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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the claims
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2020/068199, filed on 12/20/2021.
Claims 1-7, 15-18 and 19 are pending and subject to examination on the merits.
In response to a previous Office action, a Non-Final Rejection Office action (mailed on 04/22/2026), Applicants filed a response, and an amendment on 07/22/2026, amending claim 1 and adding new claim 19 is acknowledged.
Priority
The instant application 17620786 filed 12/20/2021 is a 371 of PCT/EP2020/068199 filed 6/29/2020 which claims foreign priority to EP19183954.7 filed 7/2/2019. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
According to MPEP 2143:
“Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products)
in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready
for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “ Obvious to try ” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in
either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market
forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.”
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-6, 7, 15 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssef et al (J Adv Res; 2016; cited on PTO-892) in view of Hage et al. (Fermentation medium comprising chelating agent. WO 2018/011242A1, publication 01/18/2018), is maintained and new claim 19 is included in this rejection. This rejection has been discussed at length in the previous Office Action, and the rejection is maintained as discussed previously and for the following reasons.
Youssef et al. teach a plant-based liquid culture media for the cultivation or growth in a process of fermentation of bacterial cell including rhizobacteria, e.g. Rhizobium, a root associated bacterium, Enterobacter spp., Klebsiella spp., and Azospirillum spp. wherein the plant-based material is cactus plant powder (4 g dry powder per Liter water, which is within 0.5%-30% w/v as claimed, and the cactus powder contains both carbon source (52.44% carbohydrate), and nitrogen sources (8.5% protein), which is also within the claimed invention (see, Table 1), wherein the pH for saps, juices and slurry homogenates was in the range of 3.6–5.2 (pg 306, C2, 3rd paragraph), which is the pH of the medium before autoclaving and fermentation, meets the claim limitation of step b) of claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
139
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The plant homogenates, juices and saps obtained from the tested cactus plants were diluted with distilled water (v/v); from 1:10 to 1:100 (which would be within the claimed v/w). All media were adjusted to pH 7.0 and for culturing microbial cell for fermentation, and the limitation of saturated steam in claim 1, step c) is in fact associated with the autoclaving process for sterilization, meets the claim limitation of claim 1, step c) (see, pg 306, C2, 4th paragraph), and the pH of the fermentation medium was 7.2-8.0 (neutral pH), after autoclaving for culturing said microbial bacterial cell in a flask.
PNG
media_image2.png
296
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The bacteria were cultured in liquid culture medium in a flasks having about 100 ml medium with 4 g/L of cactus powder for fermentation (see, Title, abstract, pg. 307, right Col, para 2, pg. 310, left Col, para 2, Fig. 3-4, pg 311, right Col para 3, Table 1-2).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.")
Generally, changes in sequence of steps are prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. and Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
As there is no evidence the order of steps or concentrations were critical or provided unexpected outcomes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize or adjust the medium taught by Youssef as needed or desired to arrive at the claimed invention.
However, Hage et al. teach a fermentation medium comprising a basal medium with a chelating agent for culturing Bacillus subtilis cell and a process for fermentation of a cellulosic hydrolyzate for producing industrially important proteins, enzymes, the process comprising the steps of mixing the components of the medium, and adjusted the pH 7.3, followed by the sterilization of the medium for 30 mins at 121oC. The sterile medium was cooled down to desired temperature and cultured the microorganism Bacillus subtilis in the medium for fermentation at pH 7.7, wherein the bacterial strains are Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus thuringiensis, wherein the cultured bacterial strains secrets enzymes including oxidoreductase, transferase, hydrolase, lyase, cellulases, beta-glucosidase, hemicellulases, beta-xylosidase and mixtures thereof. Hage et al. also teach that color formation is dependent on pH, temperature and precipitation (see, Example 1), (see, abstract, pg 16, para 3-4, pg 17, para 3-4, pg 18, para 1, 3, pg 25, para 1, 3, pg 26, para 1, Example 1, 2, 3, and 4, and claims 1-15) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention as a whole before the effective filing date of the invention was made by combining the teachings of Youssef et al., and Hage et al to adjusting pH of the liquefied culture medium before autoclaving or sterilization at 4.5-6.5, of the plant-based culture medium as taught by Yussef et al., and followed by the fermentation with cultured bacteria as taught by Hage et al. and modify Youssef et al., to make a culture medium using plant-based liquefied culture medium to adjust pH 4.5-6.5 and fermenting the medium at pH >7.0 to make the culture medium ideal for fermentation to produce downstream product enzymes or proteins to arrive the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to reduce the pH of the culture medium before fermentation to 4.5-6.% in order to produce fermentation product, which is commercially, industrially and financially beneficial.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Youssef et al., could successfully use plant-based liquid culture media for the cultivation in a process of fermentation of bacterial cell including rhizobacteria, e.g. Rhizobium, a root associated bacterium, Enterobacter spp., Klebsiella spp., and Azospirillum spp. for producing down-stream fermentation product. Thus, the above references render the claims prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Arguments: Applicants argue that currently amended claim 1 recites a method of preparing a fermentation medium for cultivation of a microbial cell comprising a) preparing a fermentation medium by mixing in a water-based solution comprising components supporting the growth of the cells, wherein the components comprise a complex nutrient source in an amount of 0.5-30% w/v of the fermentation medium; b) adjusting the pH of the fermentation medium obtained in step a) to a pH between pH 3.0 and pH 6.0; c) heating the fermentation medium obtained in step b) to a temperature above 90°C for at least 2 min wherein treatment of the fermentation medium in step c) is with saturated steam; and d) adjusting the pH of the fermentation medium obtained in step c) to a pH between pH 6.8 and pH 12.0. Applicants also argue that The PTO asserts "changes in sequence of steps are prima facie obvious." Office Action at 9.
Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits, as an initial matter, that each claimed method step-following the initial step-explicitly refers to a prior step (e.g., "adjusting the pH of the fermentation medium obtained in step a)"; "adjusting the pH of the fermentation medium obtained in step c)"). Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the PTO must interpret the method steps as they appear. The PTO further contends that Youssef teaches claim 1, step b), asserting: Youssef et al. teach plant-based liquid culture media for the cultivation of bacterial cell including rhizobacteria, e.g. Rhizobium, a root associated bacterium, Enterobacter spp., Klebsiella spp., and Azospirillum spp. wherein the plant-based material is cactus plant powder (4 g dry powder per Liter water, which is within 2 Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Rsch. in Motion Ltd., 764 F.3d 1392, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("a claim 'requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar, requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires' an order of steps.") (citations omitted). 0.5%-30% w/v as claimed, and the cactus powder contains both carbon source (52.44% carbohydrate), and nitrogen sources (8.5% protein), which is also within the claimed invention (see, Table 1), wherein the pH for saps, juices and slurry homogenates was in the range of3.6-5.2 (pg 306, C2, 3rd paragraph), which is the pH ofthe medium before autoclaving and fermentation, meets the claim limitation of step b) of claim 1 ... All media were adjusted to pH 7.0 and autoclaved at 121°C for 20 min. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
First, the PTO's contention that the pH of 3.6-5.2 "meets the claim limitation of step b)" is belied by Youssef itself. Indeed, the paragraph quoted above confirms that the only "adjustment" step in Youssef is an adjustment to pH 7 before autoclaving, which is outside
B. Youssef does not teach or suggest every claim element.
Youssef does not teach or suggest claim 1, step b), which recites adjusting the pH of the fermentation medium obtained in step a) to a pH between pH 3.0 and pH 6.0, or step c), which recites heating the fermentation medium obtained in step b). Rather, Youssef (i) prepares a fermentation medium using juices and saps with a pH "in the range of 3.6-5.2,"; (ii) adjusts the pH of its fermentation medium to pH 7.0; and (iii) heats via autoclaving. See Youssef at p. 306, 2"d col. ("All media were adjusted to pH 7.0 and autoclaved."). Accordingly, Youssef does not teach or suggest every claim element. claim 1, step b) (reciting"adjusting the pH ... to a pH
C. The evidence of record demonstrates criticality and unexpected results. The PTO asserts that "differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical," and "changes in sequence of steps are prima facie obvious. The PTO concludes that "there is no evidence the order of steps or concentrations were critical or provided unexpected outcomes," and thus "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize or adjust the medium taught by Youssef as needed or desired to 5 arrive at the claimed invention. First, the specification provides evidence that adjusting a fermentation medium to a pH between 3.0 and 6.0 before heat treatment leads to a reduction of undesirable color compared to having a higher pH (pH 7.0 or higher) during heat treatment (e.g., as applied by Youssef). Specifically, Example 1 compares fermentation media with different pH values during temperature treatment and analyzes color formation. The data shows: [T]he fermentation medium appeared darker after temperature treatment. This effect was less pronounced when the pH of the fermentation medium was adjusted prior temperature treatment to a lower pH, i.e., pH 4.0, pH 5.5, or pH 6.5, compared to pH 7.8. This means that a low pH of the fermentation medium positively influences the color formation in the fermentation medium during temperature treatment. Thus, a low pH value prevents the formation of dark color in the fermentation media, and [A]fter temperature treatment the fermentation medium appeared more yellow- brownish. This effect was less pronounced in fermentation media with lower pH values, i.e., pH 4.0, pH 5.5, or pH 6.5, compared to pH 7.8. Thus, a low pH value reduces the development of a yellow-brownish color. The instant Specification at 33:10-21 (emphases added); see also id. at 20:10-14 ("It has also been surprisingly found by the present inventors that preparing the fermentation media as described herein leads to a reduction of the formation of compounds that provide an undesired color to the fermentation media. The use of the fermentation media obtained by the method as described herein also leads to a reduction of the formation of color of the fermentation broth during fermentation. Second, the specification shows that adjusting a fermentation medium to a pH between 3.0 and 6.0 before heat treatment leads to a reduction of viscosity compared to having a higher pH (pH 7.0 and higher) during heat treatment (e.g., as applied by Youssef). Specifically, Table 2 (presented below) shows a significant difference in viscosity when adjusting the pH between 4-6 (within instant claim 1) and a pH of 7 (as taught by Youssef). Table 2: Broth viscosity of media sterilized at different pHs, and lowering pH in the fermentation media before temperature treatment not only reduces viscosity formation during temperature treatment of the fermentation medium, but also reduces viscosity formation during the course of fermentation"); id. at 18:16-21 ("It has been surprisingly found by the present inventors that preparing the fermentation medium as described herein leads to improved properties of the fermentation medium. These improved properties are for instance a reduced increase in viscosity of the fermentation media after heat treatment, preferably after sterilization. As such, the evidence of record demonstrates that the claimed steps (including the adjustment step of claim 1, step b), followed by heating step c) leads to unexpected results compared to an adjustment to a pH 7 before heat treatment (such as disclosed by Youssef).
D. Hage does not remedy Youssef's deficiencies. As discussed above, Youssef does not teach or suggest "adjusting the pH of the fermentation medium obtained in step a) to a pH between pH 3.0 and pH 6.0." Neither does Hage-as acknowledged by the PTO. See Office Action at 7 ("Hage et al. teach... mixing the components of the medium, and adjusted the pH 7.3"). Accordingly, even if there was a reason to combine the references, which there is not, the hypothetical combination does not teach or suggest every claim element. In sum, the PTO has not established a prima facie case of obviousness since (i) there is no reason to combine the references; (ii) even if there was a reason to combine the references, the hypothetical combination does not suggest each and every element of the claimed methods; and (iii) even if there was a reason to combine the references, the hypothetical combination would not lead to a reasonable expectation of success. On the other hand, the specification discloses unexpected results sufficient to outweigh any hypothetical prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.
Response: Applicants lengthy arguments have been fully considered, but are not deemed persuasive to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 103 on obviousness issues because of the following reasons:
In a rejection under 35 USC 103, which consists of more than 2, 3, 4 or more references used to arrive the claim invention provided that all the references teaches the claimed invention, with proper motivation, and expectation of success. A single references does not require to teach every limitations, but combining the teachings of the references such as R1, R2, R3 and R4 to arrive the claimed invention, which is quite different that anticipation under 35 USC 102, where a single references needs to teach every limitation, and thus Applicants arguments that Youssef et al. do not teach each and every limitations, is not persuasive at all in a rejection under 35 USC 103 on obviousness issues. Besides, According to KSR Rulings- According to MPEP 2143:
“Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) “ Obvious to try ” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.”
Applicants argue that order of the method steps is absolutely required, which is not persuasive at all because claims steps a); b); c); or/and d) are not detailed as disclosed in detail in the specification, and thus, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see, MPEP- 2111-01),
II. IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also subsection IV, below. When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Applicants argue that specific pH and temperature is the key to make a better culture medium, and showed the color formation, and directly proportional to pH and temperature, as well as viscosity of the culture medium. However, Hage et al. indeed teach that color formation is dependent on pH, temperature and precipitation (see, Example 1). Since, claims do not require color formation, viscosity, and thus, such arguments to show proof of unexpected results are not persuasive at all.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention as a whole before the effective filing date of the invention was made by combining the teachings of Youssef et al., and Hage et al to adjusting pH of the liquefied culture medium before autoclaving or sterilization at 4.5-6.5, of the plant-based culture medium as taught by Yussef et al., and followed by the fermentation with cultured bacteria as taught by Hage et al. and modify Youssef et al., to make a culture medium using plant-based liquefied culture medium to adjust pH 4.5-6.5 and fermenting the medium at pH >7.0 to make the culture medium ideal for fermentation to produce downstream product enzymes or proteins to arrive the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to reduce the pH of the culture medium before fermentation to 4.5-6.% in order to produce fermentation product, which is commercially, industrially and financially beneficial.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Youssef et al., could successfully use plant-based liquid culture media for the cultivation in a process of fermentation of bacterial cell including rhizobacteria, e.g. Rhizobium, a root associated bacterium, Enterobacter spp., Klebsiella spp., and Azospirillum spp. for producing down-stream fermentation product. Thus, the above references render the claims prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7, 15-18 and 19 are rejected.
Applicants must respond to the objections/rejections in each of the sections in this Office action to be fully responsive in prosecution. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 IQBAL H CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8137. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, at 9:00-5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Manjunath N. Rao, can be reached on 571-272-0939. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Dr. Iqbal H. Chowdhury, PhD
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1656 (Recombinant Enzymes and Protein Crystallography)
US Patent and Trademark Office
Full-Time Hoteling
Ph. (571)-272-8137 and Fax (571)-273-8137
/IQBAL H CHOWDHURY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights