of PsA with golimumab inhibited structural damage progression and demonstrated continued clinical efficacy and safety through 1 year” (see Conclusion in left col. in page 2505).
Regarding the measurements of the therapeutic effects at week 52 of treatment, Mease teaches measures of PsA include DAPSA (e.g. see page S64). Mease teaches that these measures assess joint inflammation and damage, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin and nail disease, spondylitis function, and quality of life, and allowing for more precise evaluation of disease activity and response to therapy with the goal of achieving remission or minimal disease activity (e.g. see left col. in page S83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the administration of golimumab for 24 weeks to week 52 following every 8 weeks administration schedule, as taught by Kavanaugh 1, over 52 weeks because Kavanaugh 1 recommends a continuation of the trial over one year. In addition, since Kavanaugh 2 teaches the treatment of psoriatic arthritis by the administration of golimumab over one year following the once every 4 weeks original schedule and improvement of symptoms maintained over a year (week 52), it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the intravenous administration schedule taught in Kavanaugh 1, namely administering 2 mg/kg every 8 weeks onto to the planted duration of week 52 with the expectation that, following the same administration of 2 mg/kg of intravenous golimumab for adult patients with over 3% body surface area involvement as taught in both Kavanaugh 1 and 2. An ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the therapeutic outcome following well-known protocols and clinical measurements DAPSA. disclosed by Mease.
Therefore, Kavanaugh 1 when combined with Kavanaugh 2 and Mease would render the claims in the instant invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine both trials to continue the treatment for one year (52 weeks), and determine the therapeutic responses by following well established protocols to assess joint inflammation and damage, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin and nail disease spondylitis function and quality of life including DAPSA with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the cited references do not provide a reasonable expectation of success because the references cited by the Examiner alone or in combination do not provide a reasonable expectation of success regarding administering the anti-TNF antibody in recited dosing regimen for 52 weeks to achieve scores including DAPSA and determine the patient is a responder. Applicant asserts that Kavanaugh 1 merely suggest treatment should be extended to 1 year but did not actually do it. Thus, applicant asserts that Kavanaugh 1 does not provide teaching, suggestion or reasonable expectation of success. Applicant asserts that Kavanaugh 2 teaches subcutaneous injection but not IV administration of the recited dosage regimen. Applicant argues that the method steps would not inherently or intrinsically result in the same outcomes because only a proportion of patients achieve the recited clinical metric (in pages 226-227 of the specification as-filed).
Applicant reiterates arguments relying upon Billoud et al. (AM. J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 106(4):674-84) in previously submitted Exhibit A and asserts that patients can lose response to Adalimumab, the anti-TNF antibody. Applicant asserts that it was well known that common mechanism implicated in the development of loss response includes immunogenicity against the TNF antagonist or individual difference in bioavailability and pharmacokinetics. Thus, applicant argues that both Kavanaugh 1 and Kavanaugh 2 do not inherently teach the outcome of sustained improvement with 100% certainty. As such, applicant asserts that the recited therapeutic end point is not an inherent characteristic but a separate method step. Applicant asserts that the cited references also do not provide any reasonable expectation of success because Kavanaugh 1 merely mentions extending IV administration of the anti-TNF antibody to one year and Kavanaugh 2 teaches the use of the anti-TNF antibody for one year but not by IV, rather by subcutaneous injection and neither reference teaches the recited therapeutic end point including DAPSA. As such, applicant asserts that the rejection should be withdrawn.
Once again, 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).
Here, Kavanaugh 1 teaches method of treating human adult patients suffering from active PsA by IV administration of the same anti-TNF antibody golimumab at a dose of 2 mg/kg at week 0 and 4, followed by IV administration of the antibody every 8 weeks at week 12 and week 20 and achieved significantly greater improvements in signs and symptoms of PsA and less radiographic progression through week 24 (e.g. see Conclusion in right col. in page 2151). Based on these results, Kavanaugh 1 specifically concludes that the treatment should be continue for 1 year (52 weeks). An ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Kavanaugh 1 to continue IV administration every 8 weeks with a reasonable expectation of success because this would be the natural extension of the two IV administrations at week 12 (8 weeks from week 4) and at week 20.
In addition, Kavanaugh 2 teaches treating adult human patients with active PsA with subcutaneous injection of the same anti-TNF antibody at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks and maintained subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks from week 24 on to week 52. Kavanaugh 2 designed subcutaneous injection of the same anti-TNF antibody with regiment followed week 20 onto week 52 (every 4 weeks administration).
In contrast to applicant’s assertion that Mease teaches many of the measures have not been officially validated in PsA, note that Mease explicitly teaches DAPSA (Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis, e.g. see Abstract). Mease further teach that there was growing interests managing PsA to achieve the goal of minimal disease activity or remission in order to maximize clinical improvement and minimize long-term damage (e.g. see left col. in page S64). Furthermore, Mease teaches that DAPSA measurement was tested in PsA patient starting a new disease-modifying drug treatment and was shown to be correlated highly with other measures including ADS28, Simplified Disease Activity Index, and Clinical Disease Activity Index in date set of a phase III clinical trial.
Therefore, the instantly claimed method encompassing every 8 weeks thereafter for at least 52 weeks after week 4 treatment followed by measuring DAPSA (known to have high discriminant capability) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the field of treating active PsA with the well-known anti-TNF antibody.
"[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." Boesch, 617 F.2d at 276.
Further, applicant’s arguments relying upon Billoud et al. (AM. J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 106(4):674-84) in previously submitted Exhibit A have been fully rebutted in previous Office Actions mailed on September 24, 2025.
Once again, contrary to applicant’s arguments relying upon Billoud et al., note that the instant independent claim 1 encompasses a method for treating patients with active Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) by administering an IV dose of anti-TNF antibody to the patients, and the claim recites achieving at week 52 the clinical metrics. The claims encompass a step of administering anti-TNF antibody intravenously in step (a) for one time. The step (b) measuring that the patient has achieved at 52 weeks of treatment at least one of the recited endpoints listed from (1)-(4)] merely states the duration of treatment (52 weeks) and the outcomes of the treatment. The step of determining that the patient is responder to treatment with the antibody by achieving at least one endpoint adds nothing more than merely stating the patient achieved the endpoint.
Therefore, the recited outcomes are considered the results of treating PsA patient by administering the anti-TNF antibody intravenously.
It was well recognized by Kavanaugh 1 that the anti-TNF antibody administered IV at 2mg/kg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks thereafter for 24 weeks achieved clinical efficacy in ACR20 response in 76.8% of the PsA patients (e.g. see Table 2 in page 2155). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have expected that 100% of the patients to be treated to achieve the same therapeutic endpoints.
Moreover, in contrast to applicant’s assertion that some anti-TNF antibody treatment
does not achieve 100% success relying upon Billioud et al., note that the instant
independent claim 1 does not require 100% improvements in all patients being treated
but only that some patients achieve the recited outcome, e.g. remission-low disease activity
based on a Disease Activity in PsA (DAPSA) score in the patients (not all patients). Therefore,
even if one patient in the prior art treatment groups achieves these results, it would read on the
instant claims.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments rely upon Billoud et al. have not been found persuasive.
Applicant does not appear to dispute that the prior art teaches administering the same anti-TNF antibody as the instant methods.
When the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the “use” is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In reMay, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978) and MPEP 2102.02 II.
Here, although the reference is silent about the results after 52 weeks of treatment (e.g., the patients achieve low disease activity based on a Disease Activity in PsA (DAPSA) as recited in instant claims 1-12), it does not appear that the claim language or limitations result in a manipulative difference in the method steps when compared to the prior art teachings. Given that the references when combined teach a method of treating the same PsA patients with the same anti-TNF antibody with identical amino acid sequences for the same duration of 52 weeks as the instant invention, it is reasonable to conclude that the prior art methods would inherently/intrinsically result in the same therapeutic outcomes, e.g., low disease activity based on ADPSA score encompassed in instant claims 1-12. Therefore, Kavanaugh 1 when combined with Kavanaugh 2 would render the claims in the instant invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine both trials to continue the treatment for one year (52 weeks), and have a reasonable expectation of success, because applying the Kavanaugh 1 treatment over a longer period of time is an expected outcome for patients with psoriatic arthritis.
All that is required is a reasonable expectation of success, not absolute predictability of success. See In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,903 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The motivation of combining the references and the expectation of success can be summarized as following:
Kavanaugh 1 teaches intravenous administration of the same anti-TNF antibody (as the instantly recited anti-TNF antibody) in the same dosage of 2 mg/kg to treat the same patients suffering PsA at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 8 weeks thereafter twice at weeks 12 and 20 (once every 8 weeks) with great success in showing 76.8% of patients achieved an ACR20 response and 64.8% achieved a PASI75 response. Kavanaugh 1 determines that the treatment will go on to one year (52 weeks).
Kavanaugh 2 teaches subcutaneous injection to treat same patients suffering from PsA at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 weeks and maintained once every 4 weeks onto week 52 and determined that clinical efficacy including improvement in joint and skin responses and physical functions as determined by ACR20, DAS28-CRP and PASI175 maintained through 1 year and the frequency/types of adverse events were similar to those reported through week 24.
Mease teaches measurements of therapeutic effects of PsA treatment including DAPSA, DLQI, PASI, mNAPSI, and DLQI (assessing joint inflammation and damage, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin and nail disease, spondylitis function, and quality of life) allow for more precise evaluation of the disease activity and response to therapies with the goal of achieving remission or minimal disease activity.
Therefore, extending the treatment regimen disclosed by Kavanaugh 1 by repeating IV injections every 8 weeks upto 52 weeks and to evaluate the therapeutic endpoint by performing well known measurements including DAPSA that allow for more precise evaluation of disease activity and response to therapy in PsA treatment would be well within the skill of an ordinary artisan in the field of treating PsA with the well-known anti-TNF antibody with a well-established treatment regimen.
As such, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive.
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
8. Claims 1, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,041,020 (the ‘020 patent) in view of Kavanaugh et. al. (Kavanaugh 1, Arthritis Rheumatology. 2017, Vol 69(11), pages 2151-2161), Kavanaugh et. al. (Kavanaugh 2, American College of Rheumatology. 2012, Vol 64(8), pages 2504-2517), and Mease (Arthritis Care & Research. 2011, 63;S11:S64-S85) for the reasons of record.
Applicant argues that the instant claims are distinct from the claims in the ‘020 Patent in that the instant claims do not recite achieving at 14 weeks of treatment a mean change from baseline in HAQ-DI, enthesitis, dactylitis, SF-36PCS, or SF-36MCS in patient but rather measuring at week 52 to determine whether the patient achieved remission low activity based on score including DAPSA. Applicant asserts that the instant claims recite active measuring steps which was not recited in the conflicting claims. As such, applicant asserts that the rejection should be withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments and the Examiner’s rebuttal regarding the teachings of Kavanaugh 1, Kavanaugh 2, and Mease are essentially the same as discussed above.
As such, applicant asserts that the rejection should be withdrawn.
This is not found persuasive for following reasons:
In contrast to applicant’s arguments, note that the instant claims and the claims in the ’020 Patent are drawn to the same methods of treating PsA by intravenously administering the identical anti-TNF-α antibody.
Regarding 52 weeks of treatment, Kavanaugh 1 (IV) and 2 (Subcu) both teaches a 52-week clinical trial of golimumab in psoriatic arthritis (page 2505, Results). Although the references are silent about the measuring the results such as DAPSA after 52 weeks, as stated above, Mease explicitly teaches DAPSA (Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis, e.g. see Abstract). Mease further teach that there was growing interests managing PsA to achieve the goal of minimal disease activity or remission in order to maximize clinical improvement and minimize long-term damage (e.g. see left col. in page S64). Furthermore, Mease teaches that DAPSA measurement was tested in PsA patients starting a new disease-modifying drug treatment and was shown to be correlated highly with other measures including ADS28, Simplified Disease Activity Index, and Clinical Disease Activity Index in date set of a phase III clinical trial. Given that DASPA was a known metric in determining treatment effect as disclosed by Mease, and given that it was known that the anti-TNF-α antibody was shown in a 52-week clinical trial, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the DASPA after 52 weeks of treatment after the treatment methods as recited in the ‘020 Patent. As such, the claims in the ‘020 Patent would render the instant claims obvious.
Applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive.
9. Claims 1, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of US 12,122,824 (the ‘824 Patent, matured from USSN 17/320,490) in view of Kavanaugh et. al. (Kavanaugh 1, Arthritis Rheumatology. 2017, Vol 69(11), pages 2151-2161), Kavanaugh et. al. (Kavanaugh 2, American College of Rheumatology. 2012, Vol 64(8), pages 2504-2517), and Mease (Arthritis Care & Research. 2011, 63;S11:S64-S85) for the reasons of record.
Applicant’s arguments and the Examiner’s rebuttal are essentially the same as discussed above.
10. Claims 1, 16, 18, and 19 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over amended claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 12-14 of copending USSN 17/423,512 (the ‘512 application) in view of Mease (Arthritis Care & Research. 2011, 63;S11:S64-S85) for the reasons of record.
Given the lack of rebuttal by applicant, the rejection is maintained for the reasons of record.
11. Claims 1, 16, 18, and 19 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-23 of copending Application No. 18/889,629 (the ‘629 application) in view of Kavanaugh et. al. (Kavanaugh 1, Arthritis Rheumatology. 2017, Vol 69(11), pages 2151-2161) and Kavanaugh et. al. (Kavanaugh 2, American College of Rheumatology. 2012, Vol 64(8), pages 2504-2517), and Mease (Arthritis Care & Research. 2011, 63;S11:S64-S85) for the reasons of record.
Given the lack of rebuttal by applicant, the rejection is maintained for the reasons of record.
12. No claim is allowed.
13. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN DAHLE whose telephone number is (571)272-8142. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30am-4:00pm.
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, Misook Yu can be reached at 571-272-0839. 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.
/CHUN W DAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1641
