DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of the reply filed 12/29/2025, in response to the nonfinal office action mailed 6/6/2025.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16-25, and 27-29 are pending. Claims 20-25 and 27-29 are withdrawn from further prosecution for the reasons set forth below.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16-19 are being examined on the merits in this office 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 .
Claim Objections- withdrawn
The objection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 13 is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 12/29/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112- withdrawn
The rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 12/29/2025.
Specification
Please note, the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible error. Applicant's cooperation is required in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the above objections and rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the maintained rejections.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendment filed 12/29/2025.
An action on the merits is set forth herein.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16-19 remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yen (U.S. 5069936- previously cited). The rejection is maintained from the office action mailed 6/25/2025, but has been amended to reflect claims filed 12/29/2025.
Yen teaches a process for manufacturing protein microspheres comprising a) dissolving protein molecules in an aqueous buffer solution to form a protein solution; b) adding a surfactant; c) adding a desolvating agent to the admixture of protein solution and surfactant to produce a turbid mixture comprising substantially monodispersed protein microspheres; and d) adding a cross-linking agent to the turbid mixture formed in step c) (claim 1). Yen teaches that the microspheres can encompass oxygen-carrying molecules such as hemoglobin (Examples 1 and 3). The particles can transport oxygen and have a diameter of 100 nm (ex 3). Hemoglobin was the only protein in the prepared particles [reads on at least 25% by weight hemoglobin]. The particles are spherical in shape thus the particles inherently have an outer surface. The hemoglobin particles were noted for having uniform size and homogenous protein dispersion (Exs 1-3). This is construed as particles comprising hemoglobin cross-linked on the outer surface of the particles.
Examiner expressly notes that the instant specification does not define the claim term “sufficiently free of surfactant”.
Yen states at col 18:
(3) Then, two more volumes of sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS or SDS) of varying concentrations were added, thoroughly mixed, and allowed to react for only two minutes to avoid denaturation of the Hemoglobins. It was noted that when the concentration of SDS exceeded 2 mg/ml, hemoglobin solutions turned brown, suggestive of denaturation. The ideal concentration of SDS to use was 1.5 mg/ml. Concentrations greater than 1.8 mg/ml led to formation of small aggregates of microspheres (10 to 20% among monodispersed microspheres) Using concentrations less than 1.2 mg/ml resulted in microspheres smaller than 0.05 microns in diameter.
Thus, Yen is deemed to teach that the amount of surfactant present has a limited concentration and exposure time. Yen expressly acknowledges the need to avoid denaturation of the hemoglobin within the prepared particles. Col 18, ll. 28-32 disclose that after cross-linking/stabilization, the microspheres were dialyzed first against 100 volumes of distilled water, and then saline, to remove residual reactive reagents. The resulting particles are construed as “sufficiently free of surfactant”. Example 3 indicates that the prepared particles retained size and functional hemoglobin that could bind and release oxygen.
Examiner expressly notes that regardless of Yen disclosing the term “microspheres”, the compositions prepared by Yen comprising hemoglobin fell within the claim scope of 100 nm particle size.
The limitation “wherein the plurality of particles are prepared by a process that comprises dessolvation of an aqueous solution of hemoglobin in the absence of a surfactant” is construed as a product-by-process limitation. Yen does not expressly teach this limitation, but teaches the claimed composition for the reasons set forth herein.
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979)
The use of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 rejections for product-by-process claims has been approved by the courts. “[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and an art rejection made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. In this case, Yen teaches the claimed composition of claim 1.
Accordingly, the limitations of instant claim 1 are satisfied.
Regarding claim 2, Yen teaches that the microspheres can contain a combination of hemoglobin and human serum albumin (HSA) (experiment 3; col. 7, claim 7). Regarding claim 5, Yen teaches particles in which the only protein is hemoglobin. Regarding claim 8, the particles have a diameter of 100 nm (ex 3).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, although Yen teaches an oxygen transporting formulation comprising a plurality of particles having an average size of 100 nm wherein the particles comprise hemoglobin, have an outer surface, and wherein the proteins are cross-linked by glutaraldehyde and are sufficiently free of surfactant, the reference does not explicitly teach the properties of polydispersity index (PDI) or Zeta potential.
The claimed composition appears to be the same as the prior art. The office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that the composition of the prior art does not possess the same material, structural and steps-like characteristics of the claimed composition. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on Applicant to prove that the claimed composition is different from that taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 5362F .2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2nd 1992 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
M.P.E.P. § 2112.01 recites, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, the limitations of claims 9 and 12 are satisfied.
Regarding claim 13, Yen teaches that the chemical cross-linker is an aldehyde -containing cross-linker such as glutaraldehyde (Example 1).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Yen teaches that the particles can further comprise one or more of albumin, collagen, hemoglobin, and immunoglobulin (claim 7).
Claim 16 recites: the oxygen transporting formulation of claim 1, wherein each particle within the plurality of particles has been further surface treated with one or more surface modulators.
Claim 16 can further be construed as product-by-process claims; claim 17 depend from said claim. M.P.E.P. § 2113 reads, “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.”
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979)
The use of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 rejections for product-by-process claims has been approved by the courts. “[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and an art rejection made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. In this case, Yen teaches the claimed composition of claim 1. Under the interpretation that claim 16 and 17 are product by process claims, limitations of claims 16 and 17 are anticipated by the teachings of Yen.
Yen further discloses incorporation of human serum albumin (HSA) into particles (example 4). Regarding claims 18 and 19, Yen further teach that ascorbic acid [reads on reducing agent] can be incorporated into the microspheres.
Response to Arguments
Applicant traversed the rejection at page 8 of the reply filed 12/29/2025. Applicant asserts that Yen does not disclose an oxygen transporting formulation that is “sufficiently free of surfactant”, or the product by process limitation as recited in claim 1. Applicant asserts that Yen does not teach removal of the surfactant from the final formulation. Id. Applicant asserts that “Yen suggests that the surfactant is an essential component of the preparation process in this present in the formulation” (p. 8).
Examiner has reviewed and considered applicants arguments but is not persuaded.
Examiner first notes Yen teach glutaraldehyde cross-linked particles that can transport oxygen and have a diameter of 100 nm (see Exs 1 and 3). Hemoglobin was the only protein in the prepared particles [reads on at least 25% by weight hemoglobin]. The particles are spherical in shape thus the particles inherently have an outer surface. Yen discloses at col 18, ll. 28-32 that after cross-linking/stabilization, the microspheres were dialyzed against 100 volumes of distilled water, the microspheres were dialyzed first against 100 volumes of distilled water, and then saline, to remove residual reactive reagents. The resulting particles are construed as “sufficiently free of surfactant”. The specification does not define the claim term “sufficiently free of surfactant” thus the skilled artisan is not apprised of what constitutes “sufficiently free”.
M.P.E.P. § 2113 reads, “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and an art rejection made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.
The claimed composition appears to be the same as the prior art. The office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that the composition of the prior art does not possess the same material, structural and steps-like characteristics of the claimed composition. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on Applicant to prove that the claimed composition is different from that taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 562F .2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2nd 1992 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
The rejection is maintained for at least these reasons, and those previously made of record.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16-18 remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumler et al (U.S. 2016/0310414 – previously cited). The rejection is maintained from the office action mailed 6/25/2025, but has been amended to reflect claims filed 12/29/2025.
Baumler et al teach a process for preparing microparticles having a size of at least 20 nm, 100 nm, or 500 nm. The microparticles can include hemoglobin that is cross-linked via chemical cross-linker (e.g., glutaraldehyde) (e.g., abstract, paras. [0028], [0062]-[0069], [0100], Fig. 1-3, 9-10; claims 1-4, Ex 2-3, 9-10). Example 2 discloses preparation of an oxygen transporting formulation comprising a plurality of particles that comprise hemoglobin. The particles can transport oxygen and do not include a surfactant (ex 2). Hemoglobin was the only protein in the prepared particles [reads on at least 25% by weight]. The particles are spherical in shape thus the particles inherently have an outer surface (Figs 2, 4, 9, 10; para. [0068], [0109]). Baumler et al teach that the particle can be adjusted by controlling the precipitation process (para. [0030]). Accordingly, the limitations of instant claim 1 are satisfied.
Examiner expressly notes that regardless of Baumler et al disclosing the term “microparticles”, the compositions prepared by Baumler et al teach an oxygen transporting formulation comprising hemoglobin particles within the claimed particle size.
The limitation “wherein the plurality of particles are prepared by a process that comprises dessolvation of an aqueous solution of hemoglobin in the absence of a surfactant” is construed as a product-by-process limitation. Baumler et al do not expressly teach this limitation, but teaches the claimed composition for the reasons set forth herein.
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979)
The use of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 rejections for product-by-process claims has been approved by the courts. “[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and an art rejection made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. In this case, Baumler et al teach the claimed composition of claim 1.
Accordingly, the limitations of instant claim 1 are satisfied.
Regarding claim 2, Baumler et al teach that the hemoglobin can be human or bovine (e.g., para [0080]). Regarding claim 5, Baumler et al teach particles in which the only protein is hemoglobin. Regarding claim 8, the particles have a diameter of at least 20 nm or 100 nm (paras. [0068], claim 2-3).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, although Baumler et al teach an oxygen transporting formulation comprising a plurality of particles having a size of at least 20 nm or 100 nm, wherein the particles comprise hemoglobin, have an outer surface, and wherein the proteins are cross-linked by a chemical crosslinker (e.g., glutaraldehyde) on the outer surface, and are sufficiently free of surfactant, the reference does not explicitly teach the properties of polydispersity index (PDI) or Zeta potential.
The claimed composition appears to be the same as the prior art. The office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that the composition of the prior art does not possess the same material, structural and steps-like characteristics of the claimed composition. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on Applicant to prove that the claimed composition is different from that taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 562F .2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2nd 1992 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
M.P.E.P. § 2112.01 recites, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, the limitations of claims 9 and 12 are satisfied.
Regarding claim 13, Baumler et al teach that the chemical cross-linker is an aldehyde -containing cross-linker such as glutaraldehyde (Table 1, Ex 1-3). Regarding claims 16 and 17, Baumler et al teach that the particles can further comprise one or more surface modulators, including human serum albumin (HSA), dextran, lipids or polyelectrolytes (paras. [0078], [0086], Exs. 1, 10). Regarding claim 18, Baumler et al teach inclusion of a reducing agent, e.g. dithiothreitol (DTT) (ex. 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant traversed the rejection at page 9 of the reply filed 12/29/2025. Applicant asserts that Baumler does not disclose plurality of particles prepared by a process that comprises diesel the of an aqueous solution of hemoglobin in the absence of a surfactant. Applicant asserts that Baumler describes prepared by a different method, and that one would expect different preparation methods to result in particles having different morphologies. Id. Applicant asserts that Examiner has not identified where the reference teaches that the hemoglobin and/or other proteins are present on the outer surface have been substantially crossed-linked using a chemical cross-linker (p. 9).
Examiner has reviewed and considered applicants arguments but is not persuaded.
Regarding Applicant’s assertions relating to different morphologies due to different preparation morphologies, this argument is merely the argument of counsel and is unsupported by evidence or declarations of those skilled in the art. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See M.P.E.P. § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art. Counsel's arguments cannot take the place of objective evidence. In re Schulze, 145 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1965); In re Cole, 140 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1964); and especially In re Langer, 183 USPQ 288 (CCPA 1974). See M.P.E.P. § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements that are not evidence and that must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
M.P.E.P. § 2113 reads, “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and an art rejection made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, Examiner identified where in the reference the claim limitations could be found. Example 2 discloses preparation of an oxygen transporting formulation comprising a plurality of particles that comprise hemoglobin crosslinked with glutaraldehyde. The particles can transport oxygen and do not include a surfactant (ex 2). Hemoglobin was the only protein in the prepared particles [reads on at least 25% by weight]. The cross-linked hemoglobin particles are spherical in shape, thus inherently have an outer surface (Figs 2-4, 9, 10; para. [0068], [0109]). The particles have a diameter of at least 20 nm or 100 nm (paras. [0068], claim 2-3).
The specification does not define the claim term “substantially crosslinked” thus the skilled artisan is not apprised of what constitutes “substantially crosslinked” by a chemical crosslinker. Examiner reiterates that Baumler discloses spherical cross-linked hemoglobin particles which were cross-linked with glutaraldehyde. Hemoglobin was the only protein present. Hemoglobin is inherently on the outer surface of the particles. See at least Example 2 and the figures. Example 3 further discloses glutaraldehyde crosslinked hemoglobin/albumin particles.
The claimed composition appears to be the same as the prior art. The office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that the composition of the prior art does not possess the same material, structural and steps-like characteristics of the claimed composition. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on Applicant to prove that the claimed composition is different from that taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 562F .2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2nd 1992 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
The rejection is maintained for at least these reasons, and those previously made of record.
New Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16-19 are 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. This is a new rejection necessitated by the amendment filed 12/29/2025.
The terms “sufficiently free of a surfactant” and “substantially cross-linked” in claim 1 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “sufficiently free of a surfactant” and “substantially cross-linked” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of compounds that fall within and those that fall outside the claim scope are deemed to be indefinite.
Because claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16-19 depend from indefinite claim 1 and do not clarify the point of confusion, they must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Relevant Art not relied upon
Von Storp et al (J. Micro encapsulation 29:138-146 (2012)- previously cited) teach preparation of nanoparticles comprising human serum albumin (HSA) in which the proteins were cross-linked using glutaraldehyde as the cross-linker (p. 140). The reference discusses predictable size by desolvation procedure. The reference assessed the influence of different desolvating agents on the resulting particle characteristics and cytotoxicity in cell culture. Additionally, the influence of different stirring rates, pre-stirring of the HAS solution and the continuous addition of desolvating agent during the preparation process. The results indicate that it is possible to predict the particle size depending on dielectric constant of the desolvation medium. A combination of methanol and ethanol used as desolvating agent was able to produce very small spherical HSA nanoparticles in a size range between 50 and 80 nm (abstract).
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16-25, and 27-29 are pending. Claims 20-25 and 27-29 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16-19 are rejected.
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 KRISTINA M HELLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
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, LIANKO GARYU can be reached at 571-270-7367. 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.
/KRISTINA M HELLMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1654
/JULIE HA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1654