DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Amendments dated 12/15/2025 have been entered.
Claims 17-18 are cancelled by Applicant.
Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11-13, and 16 are pending.
Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11-13, and 16 are examined herein.
The rejection of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelissen et al. (The Plant Cell 27.6 (2015): 1605-1619; IDS Document) in view of Baum et al. (WO 2012/149316 A2, published 11/01/2012), Svitashev et al. (Nature communications 7.1 (2016): 13274; IDS document), and Jayne et al. (US Patent No. 6,096,947 A; issued 08/01/2000) as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Bruce et al. (WO 2005063990 A2, published 07/14/2005; IDS Document) and Lowe et al. (The Plant Cell, Volume 28, Issue 9, September 2016, Pages 1998–2015; IDS Document) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 is the first recitation of the term “ZmPLT7”. Applicant is advised to clearly define the full name of the abbreviation in parentheticals.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
---This is a new rejection from those set forth in the Office Action dated 09/16/2025 in view of the amendments to the claims dated 12/15/2025.---
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "……" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2, from which Claim 16 depends, never explicitly recites the introduction of any sort of selectable marker or reporter gene, much less a fluorescent marker, into the expression cassette comprising GRF1 used in the method of the invention. As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. Claim 16 is the first recitation that requires some sort of fluorescent marker used as a point of comparison for co-expression in maize plant cells that comprise different expression cassettes, which should be reflected in the language of Claim 16 to overcome this aspect of the indefiniteness rejection.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
---These are new rejections from those set forth in the Office Action dated 09/16/2025 in view of the amendments to the claims dated 12/15/2025.---
Claims 2, 4, 6-9, and 11-13 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelissen et al. (The Plant Cell 27.6 (2015): 1605-1619; IDS Document) in view of Baum et al. (WO 2012/149316 A2, published 11/01/2012), Svitashev et al. (Nature communications 7.1 (2016): 13274; IDS document), and Jayne et al. (US Patent No. 6,096,947 A; issued 08/01/2000).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Nelissen et al. (herein referred to as Nelissen) teaches the expression of a ZmGRF1 polypeptide (denoted as GRMZM2G034876 in Table 1) in maize when compared to a transgenic maize plant overexpressing an expression cassette comprising an miR396a-resistant version of ZmGRF1, wherein the final height of miR396a-resistant ZmGRF1 plants was reduced in comparison to ZmGRF1 plants as well as female fertility due to a reduced kernel set (pg. 1609, right column first full paragraph; and paragraph bridging pgs. 1609-1610; Figure 3). Nelissen teaches the ZmGRF1 polypeptide; therefore, the nucleotide sequence encoding the protein would be encompassed within the scope of the invention taught by Nelissen.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, the ZmGRF1 (denoted as GRMZM2G034876 in Table 1) polypeptide taught in Nelissen inherently comprises the conserved QLQ domains and WRC domains, located on the N-terminus half of the GRF1 polypeptide, as shown in the following domain alignment (See also PlantTFDB_ZmGRF1 located in file wrapper).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
986
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, the ZmGRF1 (denoted as GRMZM2G034876 in Table 1) polypeptide taught in Nelissen also inherently comprises the polypeptide comprising the motif encoded by instant SEQ ID NO: 26, as shown in the following sequence alignment.
PNG
media_image2.png
421
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Nelissen does not teach the steps of Claim 2, comprising the steps (a) introducing into the Zea mays plant cell an expression cassette comprising a polynucleotide encoding a growth-regulating factor 1 (GRF1) polypeptide, mRNA encoding a GRF1 polypeptide, or GRF1 polypeptide(s); and (b) cultivating the Zea mays plant cell of or a plant cell derived from the plant cell of under conditions where in the Zea mays plant cell the GRF1 polypeptide is expressed from the expression cassette, GRF 1 polypeptide is translated from introduced mRNA, GRF 1 polypeptide is enhanced expressed from the endogenous gene, or GRF 1 polypeptide(s) are present; (c) modifying the genome of the Zea mays plant cell of (b) by means of a single stranded DNA break (SSB) or double stranded DNA break (DSB) inducing enzyme or a base editor enzyme which recognizes a predetermined site in the genome of said Zea mays plant cell, and optionally by means of a repair nucleic acid molecule, wherein the modification of said genome at said predetermined site is selected from i) a replacement of at least one nucleotide; ii) a deletion of at least one nucleotide; iii) an insertion of at least one nucleotide; or iv) any combination of i) - iii); and wherein step (c) is conducted simultaneously with step (a) and/or (b), before step (a), between step (a) and (b) or after step (b); the feature of Claim 4, comprising the steps (a) modifying the genome of a Zea mays plant cell according to the method of comprising the steps (a) modifying the genome of a Zea mays plant cell according to the method of (b) regenerating from the Zea mays plant cell of (a) or from a Zea mays plant cell derived from the Zea mays plant cell of (a) a Zea mays plant comprising in at least one cell the modification of the genome; the feature of Claim 11, wherein introducing into a Zea mays plant cell the expression cassette comprising a polynucleotide encoding a GRF 1 polypeptide results in a stable integration thereof into the genome of the Zea mays plant cell, or wherein introducing into a Zea mays plant cell the expression cassette comprising a polynucleotide encoding a GRF 1 polypeptide, mRNA encoding GRF 1 polypeptide, or GRF 1 polypeptide(s) or inducing in a Zea mays plant cell the enhanced expression level of an endogenous gene encoding a GRF 1 polypeptide results in a transient occurrence of GRF 1 polypeptide(s) in the Zea mays plant cell or in a progeny cell thereof; the feature of Claim 12, wherein the polynucleotide encoding the GRF 1 polypeptide is in operative linkage to at least one regulatory sequence suitable for expression of the GRF 1 polypeptide in a plant cell; or the feature of Claim 13, wherein the Zea mays plant cell of step (a) is a cell of a somatic tissue, callus tissue, a meristematic tissue or an embryonic tissue, a protoplast, gametophyte, pollen, ovule or microspore.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, Baum et al. (herein referred to as Baum) teaches a method for making a genetically modified plant comprising: transforming a cell with an expression cassette comprising an isolated nucleic acid which encodes a GRF protein with an miRNA396 binding site operably linked to a promoter sequence functional in a plant cell, and regenerating a genetically modified plant from the cell (pg. 97, Claim 18).
Regarding Claim 12, Baum further teaches that using the methods of the present invention, one may express an GRF protein in a plant cell (pg. 37, lines 18-20), and that the expression of the isolated nucleic acids encoding a GFR protein will typically be achieved by operably linking the DNA or cDNA to a promoter, followed by incorporation into an expression vector (pg. 37, lines 27-30).
Regarding Claim 11, to obtain a high level of expression of a cloned gene using the methods of the present invention, Baum teaches that it is desirable to construct expression vectors which comprise a strong promoter to direct transcription, a ribosome binding site for translational initiation, and a transcription/translation terminator (pg. 38, lines 1-5). Baum also teaches a vast array of methods that can be used to insert a plant GRF encoding polynucleotide into a plant host (pg. 41, lines 4-10) and techniques for direct delivery of isolated plant nucleotides or polypeptides to be introduced into a plant cell targeted for gene modification (pg. 41, lines 15-32 and pg. 42, lines 1-18).
Regarding Claim 13, in the methods of the present invention, a host cell can include maize (pg. 15, line 14), and plant cells used in the methods of the present invention include cells in or from embryos (pgs. 17, lines 10).
However, Baum and Nelissen do not teach the steps of Claim 2, comprising the steps (c) modifying the genome of the Zea mays plant cell of (b) by means of a single stranded DNA break (SSB) or double stranded DNA break (DSB) inducing enzyme or a base editor enzyme which recognizes a predetermined site in the genome of said Zea mays plant cell, and optionally by means of a repair nucleic acid molecule, wherein the modification of said genome at said predetermined site is selected from i) a replacement of at least one nucleotide; ii) a deletion of at least one nucleotide; iii) an insertion of at least one nucleotide; or iv) any combination of i) - iii); and wherein step (c) is conducted simultaneously with step (a) and/or (b), before step (a), between step (a) and (b) or after step (b).
Regarding Claim 2, part (c), Svitashev et al. (herein referred to as Svitashev) teaches a method of delivering Cas9 (double stranded break inducing enzyme) and gRNA in the form of RNP complexes into maize embryo cells via particle bombardment, that result in regenerated plants containing specifically targeted gene mutations and gene edits at high-frequencies (pg. 2, Introduction, right column, paragraph 2). A Cas9 gene from S. pyogenes M1GAS (SF370) was maize codon-optimized and included the potato ST-LS1 intron. To facilitate nuclear localization of Cas9 protein in maize cells, Simian virus 40 (SV40) monopartite amino terminal nuclear localization signal (MAPKKKRKV) and A. tumefaciens bipartite VirD2 T-DNA border endonuclease carboxyl terminal nuclear localization signal (KRPRDRHDGELGGRKRAR) were incorporated at the amino and carboxyl termini of the Cas9 open reading frame, respectively. The maize-optimized Cas9 gene was linked to a maize constitutive Ubiquitin-1 promoter, while transcription of this gene was terminated by the addition of the 3′ sequence from the potato proteinase inhibitor II gene (PinII). To generate a single gRNA, maize U6 polymerase III promoter and terminator were isolated and used to direct initiation and termination of gRNAs, respectively. Two BbsI restriction endonuclease sites were introduced in an inverted tandem orientation with cleavage orientated in an outward direction to facilitate the rapid introduction of maize genomic DNA target sequences into the gRNA expression vectors. Additionally, Svitashev teaches plasmids containing cell division promoting transcription factors (maize ovule developmental protein 2 (ODP2) and maize Wuschel (WUS)), selectable and visible marker MOPAT-DSRED (a translational fusion of the bialaphos resistance gene, phosphinothricin-N-acetyl-transferase, and the red fluorescent protein DSRED) were used and for ALS2 gene editing, a single-stranded 127 nucleotide oligo homologous to the fragment spanning the ALS2 target site with seven single nucleotide changes (Fig. 2b) was synthesized. One C to T and one G to C replacements were introduced to change proline to serine at position 165 in the ALS2 gene. SNPs within the gRNA target site sequence were also introduced to prevent Cas9 protein cleavage of the edited allele (pg. 5, Methods, Plasmids and reagents used for plant transformation, right column). To generate a guide RNA–Cas9 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex, 7 μg of Cas9 protein and 3 μg of gRNA molecules (1:2 molar ratio) were mixed in 1 × NEB Buffer 3 and 1 μl of RNA inhibitor a total volume of 20 μl and incubated at room temperature for 15 min (pg. 5, Methods, RNP complex formation, right column). The particle delivery matrix comprised of the RNP complexes complemented with plasmids containing Ubiquitin promoter-regulated selectable and visible marker, MOPAT-DSRED fusion (125 ng), Ubiquitin promoter-regulated ODP2 (60 ng), and maize IN2 promoter-regulated WUS (60 ng) were delivered into maize embryo cells using standard particle delivery protocol and Post-bombardment culture, selection, and plant regeneration were performed. Regenerated plantlets were moved to soil, where they were sampled and grown to maturity in greenhouse conditions (pgs. 5-6, Methods, Particle bombardment and plant regeneration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of genetically modifying a plant with a GRF1 polynucleotide taught by Baum to include the ZmGRF1 polypeptide taught by Nelissen. Based on the teachings of Nelissen, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the ZmGRF1 taught by Nelissen in the method of genetically modifying a plant with a GRF1 polynucleotide taught by Baum because expression of ZmGRF1 in maize produced maize plants with enhanced yield related traits, such as increasing female fertility, thus increasing kernel yield, which was also one of the advantages of overexpressing GRF polypeptides in a plant taught by Baum (Baum, pg. 7, lines 8-14), showing that the claimed elements where known in the prior art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted these elements as claimed with no change to their respective functions. It would have been further obvious to modify the method of genetically modifying a plant with a GRF1 polynucleotide taught by Baum (random site method; agro-transformation with an expression cassette containing a GRF protein with an miRNA396 binding site operably linked to a promoter sequence) with the CRISPR-Cas9 system taught by Svitashev to introduce the ZmGRF1 sequence to the plant genome. Due to the teachings of Svitashev, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these two pieces of prior art to achieve the claimed invention because CRISPR-Cas9 systems allow for a more direct method of inserting transgenes, significantly reduces the frequency of off-site cleavage when compared to the random site method of agro-transformation, and has a significant advantage over agro-transformation by promoting high mutation frequencies in a more precise manner (pg. 5, left column, paragraph 3). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claims would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one of ordinary skill could have substituted these elements as claimed with no change to their respective functions. Thus the combination yielding predictable results would have been expected by a skilled artisan.
However, Nelissen, Baum, and Svitashev do not teach the method of Claim 2, wherein the presence of the GRF1 polypeptide in the Zea mays plant cell results in at least a two-fold increase in transformation efficiency relative to an otherwise identical Zea mays plant cell that does not comprise the GRF1 polypeptide.
Regarding Claim 2, Jayne et al. (herein referred to as Jayne) teaches a method of increasing the transformation efficiency of a Zea mays plant cell by creating a monocot-optimized gene (codon optimized) that is transformed into regenerable Zea mays plant tissue (Example 2, columns 8-9), wherein a greater number of transformation events occurred in Zea mays plant cells with the codon-optimized gene (See results for 8092 in Table 1; column 9). In some of the experiments, the number of transformation events in Zea mays plant cells with the codon-optimized gene indicated a 4.9-7 fold increase in transformation efficiency relative to the transformation events in Zea mays plant cells without the codon-optimized gene (column 9, Table 1, Experiments 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the maize plant comprising ZmGRF1 taught by the combination of Nelissen and Baum by monocot-optimizing (codon optimization) the ZmGRF1 polypeptide taught by Nelissen prior to transformation into a maize plant cell. Based on the teachings of Jayne, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the maize plant taught by the combination of Nelissen and Baum by codon-optimizing the ZmGRF1 gene taught by Nelissen prior to transformation into a maize plant cell because the codon optimized gene enhances the skilled artisan’s ability to recover transformed events following transformation with a non-selectable gene of interest (Example III, column 10, end of second paragraph) as well as increasing the number of transformation events [4.9-7 fold increase in transformation events; See Jayne (column 9, Table 1, Experiments 1 and 2)] relative to maize plant cell that does not comprise the codon-optimized gene (column 9, Table 1, Experiments 1 and 2). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claims would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one of ordinary skill could have substituted these elements as claimed with no change to their respective functions. Thus the combination yielding predictable results would have been expected by a skilled artisan.
Therefore, for all the reasons above, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on pgs. 6-8 of the reply filed on 12/15/2025 are acknowledged but do not overcome the new rejections above. In particular, Applicant’s Remarks rely on the premise that examiner's rationale for obviousness is based on an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the invention, wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve transformation efficiency would not have been motivated to select a developmental gene like ZmGRF1 from Nelissen and would not have a reasonable expectation of success in using ZmGRF1 to improve transformation efficiency based on the teachings of Nelissen. Applicant urges that the motivation to use ZmGRF1 to improve transformation efficiency only becomes apparent after viewing the instant Application, which demonstrates the unexpected utility of GRF1 in this context (Remarks, pg. 7).
This is not found persuasive in view of the new rejection above, made in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims dated 12/15/2025. First, 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). As such, it is the combination of Nelissen, Baum, Jayne and Svitashev that teach the instantly claimed invention with the rationale to combine these references given in the rejection above. In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Nelissen teaches that the instantly claimed ZmGRF1 protein expression is directly linked to maize leaf development and yield-related traits (agro-economically important traits) in maize plant cells that are transformed with the expression cassette comprising ZmGRF1. The teachings of Jayne show that maize genes that are codon-optimized will have increased transformation efficiency relative to maize plant cells that comprise the same genes that are not codon-optimized. As such, it is well within the skill of an ordinary artisan to: (1) choose the ZmGRF1 gene taught by Nelissen that has already been shown to be linked to agro-economically important traits; (2) codon optimized the agro-economically important ZmGRF1 gene so a greater number of maize plant cells would comprise the agro-economically important gene—wherein the inherent result of said codon-optimization of ZmGRF1 would result in an increase in transformation efficiency of the maize plant cells.
Applicant’s Remarks also rely on the premise that the motivation to modify the ZmGRF1 gene taught by Nelissen to be codon-optimized as taught by Jayne fails to recognize that a patentably distinct feature of Applicant’s invention is that the GRF1 gene itself provides a substantial and unexpected boost to transformation efficiency (Remarks, pg. 7).
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s Remarks dated 07/16/2025 disclose that the ZmGRF1 gene used in the instant application, denoted as SEQ ID NO: 1, was codon-optimized and not a wild-type ZmGRF1 gene (Remarks, pg. 8). Unless Applicant provides evidence to the contrary, based on the teachings of Jayne, the “substantial and unexpected boost in transformation efficiency” that Applicant claims in the Remarks, by way of introducing ZmGRF1 into a maize plant cell, is merely a result of the codon-optimization the Applicant applied to a wild-type ZmGRF1 gene— not the presence of the wild-type ZmGRF1 gene by itself. As such, the ”unexpected boost to transformation efficiency” claimed by Applicant in the Remarks would, in fact, not be unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Jayne. The teachings of Jayne, which obviate codon-optimizing known Zea mays genes and introducing the codon-optimized gene into a maize plant cell, provides evidence that the codon optimization of a known maize gene results in an increased number of transformation events (in some cases 4.9-7 fold increase) in the maize plants cells comprising the codon-optimized gene relative to plant cells that comprise the gene without codon-optimization.
Therefore, the invention remains prima facie obvious in view of the prior art.
Closest Prior Art
Claim 16 appears to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art in regard to Claim 16 can be found in the combination of Nelissen et al. (The Plant Cell 27.6 (2015): 1605-1619; IDS Document) in view of Baum et al. (WO 2012/149316 A2, published 11/01/2012), Svitashev et al. (Nature communications 7.1 (2016): 13274; IDS document), and Jayne et al. (US Patent No. 6,096,947 A; issued 08/01/2000) as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Bruce et al. (WO 2005063990 A2, published 07/14/2005; IDS Document) and Lowe et al. (The Plant Cell, Volume 28, Issue 9, September 2016, Pages 1998–2015; IDS Document).
Regarding Claim 16, Bruce et al. (herein referred to as Bruce) teaches a method to increase transformation frequency, wherein the method comprises: (a) introducing into a plant cell an isolated Wuschel polynucleotide operably linked to a promoter; and (b) culturing the plant cell, wherein the cell expresses the polynucleotide thereby increasing transformation frequency as compared to a control cell (Claim 1) and a method to stimulate plant cell growth, wherein the method comprises: (a) introducing into a plant cell an isolated Wuschel polynucleotide operably linked to a promoter; and (b) culturing the plant cell, wherein the cell expresses the polynucleotide thereby stimulating plant cell growth as compared to a control cell (Claim 2), wherein the Wuschel polynucleotide is selected from the group consisting of WUS1 , WUS2, WUS3, WUS4, WUS5 and WUS6 (Claim 8), wherein stimulating plant cell growth stimulates asexual embryo formation (Claim 12), as well as plant cells (Claim 14), plants (Claim 16), and seeds (Claim 17) produced by the methods of the invention.
Additionally, Lowe et al. (herein referred to as Lowe) teaches that transformation of expression cassettes comprising WUS2 genes produced high transformation frequencies in numerous previously non-transformable maize inbred lines (Abstract), wherein WUS2 expression resulted in the development of numerous protrusions from the scutellar surface, demonstrating the WUS2 protein is diffusible and is a major contributor to apical meristem organization and maintenance (pg. 2007, left column, last paragraph).
While would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include— in the method of genetically modifying a plant with a codon-optimized ZmGRF1 polynucleotide taught by Baum, Nelissen, and Jayne with the CRISPR-Cas9 system taught by Svitashev— a ZmWUS2 polypeptide taught by Bruce in the transformed maize plant cell, the prior art provides no reasonable expectation that the specific combination of GRF1 and WUS2 would be unexpectedly superior to the combination of WUS2 and ZmPLT7 in regards to a greater percentage of fluorescent embryonic structure formation.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L. MCWILLIAMS whose telephone number is (703)756-4704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:00-17:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, AMJAD ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-7058. 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.
/KELSEY L MCWILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663