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
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 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.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments, corrected drawings, and response filed Oct. 23, 2025 have been received and entered into the case.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Claims 1-3 are amended.
Claims 3-5 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 6 and 7 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 2 have been considered on the merits.
Drawing Objections
The drawing objections are withdrawn due to amendment.
Specification Objections
The specification objections are withdrawn due to amendment.
Claim Objections
The claim objections are withdrawn due to amendment.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, the phrase “An application of a transmembrane protein as a tumor marker” is being interpreted to refer to a method. The phrase is being interpreting as “A method of using a transmembrane protein as a tumor marker.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The claim rejections under 35 USC § 112, (b) or second paragraph (pre-AIA ), are withdrawn due to amendment. New claim rejections under 35 USC § 112, (b) or second paragraph (pre-AIA ) have been added to address the claim amendments.
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.
Claim 1 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.
The term "low expression" in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "low expression" is 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) and 35 USC § 101
The previous claim rejections under 35 USC § 112, (b) and 35 USC § 101, are withdrawn due to amendment. New claim rejections under 35 USC § 112, (b) and 35 USC § 101 have been added to address the claim amendments.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 provides for the application of a transmembrane protein in the treatment of a tumor where the transmembrane protein is aquaporin 2 comprising the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO. 2 and the tumor is a head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the methods/processes, it is unclear what methods/processes applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. In this case, the term “application” provides a similar meaning to “use” and is therefore, being interpreted to meaning the same.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For the sake of compact prosecution, in claim 2, the phrase “An application of a transmembrane protein in treatment of a tumor” is being interpreted to refer to a method. The phrase is being interpreting as “A method of treating a tumor with a transmembrane protein.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
The claim rejections under 35 USC § 112, (a) or first paragraph (pre-AIA ), for written description and scope of enablement are withdrawn due to amendment.
New claim rejections under 35 USC § 112, (a) or first paragraph (pre-AIA ) for scope of enablement have been added to address the claim amendments.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for treating tumors in nude mice that were inoculated with a head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cell line, SCC4 that was stably transfected with a vector to overexpress aquaporin 2 comprising the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO. 1, does not reasonably provide enablement for:
the general treatment of existing head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tumors by overexpressing a nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO. 1 encoding aquaporin 2 comprising the amino acid sequence SEQ ID NO. 2 in all subjects, as claim 2 is being interpreted as explained in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, have been described in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir., 1988). The court in Wands states, “Enablement is not precluded by the necessity for some experimentation, such as routine screening. However, experimentation needed to practice the invention must not be undue experimentation. The key word is ‘undue’, not ‘experimentation’” (Wands, 8 USPQ2sd 1404). Clearly, the enablement of a claimed invention cannot be predicated on the basis of quantity of experimentation required to make or use the invention. “Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations” (Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1404). Among these factors are: (1) the nature of the invention; (2) the breadth of the claims; (3) the state of the prior art; (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; (5) the relative skill of those in the art; (6) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (7) the presence or absence of working examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation necessary.
While all of these factors are considered, a sufficient amount for a prima facie case is discussed below.
(1) The nature of the invention and (2) the breadth of the claims:
The claim is drawn to
a method of treating a tumor by overexpressing a nucleotide sequence comprising SEQ ID NO. 1, a nucleotide sequence encoding aquaporin 2 comprising the amino acid sequence SEQ ID NO. 2, in the tumor, where the tumor is head and neck squamous cell carcinoma;
as the claim is being interpreted to mean. Thus, the claim taken together with the specification imply that:
any head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tumor in any species can be treated by overexpressing a nucleotide sequence comprising SEQ ID NO. 1, a nucleotide sequence encoding aquaporin 2 comprising the amino acid sequence SEQ ID NO. 2, in the tumor; and
where the nucleotide sequence is delivered or administered by any means and route, in any type of vector and carrier, and in any amount
with the instantly claimed method.
(3) The state of the prior art and (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art:
Inventions targeted for cancer treatment and gene therapy need to provide supporting evidence because of the unpredictability in biological responses to therapeutic treatments and the heterogeneity of tumors. The standard of enablement is high for such inventions because as the state of the art stands gene therapies as a cancer treatment are unpredictable.
For example, Abas et al. (Pathology-Research and Practice, 2024)(ref. of record) reports that the delivery system of the gene therapy to the target site is important to its success and usually requires a vector so that the gene can be reach its target site and be introduced into a cell (abstract and pg. 3 Col. 1 para. 4). Abas further reports that gene therapy due to its complex preparation, treatment and delivery faces challenges and safety risks including possible mutations, delivery of the gene to the wrong cells, and the immunogenic response of the host toward the gene (pg. 9 Col. 1-2 bridging para.). Abas states that there are still countless hurdles to be faced to produce safe and effective gene therapies (pg. 9 Col. 2 last para.). Further, it is noted that Abas only reviewed three different cancers because of the extensive range of cancer forms (pg. 2 first para.). Thus, as the state of the art stands, gene therapy for tumor treatment is highly unpredictable and depends on the tumor type.
(5) The relative skill of those in the art:
The relative skill of those in the art is high.
(6) The amount of direction or guidance presented and (7) the presence or absence of working examples:
The instant specification provides working examples and guidance for overexpressing aquaporin 2 (AQP2) in human tumor cells in culture by transfecting the cells with a vector encoding for AQP2 (Embodiments 5 and 6). The tumor cells tested included massively culture head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells SCC4, kidney cancer cells 786-O and prostate cancer cells DU145. In addition, the specification discloses an experiment where nude mice were inoculated with human tumor cells that were either stably transfected with an empty vector or a vector to overexpress AQP2 and discloses that the tumors transfected to overexpress AQP2 had lower tumor growth rate compared to tumors transfected with the empty vector (Embodiment 7).
However, the specification does not provide any guidance for a method of treating a head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tumor by overexpressing a nucleotide sequence comprising SEQ ID NO. 1, a nucleotide sequence encoding aquaporin 2 with the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO. 2, in the tumor in any species by any means of administration or amounts.
The applicants have provided insufficient data and no details for the gene therapy of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tumors by overexpressing a nucleotide sequence comprising SEQ ID NO. 1, a nucleotide sequence encoding aquaporin 2 with the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO. 2 in the tumor. The applicants have not provided any evidence that any vectors, carriers and modes of administration would result in the overexpressing of a nucleotide encoding for AQP2 in vivo in all species of animals, to give the skilled artisan any reason to expect that the methods would be effective in treating tumors in vivo.
Claims drawn to pharmaceuticals and methods of treatment generally require supporting data because of the unpredictability in biological responses to therapeutic treatments. The efficacy of a drug treatment faces numerable unfavorable obstacles in vivo. As such, in vivo utility necessarily involves unpredictability with respect to physiological activity of an asserted process in humans. See discussion in Ex parte Kranz, 19 USPQ 2d 1216, 1218-1219 (6/90). For example, the delivery of a drug across necessary cell surfaces in amounts needed to be efficacious, but not lethal to the subject, necessitates sensitive testing in order to adequately determine the proper dosage.
(8) The quantity of experimentation necessary:
Considering the state of the art as discussed above and the high unpredictability and the lack of guidance provided in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would be burdened with undue experimentation to use the claimed invention within the broad scope as instantly claimed. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for a lack of enablement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 USC § 102 are withdrawn due to amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 USC § 103 are withdrawn due to amendment. New claim rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been added to address the claim amendments.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2005/0069872 A1) (ref. of record) as evidenced by Van Lieburg et al. (American Journal of Human Genetics, 1994) (ref. of record) and NCBI Blast alignment (SEQ ID NO. 2, accessed Jul. 19, 2025) (ref. of record).
With respect to claim 1, Moon teaches a method of analyzing the expression of and mutation of human aquaporin (AQP) genes to detect cancers or a method of using a transmembrane protein as a tumor marker (0001). With respect to claim 1, Moon teaches they tested human head and neck carcinoma cell lines for AQP expression and teaches that aquaporin 2 (AQP2) was not expressed in any of the cancer cell lines they tested (detecting expression of transmembrane protein AQP2 in the tumor) (0081 and 0115). Although, Moon is silent with respect to the amino acid sequence of AQP2 and does not explicitly teach the sequence is SEQ ID NO. 2, this is the amino acid sequence of human AQP2 as evidenced by Van Lieburg. Van Lieburg discloses the human AQP2 amino acid sequence which shares 100% homology with SEQ ID NO. 2. NCBI Blast alignment shows 100% homology between the two sequences.
Even though Moon does not explicitly teach detecting expression of AQP2 in a human head and neck carcinoma tumor, Moon teaches the desire to identify novel molecular markers for cancer and tumors and analyzes the expression of AQPs in human head and neck carcinoma cell lines (0005, 0023, and 0079). Moon teaches that AQP2 was not expressed in any of the cancer cell lines they tested (0081 and 0115). Accordingly, at the effective time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to detect the expression of AQP2 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tumors for the benefit of detecting tumors, since Moon teaches the lack of AQP2 expression in head and neck carcinoma cell lines and the desire for additional tumor markers to detect tumors. For these reasons one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the method of Moon to detect AQP2 expression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tumors.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the invention, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (Cell Death Discovery, 2018) in view of Moon et al. (US 2005/0069872 A1) (ref. of record) as evidenced by Van Lieburg et al. (American Journal of Human Genetics, 1994) (ref. of record) and NCBI Blast alignment (SEQ ID NO. 2, accessed Jul. 19, 2025) (ref. of record), in view of Dajani et al. (Oncotarget, 2018) (ref. of record), and in view of Nagasaki et al. (JP 2009/079042 A, EPO translation, accessed 7/17/2025) (ref. of record)as evidenced by Van Lieburg et al. (American Journal of Human Genetics, 1994) (ref. of record).
With respect to claim 2, Wan teaches a method of treating cancer cells by overexpressing the transmembrane protein, aquaporin (AQP2), in the cancer cells and reports that overexpression of AQP2 in glioma cell lines prevents basal glioma cell invasion (abstract, pg. 2 Col. 2 para. 2 and pg. 9 Col. 1 para. 2 and Col. 2 para. 2). As explained in the rejections under 35 USC § 112, (b) and 35 USC § 101, the claim is being interpreted as a method of treating a tumor with a transmembrane protein. In addition, Wan teaches that AQP2 expression was decreased in glioma cells compared to glial cells from the same tissues (pg. 2 Col. 2 para. 1 and pg. 5 Col. 2 para. 3). Wan teaches that the overexpression of AQP2 was achieved by overexpressing a nucleic acid sequence of AQP2 in the glioma cells (pg. 11 Col. 2 para. 1). In addition, Wan teaches that targeting water channels for possible antitumor therapy (pg. 2 Col. 1 last para.).
Wan does not teach method where the cells are a head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tumor or explicitly teaches that the AQP2 nucleic acid sequence comprises SEQ ID NO. 1 and the amino acid sequence comprises SEQ ID NO: 2.
However, Moon teaches a method of analyzing the expression of and mutation of human aquaporin (AQP) genes to detect cancers (0001). Moon teaches they tested human lung cancer, and human head and neck carcinoma cell lines for AQP expression and teaches that aquaporin 2 (AQP2) was not expressed in any of the cancer cell lines they tested (0081 and 0115). Although, Moon is silent with respect to the amino acid sequence of AQP2 and does not explicitly teach the sequence is SEQ ID NO. 2, this is the amino acid sequence of human AQP2 as evidenced by Van Lieburg. Van Lieburg discloses the human AQP2 amino acid sequence which shares 100% homology with SEQ ID NO. 2. NCBI Blast alignment shows 100% homology between the two sequences.
In further support, Dajani suggests that manipulating the targeted expression of AQPs can be used for new chemotherapies (pg. 36401 para. 1).
Accordingly, at the effective time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Wan to include overexpressing AQP2 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tumors for the benefit of treating the tumor as taught by Wan and Dajani and for treating a tumor known not to express AQP2 and benefit from overexpression as taught by Moon. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to motivated to modify the method of Wan to include the step of overexpressing AQP2 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tumors, since both Wan and Dajani suggest that cancers may be treated by manipulating the expression of aquaporins, and Moon teaches the lack of expression of AQP2 in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification to the method of Wan, since Wan teaches overexpression in glioma cancer prevents basal glioma cell invasion, Moon teaches there is a lack of expression of AQP2 in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas, and both Wan and Dajani suggest treating tumors by manipulating aquaporin expression.
Neither Wan and Moon explicitly teaches that the AQP2 nucleic acid sequence comprises SEQ ID NO. 1.
However, Nagasaki teaches treating renal diabetes insipidus with gene therapy to compensate for the loss of APQ2 function (0008). Nagasaki teaches injecting a vector encoding human AQP2 to overexpress AQP2 in the kidney (0010, 0030 and 0034). In further support, Dajani suggests that manipulating the targeted expression of AQPs can be used for new chemotherapies (pg. 36401 para. 1). Although, Nagasaki is silent with respect to the nucleic acid sequence of human AQP2 and does not explicitly teach the sequence is SEQ ID NO. 1, this is the nucleic acid sequence of human AQP2 as evidenced by Van Lieburg. Van Lieburg reports the nucleotide sequence for human AQP2 which has 100% homology with SEQ ID NO. 1 (see Figure 2 and supplemental STIC search, GenEmbl Result 1 alignment).
Accordingly, at the effective time of filing of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method taught by the combined teachings of Wan, Moon and Dajani to include overexpressing AQP2 which the nucleic acid sequence comprising SEQ ID NO. 1 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tumors for the benefit of treating the tumor with a AQP2 nucleic acid sequence known for use in gene therapy as taught by Nagasaki. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to motivated to modify the method taught by the combined teachings of Wan, Moon and Dajani include overexpressing AQP2 which the nucleic acid sequence comprising SEQ ID NO. 1 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tumors, since both Wan and Dajani suggest that cancers may be treated by manipulating the expression of aquaporins, and Nagasaki teaches human AQP2 can be overexpressed using gene therapy with a vector encoding human AQP2 to overexpress. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification to the method of Wan, since Wan teaches overexpression in glioma cancer prevents basal glioma cell invasion, both Wan and Dajani suggest treating tumors by manipulating aquaporin expression, and Nagasaki teaches that overexpressing human AQP2 (SEQ ID NO. 1) is possible for gene therapy.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the invention, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Oct. 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 enablement, Applicant argues that claim 2 has been amended to be directed to treating a head and neck tumor by overexpressing the nucleotide sequence, SEQ ID NO: 1, in the tumor which is supported in the specification. Applicant argues that Examples 5-7 show the effect the overexpressing of AQP2 has on the proliferation ability, the migration ability and the in vivo growth of human tumor cells (Remarks pg. 7 para. 4). However, these arguments were not found to persuasive, since the amended claim is not enabled for any mode of administering of the nucleic acid to any species for treating a head and neck squamous cell carcinoma tumors as explained in the new rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 enablement.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) written description, 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), and 35 U.S.C. § 101 Applicant argues that they have amended the claims to overcome these rejections (Remarks pg. 7 last para. to pg. 8 last para.). However, this argument not found to be persuasive with respect to claim 2, which appears to be directed to a method and which contains no steps.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant argues that Moon teaches away from the claimed embodiment, since Moon does not teach or suggest any use of AQP2 as a tumor marker and Moon only relies on lack of expression in order to detect cancer cells and discusses detecting expression of AQP1, AQP 3, AQP 4 and AQP 5 (Remarks pg. 9 para. 2-3). However, this argument was not found to be persuasive, since lack of expression can also be used to indicate a cancer cell or be a tumor marker and Moon teaches detecting no expression of AQP2 in human head and neck carcinoma cell lines. Additionally, Applicant’s amendments limiting claim 1 to “a method of using a transmembrane protein as a tumor marker comprising detecting expression of transmembrane protein aquaporin 2 in a head and neck squamous cell carcinoma necessitated the withdrawal of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Moon. Applicant’s arguments are in part drawn to Moon failing to teach these new limitations. However, the new limitations are addressed in the new rejections.
Applicant argues that Moon did not consider AQP2 to be a relevant tumor marker and for testing, since AQP2 is not in the list of tumor markers and the recommended screening taught by Moon (Remarks pg. 9 para. 4). However, this argument was not found to be persuasive, since Moon does not explicitly state that AQP2 cannot be used as a tumor marker and instead reports screening cancer cell lines for AQP2 expression and states there is no expression of AQP2 in any of the cancer cell lines they tested (0001, 0081, and 0115).
Applicant argues that Luxon does not teach any application to head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (Remarks pg. 10 para. 2). Likewise, Applicant argues that Rubin does not teach any application to head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (Remarks pg. 10 para. 4). Applicant’s amendments limiting claim 1 to “a method of using a transmembrane protein as a tumor marker comprising detecting expression of transmembrane protein aquaporin 2 in a head and neck squamous cell carcinoma necessitated the withdrawal of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Luxon and as anticipated by Rubin. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to Luxon and Rubin failing to teach these new limitations. The new limitations are addressed in the new rejections.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that Luxon does not teach any application to head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (Remarks pg. 11 para. 2). Applicant’s amendments limiting claim 1 to “a method of using a transmembrane protein as a tumor marker comprising detecting expression of transmembrane protein aquaporin 2 in a head and neck squamous cell carcinoma necessitated the withdrawal of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Luxon. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to Luxon failing to teach these new limitations. The new limitations are addressed in the new rejections.
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.
Examiner Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY ANN CORDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Peter Paras can be reached on 571-272-4517. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY A CORDAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1632