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 Status
Currently, claims 1-4, 6-10, 16-17, 21, 23, 25-27, 29, 31, 33, 35 are pending in the instant application. Claim 3-5, 11-15, 18-20, 22, 24, 28, 30, 32, 34 have been canceled and claims 6, 8, 10 are withdrawn. This action is written in response to applicant' s correspondence submitted 12/30/2025. All the amendments and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed but were found insufficient to place the instantly examined claims in condition for allowance. The following rejections are either newly presented, as necessitated by amendment, or are reiterated from the previous office action. Any rejections not reiterated in this action have been withdrawn as necessitated by applicant' s amendments to the claims. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. This action is Final.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 16-17, 21, 23, 25-27, 29, 31, 33 and 35 are under examination. Claim 4 and 35 is under examination with respect to nucleoside reverse transcriptase. Claim 17 is under examination with respect to dATP analog polymerase inhibitor.
Withdrawn Rejections
The amendment to the drawings filed 12/30/2025 has been entered and overcomes the sequence requirements.
The rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims.
Maintained Rejections
Priority
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. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62861542, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
‘542 provides support for a method using an enzymatic assay to measure DNA synthesis by reverse transcriptase to determine levels of nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors and their metabolites including TFV-DP, AZT-TP, FTC-TP and other NRTIs used in HIV drug regimens (see claim 1). The specification teaches a RT assay using Pico green, fluorescent probes, molecular beacons and NRTI drugs AZT-TP and TFV-DP (see pg. 4-5). There is no support in the disclosure for nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. ‘542 does not provide support for the genus of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. While AZT is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase this does not provide support for the genus of reverse transcriptase inhibitors or polymerase inhibitors. The effective filing date of the claims 1-4, 7, 9, 16-17, 21, 23, 25-27, 29, 31, 33 is 6/12/2020. The effective filing date of claim 35 is 6/14/2019.
Response to Arguments
The response traverses the rejection on pages 9-12 of the remarks mailed 12/30/2025. The response summaries the rejection and standard for support under 112(a). The response asserts that AZT-TP and TFV-DP share the common functional genus of being activated forms of NRTI and NtRTIs, a class of antiretroviral drugs used to treat HIV. The response addresses their structural analog and biologically active metabolites. The response asserts there primary functional commonality is their shared mechanism of action, they act as competitive inhibitors and obligate chain terminators of HIV viral enzyme, reverse transcriptase. The response asserts that the two species are representative of the genus of nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors and their common structure and functional features are clear enough for a skilled person to understand the scope of the claimed genus. This response has been thoroughly reviewed but not found persuasive. While the provisional provides support for the species, identifying a species does not provide support for the broad genus of polymerase inhibitors or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor or metabolite thereof (see MPEP 2163.3, V). Additionally the provisional does not provide a representative number of species that are adequately describes to be representative of the entire genus, the provisional provides one species. As discussed in MPEP 2163.05(B), the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims directed to a functionally defined genus of antibodies were not supported by a disclosure that "only describe[d] one type of structurally similar antibodies" that "are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus."). The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure "indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us]." See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615. "A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when … the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed." In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Claims directed to PTFE dental floss with a friction-enhancing coating were not supported by a disclosure of a microcrystalline wax coating where there was no evidence in the disclosure or anywhere else in the record showing applicant conveyed that any other coating was suitable for a PTFE dental floss.) In the instant case there is not a significant amount of species disclosed for the genus of polymerase inhibitors and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or metabolite thereof. While the structure of AZT and nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors and their metabolites including TFV-DP, AZT-TP, FTC-TP and other NRTIs used in HIV drug regimens (see claim 1) are disclosed in the provisional, there are no additional structures that are representative of the broad genus of polymerase inhibitors and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.
The response asserts the priority application enables the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The response asserts that ‘452 provides a theoretical model describing adaptation to other nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors and polymerase inhibitors by modifying the affinity factor of the drug for HIV reverse transcriptase enzyme. The response asserts that one can readily identify each respective member of the recited genus with only a reasonable amount of experimentation. This response has been reviewed but not found persuasive. The question is not whether a person of ordinary skill in the art could identify the species but whether the broad genus claim was contemplated in the provisional application. Here the provisional application only discloses species for NRTI and does not suggest the broad genus of polymerase inhibitors or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. The provisional does not provide sufficient common structures or representative species of the entire genus that provide sufficient written description to support the later filed application. For these reasons and reasons of record the provisional does not provide support for the broad genus of polymerase inhibitors and nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 16-17, 21, 23, 25-27, 29, 31, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olanrewaju et al. (ACS Sens 2020, 5, 952-959, cited on IDS). It is noted this rejection was mistakenly applied under 102(a)(2) however this was a typographical error and should have been 102(a)(1) as indicated above.
With regard to claim 1-3, 7, 9, 17, 29, and 33, Olanrewaju et al. teaches an assay to detect polymerase inhibitor in a sample by using a DNA template, forward primer, dNTPs, polymerase, and PICO green (fluorescent intercalating dye) (RT activity characterization, pg. 953) (claim 29). Olanrewaju teaches fluorescence intensity curves as a function of different RT concentrations, neg control and background (See figure 2) (claim 7) Olanrewaju teaches assay in the presence of TFV-DP inhibitor at different dNTP concentrations and decrease in fluorescence intensity in the presence of TFV-DP (see figure 3) (claim 2-3). TFV is a nucleotide polymerase inhibitor and dATP analog (claim 17). Olanrewaju teaches the assay could be a useful test for rapid and accessible measurement of long term antiretroviral drug levels and develops a new category of adherence measurement test that allow patients and clinicians to monitor and improve long-term ART and PrEP adherence (See pg. 957, 2nd column) (claim 9).
With regard to claim 16 and 21, Olanrewaju teaches the template is 200 nt in length and the primer binding site is 20 nucleotides (See RT assay).
With regard to claim 23, 25-27, Olanrewaju teaches the biological sample is blood. Olanrewaju teaches determining the optimal blood dilution which includes .25% blood and optimal dNTP concentrations of 25, 50, and 100nM (see figure 4 and 5)
Response to Arguments
The response traverses the rejection on pages 13-15 of the remarks mailed 12/30/2025. The response asserts that the publication of Olanrewaju cannot quality as prior art because the effective filing date of the claims is 6/14/2019. As addressed above the priority date of the claims is not 6/14/2019 but 6/12/2020 as such Olanrewaju is applicable as prior art.
With regard to applicants statement and qualifying the prior art under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C), the art that is being applied the claims was not a patent but a NPL and 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) addresses common ownership of patent documents not NPL. As addressed in the rejection heading the rejection of 102(a)(2) was a typographical error and should have been 102(a)(1) as this was the only rejection being applied to the claims as indicated in section 9. Prior art exceptions for rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) require an affidavit or declaration of attribution under 37 CFR 1.130 due to exception 102(b) (see MPEP 717 and 717.01).
Claims 1-4, 7, 16-17, 21, 27, 31, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sharma (NAR, 2016, vol 44, e74, pp 1-8, cited on IDS). This rejection was previously presented and is reiterated below.
With regard to claim 1-4, 7, 31 Sharma teaches a 63-mer template labeled with TMR and a 23-mer primer labeled with Cy5 (see oligonucleotides) (claim 31, dye linked to a probe). Sharma teaches fluorescence experiments were performed using primer, template, HIV RT and dNTPs (See fluorescence experiments and fig 1). Sharma teaches measuring fluorescence in the presence AZT (fig 3) (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor) (inversely related to concentration) (claim 7). Sharma teaches decreased fluorescence in the presence of AZT (claim 2-4) (fig 3).
With regard claim 16, Sharma teaches a single stranded DNA template that comprises a primer binding domain and chain terminating domain (see oligonucleotides).
With regard to claim 17, Sharma teaches a polymerase inhibitor that is a dATP analog and chain terminating domain comprises 20% thymine (see oligonucleotides).
With regard to claim 21, Sharma teaches a 63mer that is single stranded for a DNA template (See oligonucleotides).
With regard to claim 27, Sharma teaches dNTP are 100 µM (at least 20nM).
Response to Arguments
The response traverses the rejection on pages 15-16 of the remarks mailed 12/30/2025. The response asserts that Sharma does not teach a polymerase inhibitor in a biological sample. Sharma does not teach or suggest a reduced level of measured fluorescence as compared to a reference standard. The response asserts that Sharma teaches monitoring RT polymerization via FRET changes of labeled primer/duplex in real time without disclosing or suggesting detecting polymerase inhibitors in biological sample or using a reference standard. This response has been thoroughly reviewed but not found persuasive. The claim does not recite a biological sample from a subject but merely detecting an inhibitor in a biological sample, contacting the biological sample with a single stranded nucleic acid template, primer, polymerase, dNTP, fluorescent dye, measuring fluorescence, wherein a reduced level of measured fluorescence compared to a reference standard indicates the presence of a polymerase inhibitor in the biological sample. Additionally the claims do not require measuring a reference standard, the claims only recite a wherein clause that a reduced level compared to a reference standard indicates presence of inhibitor. This wherein clause is not an active process step and merely requires a mental analysis of the measured fluorescence to a reference and only occurs if there is a reduced level. As such the claim does not require an active step of measuring a reference standard or an active step of comparing the measured reference standard to the measured fluorescence of the biological sample. However, Sharma does teach a biological sample. Sharma teaches a 63 mer template, which is a biological sample. DNA is a biological sample, as addressed the claims don’t require a biological sample from a subject or from some other source as such any sample that contains biological materials, such as DNA is a biological sample. Sharma does teach a reference, RT polymerase in the absence of a RT inhibitor, see fig 3, gray line. Sharma teaches in detecting the presence of the inhibitor by decreased fluorescence compared to the assay with RT, which would be the reference. Thus even arguendo the claims do not require measuring a reference standard, Sharma teaches measuring a reference standard and comparison of the reference to fluorescence in the presence of AZT. For these reasons and reasons of record this rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-4, 7, 16-17, 21, 27, 29, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kokkula (Mol Biotechnol 2016, 58:619-625, cited on IDS). This rejection was previously presented and has reiterated below.
Kokkula teaches an assay that comprises a 300 nucleotide single stranded template with a 20 nucleotide primer, dTTP or dGTP (dNTP), SYBR green dye (fluorescence dye) and HIV RT. Kokkula teaches detecting NRTIs-TP including AZT, DXG, and d4T (see pg. 621) (claims 2-4) (nucleoside polymerase inhibitor). Kokkula teaches decreased fluorescence intensity inversely correlated to polymerase activity (see fig 1) (claim 7).
With regard to claim 16-17 and 21, Kokkula teaches a primer binding domain on the single stranded DNA template and a chain terminating domain. Kokkula teaches AZT-TP, DXG-TP, and d4T-TP inhibitors which comprise a dATP analog. Kokkula teaches the single stranded DNA template is 300 nucleotides long (see figure 1).
With regard to claim 27, Kokkula teaches 1 µM dTTP and dGTP (see pg. 621) (at least 20nM).
With regard to claim 29, Kokkula teaches SYBR green in the assay. SYBR green is an intercalating fluorescent dye molecule.
Response to Arguments
The response traverses the rejection on page 17-18 of the remarks mailed 12/30/2025. The response asserts that Kokkula does not teach or suggest a reduced level of measured fluorescence as compared to a reference standard in a biological sample. The response asserts Kokkula t4aches a real time assuming for measuring inhibitor activity against HIV RT using SYBR green. The response asserts that Kokkula teaches an increase in fluorescence as a proxy for measuring activity. This response has been reviewed but not found persuasive. As addressed above, the claim does not recite a biological sample from a subject but merely detecting an inhibitor in a biological sample, contacting the biological sample with a single stranded nucleic acid template, primer, polymerase, dNTP, fluorescent dye, measuring fluorescence, wherein a reduced level of measured fluorescence compared to a reference standard indicates the presence of a polymerase inhibitor in the biological sample. Additionally the claims do not require measuring a reference standard, the claims only recite a wherein clause that a reduced level compared to a reference standard indicates presence of inhibitor. This wherein clause is not an active process step and merely requires a mental analysis of the measured fluorescence to a reference and only occurs if there is a reduced level. As such the claim does not require an active step of measuring a reference standard or an active step of comparing the measured reference standard to the measured fluorescence of the biological sample.
However Kukkla teaches a single stranded nucleic acid template which comprises DNA which is a biological sample. DNA is biological material, as such the nucleic acid template is a biological sample. The claims does not require the source of the biological material, for example and because DNA is a biological material it is a biological sample. Kukkla further teaches a reference, Kukkla teaches fluorescence in the presence of no inhibitor, which is a reference. Kukkla teaches in the presence of inhibitor, fluorescence decreases, see fig 1. The fluorescence is increased in the absence of an inhibitor, which applicant is relying upon to assert that Kukkula teaches increased fluorescence, however in the presence of an inhibitor the fluorescence is decreased (see fig 1). As such Kukkla teaches both a reference and comping the reference to an inhibitor which results in a decreased signal and teaches nucleic acids, which are biological samples. For these reasons and reasons of record this rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 16-17, 21, 23, 25-27, 29, 31, 33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heneine et al. (US7691572 B2) in view of Kokkula (2016, cited on IDS).
Heneine et al. teaches an assay for detection of reverse transcriptase inhibitors in a biological sample. Heneine teaches an assay for detection of resistance to a reverse transcriptase inhibitor drug in a biological sample and the assay is based on the direct analysis of susceptibility of retroviral reverse transcriptase to inhibition by a reverse transcriptase inhibitor drug (see column 3, lines 13-19). Heneine teaches the activity of reverse transcriptase enzyme is determined by measuring DNA produced when an RNA template and complementary DNA primer are incubated with a biological sample containing a reverse transcriptase in the presence of the drug. Heneine teaches the dug includes D-triphosphate form of the nucleoside analog such as AZT. Heneine teaches the difference in reverse transcriptase activity in the assay with and without the drug verifies finding of resistance (see column 3, lines 20-45). Heneine teaches the quantity of DNA product formed in the presence of inhibitor is effected to a degree can be detected (see column 3, lines 65 cont’d to column 4 lines 1-5). Heneine teaches reduction of the amount of DNA present indicates the presence of an inhibitor (see column 4 lines 24-28). Heneine teaches the method is for monitoring a patients’ response to treatment with a reverse transcriptase (see column 8, lines 30-32) (claim 33). Heneine teaches reverse transcriptase is based on the level of inhibition of RT by a fixed concentration of drug, determine calculation of ratio of units of reverse transcriptase activity/ml from a RT reaction made in the presence of drug to reference reactions (See column 8, lines 59-65) (claim 9). Heneine teaches maybe methods can be used to detect the DNA product including a hybridization probe(see column 10, lines 33-38). Heneine teaches detection of the amplified product include ELISA, southern blot and FRET (See column 13, lines 54-57). Heneine teaches the assay uses small volume of plasma and is directly made on RT from plasma with a low detection threshold (see column 21, lines 10-20)
With regard to claim 23 and 25-27, Heneine teaches a biological sample is blood (see column 4, lines 30-36). Heneine teaches PCR amplification of the primers and RNA template at temperature of 93 to 97 ℃ (above 70 ℃). Heneine teaches direct detection of biological body fluid samples (see column 5, lines 38-43). Heneine teaches the blood sample can be diluted (See column 11, line 28-29). Heneine teaches the sample size of fluid is .5µl to 1 ml (diluting to .1 to 20%). Heneine teaches 20 µM concentration of dNTPs (see column 17, line 10-15).
With regard to claim 17 and 35, Heneine teaches a reverse transcriptase inhibitor that includes nucleoside analogs includes dATP (see column 7, lines 19-25). Heneine teaches AZT, d4T, 3TC (see column 8, lines 49-55).
With regard to claim 16, 21 Heneine teaches a RNA template that is single stranded, is 100 to 500 based in length and comprises a primer binding site and a terminating domain. Heneine teaches it has less than 50% G-C (at least 20% thymine residues) (see column 12, lines 28-37).
Heneine does not teach a single stranded DNA template or fluorescence decrease in the presence of a polymerase inhibitor.
However, Kokkula teaches a sensitive, nonradioactive, noncalorimetric, rapid, one-step, and easily accessible HIV-1 RT assay to measure inhibition of drugs using SYBR Green II real-time setup. The assay uses native nucleotide substrates making the assay more cost efficient (See pg. 620, 1st column). Kokkula teaches reduced fluorescence intensity when detecting polymerase inhibitor and teaches ssDNA templates.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to improve the method of detecting a polymerase inhibitor in a RT assay as taught by Heneine and include single stranded DNA template and detection by SYBR Green as taught by Kokkula to improve the method of Heneine to allow for a real-time assay for performing high-throughput screening of antiretroviral therapy. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to improve the method of detecting polymerase inhibitors by Heneine with detection by SYBR green as taught by Kokkula because Kokkula teaches the assay is affordable, does not involve radioactivity, or other detection methods. The ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success that the use of single stranded DNA template and SYBR green could be used in the method of Heneine et al. because Kokkula et al. teach the assay uses single stranded DNA templates and is a rapid, one step and easily accessible HIV RT assay in which inhibition and drug profile are measured using SYBR Green II in real-time step up. Because both Heneine and Kokkula teach detecting polymerase inhibitor, particularly antiretroviral therapy including nucleoside triphosphates, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute single stranded RNA in the method of Heneine with single stranded DNA as taught by Kokkula. Additionally it would have been obvious to substitute the detection method of Heneine and use SYBR green detection as taught by Kokkula, in order to achieve the predictable result of detecting antiretroviral therapy in a subject by detecting a decrease in fluorescence intensity in the assay.
Response to Arguments
The response traverse the rejection on pages 19-21 of the remarks mailed 12/30/2025. The response summarizes Heneine and asserts that Heneine is not concerned with detecting a polymerase inhibitor in a biological sample as required by claim 1. The response asserts Kokkula does not disclose or suggest a method for detecting a polymerase inhibitor wherein a reduced level of measured fluorescence compared to a reference standard indicates the presence of a polymerase inhibitor. The response asserts the assay relies on an increase of fluorescence. The response asserts the combined disclosure would not render the subject matter of the claims because Heneine is concerned with detecting presence or absen4ce of first DNA production which indicates strain of HIV-1 and Kokkula is concerned with RNA/DNA heteroduplex and relies on an increase in fluorescence. It is initially noted that the increase in fluorescence that applicant addresses in Kokkula is the reference, the fluorescence without a polymerase inhibitor present, in the presence of an inhibitor the fluorescence decreases (see fig 1). Additionally, Heine is concerned with detecting a polymerase inhibitor, however Heine teaches detecting the polymerase by determining RT activity in an assay with and without an inhibitor to find resistance. Heine teaches that reduction of DNA present indicates the presence of an inhibitor, thus Heine is concerned with presence of a polymerase inhibitor (see col 3, lines 65 to col 4 lines 1-5 and 24-28). The response mischaracterizes what Heine and Kokkula are measuring. Both Heine and Kokkula teach detecting the presence of a polymerase inhibitor and it would have been prima facie obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to improve the method of detecting a p[polymerase inhibitor in a RT assay as taught by Heneine and include single stranded DNA template and detection by SYBR green as taught by Kokkula to improve the method of Henein tot allow for a real time assay for performing high throughput screening of antiretroviral therapies. For these reasons and reasons of record this rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAE L BAUSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-4p.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/SARAE L BAUSCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights