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 .
Please note: The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Status
Claims 1-12, 14, 16-21, and 25 are pending.
Claim 25 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/24/2025.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 16-21 are being examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement (see, for example, pages 2 and 3 of the specification). 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
No further IDSs were included in the response filed on 4/17/2026, therefore any references in the specification not cited by the Examiner on form PTO-892 remain unconsidered.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
Applicant’s amendment to the specification to 1) properly notate sequences in the specification with their sequence identifiers, and 2) provide sequence identifiers for sequences that appear in the Drawings in the Brief Description of the Drawings is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant’s amendment to the specification to properly denote the terms “Ampligase” and “Illumina NextSeq/NovaSeq” is acknowledged. However, as noted in the previous office action, these were not an exhaustive list of unmarked trade names or marks used in commerce. The use of the terms “Digitonin”, “Tween-20” (pg 20) and “Dynabeads” (pg 66), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. These terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The examples above are not an exhaustive list of unmarked trade names or marks used in commerce throughout the specification. Please carefully read through and properly notate each instance.
Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 1 and 20 as laid out in the Office Action of 10/17/2025 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim 1 is objected to for the following informality:
Claim 1(c) reads “reverse transcribing the first oligonucleotide in said cells/nuclei” and should read “reverse transcribing the first oligonucleotide in said [[cells/nuclei]]cell and/or nuclei”. This maintains consistent claim terminology throughout the claim given “cells/nuclei” implies “cells or nuclei” rather than “cells and/or nuclei”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b - Indefiniteness
Withdrawn: The rejection of claims 1-12, 14, and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as noted in the Office Action of 10/17/2025 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
New (Necessitated by Amendments): Claim 8 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 8: Claim 8 is directed to the method of claim 1 “wherein the method further comprises, subsequence to DNA ligation, a step of linear extension of a DNA strand generated from the second oligonucleotide, wherein the linear extension comprises adding a primer comprising RNA nucleotides complementary to a sequence of the DNA strand and adding a reverse transcriptase enzyme”. This wording is still unclear. This claim is being interpreted as describing template switch synthesis, as depicted in Figure 5 “Template switching”. The primer, which contains ribonucleotides, is annealing to a sequence within the second oligonucleotide, not to a DNA strand being generated from said second oligonucleotide. Additionally, “generated from” implies that the DNA strand is complementary to the second oligonucleotide (as it is used in claim 9). It would be more accurate to say “a step of linear extension of the second oligonucleotide, wherein the linear extension comprises adding a primer comprising RNA nucleotides complementary to a sequence of the second oligonucleotide and adding a reverse transcription enzyme to generate an extended second oligonucleotide comprising a complement of the primer”. This is how the claim is being interpreted for the purposes of examination, but clarification is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation of step (d), in which the cell and/or nuclei generated in step (c) are combined with a third oligonucleotide attached to a microbead in a second reaction compartment. There are two options in step (d) regarding the third oligonucleotide. In option (i), the third oligonucleotide comprises a first sequence complementary to a fourth sequence on the second oligonucleotide of step (b). In option (ii), the third oligonucleotide is provided along with a fourth oligonucleotide, wherein the third oligonucleotide has a first sequence complementary to a first sequence of a fourth oligonucleotide and the fourth oligonucleotide comprises a second sequence that is complementary to the third sequence of the second oligonucleotide of step (b). If option (i) is chosen, then the method further comprises a step of second strand DNA synthesis subsequent to step (c) and prior to step (d). If option (ii) is chosen, then the method further comprises a step of DNA ligation. Claims 3-7 further limit the optional step of second strand DNA synthesis, and claims 8 and 21 further limit the optional step of DNA ligation.
For purposes of examination, if prior art teaches the step of option (d)(i), then claims 3-7 will need to be addressed by said prior art or other secondary references, whereas claims 8 and 21 will be considered as further limitations of an optional step of DNA ligation and therefore automatically rejected. If prior art teaches the step of option (d)(ii), then claims 8 and 21 will need to be addressed by said prior art or other secondary references, whereas claims 3-7 will be considered as further limitations of an optional step of second strand DNA synthesis and therefore automatically rejected.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (Cao et al., Science 2017; cited on IDS of 8/11/2023) in view of Regev (Regev et al., WO 2016040476 A1), claims 2-4 and 9 as being unpatentable over Cao (Cao et al., Science 2017; cited on IDS of 8/11/2023) in view of Regev (Regev et al., WO 2016040476 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Salathia (Salathia et al., WO 2017040306 A1) and Ramsköld (Ramsköld et al., Nature Biotechnology 2012), claim 5 as being unpatentable over Cao (Cao et al., Science 2017; cited on IDS of 8/11/2023) in view of Regev (Regev et al., WO 2016040476 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Fu (Fu et al., US 20160312276 A1), and claim 17 as being unpatentable over Cao (Cao et al., Science 2017; cited on IDS of 8/11/2023) in view of Regev (Regev et al., WO 2016040476 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Hindson (Hindson et al., US 20150376609 A1) are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Necessitated by Amendments
Claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (Cao et al., Science 2017; cited on IDS of 8/11/2023) in view of Regev (Regev et al., WO 2016040476 A1; cited on PTO-892 of 10/17/2025).
Regarding claim 1: Cao teaches a method of single-cell combinatorial indexing for multiplexed sequencing of oligonucleotides comprising RNA (Abstract, Introduction). Cao teaches providing permeabilized cells comprising a first oligonucleotide comprising RNA and combining said cells in a first reaction compartment with a second oligonucleotide (claim 1(a) and (b); Overview of sci-RNA-seq and Fig 1A). The second DNA oligonucleotide comprises a first compartment-specific index, a sequence complementary to the first oligonucleotide (polythymidine sequence), and a primer binding site (claim 1(b); “the PCR primers target the barcoded polythymidine primer on one end”; Overview of sci-RNA-seq and Fig 1A). Cao teaches annealing the DNA second oligonucleotide to the first oligonucleotide and performing in situ reverse transcription to obtain an elongated second oligonucleotide (claim 1(c); Overview of sci-RNA-seq and Fig 1A). Cao teaches pooling the cells and then redistributing into a second reaction compartment. Cao teaches that there is more than one cell in the second reaction compartment (“e.g., 10 to 100 per well”, Overview of sci-RNA-seq and Fig 1A). Cao teaches performing second strand synthesis in said second reaction compartment (claim 1(d)(i)). Cao teaches that the third oligonucleotide comprises a second indexing sequence and a primer binding site (Overview of sci-RNA-seq and Fig 1A-B). Cao then teaches amplifying the DNA oligonucleotides and sequencing the amplified DNA oligonucleotides.
Cao does not teach performing second strand synthesis prior to combining the cells with the third oligonucleotide in the second reaction compartment, but with respect to the order of steps, it is noted that the courts have held that 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); Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959)). See MPEP §2144.04 IV C. Therefore, the claimed order of steps is an obvious variant of the steps of the cited prior art.
Cao does not teach that the third oligonucleotide is provided in the second reaction compartment attached to a microbead. However, delivery of microbead-bound oligonucleotides to reaction compartments for sequencing preparation of RNA is known in the art, as taught by Regev.
Regev teaches a method of molecular barcoding of nucleic acids using emulsion-based microfluidics (Abstract). Regev teaches attachment of barcoded oligonucleotides to microbeads for isolation into microfluidic droplets with cells (paragraphs [00186, 00192, and 00197]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have modified the method of Cao with that of Regev. One would be motivated to deliver the third oligonucleotide via microbead to the cells being processed given the assertion by Regev that attaching barcoded oligonucleotides onto beads allows for efficient profiling of a vast number of cells and provides a compartment-specific barcode for processing of the contents of the droplet (paragraphs [0011 and 00190]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Regev demonstrates successful partitioning of microbeads carrying barcoded oligonucleotides with cells (Figure 8A).
Regarding claims 6 and 7: Cao teaches, subsequent to second strand DNA synthesis, a step of introducing untemplated nucleotides at the 5’ end of the synthesized second strand DNA wherein the untemplated nucleotides are introduced using a transposase enzyme (Tn5 transposase; Fig 1A and Overview of sci-RNA-seq).
Regarding claims 10 and 11: Cao teaches that the sequence of the first oligonucleotide that is bound by the first sequence of the second oligonucleotide is located at the 3’ end of the first oligonucleotide and that the first sequence of the second oligonucleotide is complementary to the 3’ poly-A tail of the first oligonucleotide (the 3’ poly-A tail of mRNA is bound by the poly-T sequence of the second oligonucleotide; Fig 1A).
Regarding claim 12: Cao teaches that the first reaction compartment comprises permeabilized cells (“Cells are fixed and permeabilized with methanol…then distributed across 96- or 384-well plates”, Overview of sci-RNA-seq).
Regarding claim 14: Cao teaches that the second reaction compartment comprises lysed cells (Overview of sci-RNA-seq).
Regarding claim 16: Regev teaches that the reaction compartments are microfluidic droplets (paragraph [0190]).
Regarding claim 18: Cao teaches that the second oligonucleotide further comprises a UMI (Overview of sci-RNA-seq and Fig 1A).
Regarding claims 19 and 20: Cao teaches that the cells are obtained from in vitro cultures of cell lines (“During the first round of indexing, half of 384 wells contained pure populations of either human [human embryonic kidney 293T (HEK293T) and/or HeLa S3] or mouse (NIH/3T3) cells”, Scalability of sci-RNA-seq).
Regarding claims 8 and 21: As mentioned in the claim interpretation section above, claims 8 and 21 are further limitations of an optional step of DNA ligation in claim 1. Because this pertains to option (d)(ii), and Cao teaches option (d)(i), these claims are automatically rejected.
Claims 2-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (Cao et al., Science 2017; cited on IDS of 8/11/2023) in view of Regev (Regev et al., WO 2016040476 A1; cited on PTO-892 of 10/17/2025) as applied to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Salathia (Salathia et al., WO 2017040306 A1; cited on PTO-892 of 10/17/2025) and Ramsköld (Ramsköld et al., Nature Biotechnology 2012; cited on PTO-892 of 10/17/2025).
The teachings of Cao in view of Regev as they apply to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 are detailed above. Relevant to the instantly rejected claims, Cao in view of Regev teaches a method of combinatorial indexing of cells via contacting with barcoded oligonucleotides in sequential reaction compartments. Cao in view of Regev teaches annealing a DNA oligonucleotide onto an RNA oligonucleotide and performing reverse transcription to obtain an elongated DNA oligonucleotide. Cao in view of Regev then teach performing second strand synthesis to generate double-stranded cDNA.
Cao in view of Regev do not teach adding untemplated nucleotides to the 3’ end of the second oligonucleotide during reverse transcription or linear extension of the second strand DNA with randomer primers.
However, adding untemplated nucleotides to an elongated oligonucleotide during reverse transcription for second strand synthesis is known in the art, as taught by Salathia and Ramsköld.
Salathia teaches a method of multiplexed single cell gene expression analysis which entails preparing target RNA for sequencing through the use of reverse transcription and second strand synthesis via template switching (Abstract and paragraphs [007 and 009]). Salathia teaches annealing an oligo dT primer to an mRNA and performing first strand synthesis in which “the first strand synthesis primer is extended beyond the mRNA template” (reads on untemplated nucleotides are added to the 3’ end of the second oligonucleotide in claim 2; paragraph [009 and 0058]). Salathia teaches adding a primer comprising RNA nucleotides complementary to the added untemplated nucleotides for extension (claim 4; “the first strand synthesis primer is extended beyond the mRNA template and further copies the TSO primer strand”, paragraph [009 and 0058] and Fig 1). Salathia teaches that second strand synthesis can be accomplished via the use of a primer comprising a sequence complementary to the added untemplated nucleotides (claim 3; “the second strand of cDNA is synthesized using the TSO primer”, paragraph [009 and 0058]). Salathia teaches using primers comprising random nucleotides (“randomers”) for priming linear extension (claim 9; paragraph [009, 0073, and 0076]).
Salathia doesn’t explicitly teach that the primer complementary to the added untemplated nucleotides comprises RNA nucleotides, however Salathia teaches that this method of template switching is based on the commonly used SMART-SEQ method, in which a template-switch oligo base pairs with the non-templated nucleotide stretch and creates an extended template. The SMART-SEQ technology, taught by Ramsköld, utilizes a TSO primer in which the three nucleotides complementary to the untemplated nucleotides are ribonucleotides (Ramsköld: “The carefully designed SMARTer II A oligo (5′-AAGCAGTGGTATCAACGCAGAGTACATrGrGrG-3′, where r indicate ribonucleotide bases)”, Methods - Generation and amplification of Smart-Seq cDNA).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have modified the method of Cao in view of Regev with that of Salathia and Ramsköld. One would be motivated to use the template switching version of second strand synthesis taught by Salathia and Ramsköld given the assertion by Salathia that this is the “most commonly used method for single cell RNA-Seq”, therefore it would yield predictably successful generation of second strand DNA from mRNA templates (paragraph [0058]). One would be motivated to perform linear extension using primers comprising random nucleotides given the assertion by Salathia that randomers “expand the window of sequencable fragments to anywhere along the length of the transcript where a randomer can hybridize” (paragraph [0073]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Salathia successfully uses primers that contain random sequences of nucleotides.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (Cao et al., Science 2017; cited on IDS of 8/11/2023) in view of Regev (Regev et al., WO 2016040476 A1; cited on PTO-892 of 10/17/2025) as applied to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Fu (Fu et al., US 20160312276 A1; cited on PTO-892 of 10/17/2025).
The teachings of Cao in view of Regev as they apply to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 are detailed above. Relevant to the instantly rejected claims, Cao in view of Regev teaches a method of combinatorial indexing of cells via contacting with barcoded oligonucleotides in sequential reaction compartments. Cao in view of Regev teaches annealing a DNA oligonucleotide onto an RNA oligonucleotide and performing reverse transcription to obtain an elongated DNA oligonucleotide. Cao in view of Regev then teach performing second strand synthesis to generate double-stranded cDNA.
Cao in view of Regev do not teach that second strand synthesis comprises introducing nicks into the first oligonucleotide, extending the nicked oligonucleotides, and ligating the extended oligonucleotides. However, this method of second strand synthesis is known in the art, as taught by Fu.
Fu teaches a method of whole transcriptome amplification with barcoding (Abstract). Fu teaches hybridizing oligo dT molecules with stochastic barcodes to target mRNAs and then extending said oligos with reverse transcription to generate a first extended polynucleotide (paragraph [0004 and 0204]). Fu teaches synthesizing the second strand of polynucleotide by nicking the mRNA with an RNase to generate mRNA primers which are then extended by a polymerase (paragraph [0004 and 0204]). Fu then teaches ligating the extended segments with a ligase to generate the second strand polynucleotide (paragraph [0004 and 0204]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have modified the method of Cao in view of Regev with that of Fu. One would be motivated to perform this method of seconds strand synthesis given the teaching of Fu that this method allows for second strand synthesis without the addition of another primer and “can amplify the signal amplification by generating several second strand cDNAs for every first strand” (paragraph [0204 and 0329]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Fu successfully utilizes this method of second strand synthesis in working example 3 (paragraphs [0329-0331]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (Cao et al., Science 2017; cited on IDS of 8/11/2023) in view of Regev (Regev et al., WO 2016040476 A1; cited on PTO-892 of 10/17/2025) as applied to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 above, and further in view of Hindson (Hindson et al., US 20150376609 A1; cited on PTO-892 of 10/17/2025).
The teachings of Cao in view of Regev as they apply to claims 1, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 16, and 18-21 are detailed above. Relevant to the instantly rejected claims, Cao in view of Regev teaches a method of combinatorial indexing of cells via contacting with barcoded oligonucleotides in sequential reaction compartments. Cao in view of Regev teaches annealing a DNA oligonucleotide onto an RNA oligonucleotide and performing reverse transcription to obtain an elongated DNA oligonucleotide. Cao in view of Regev then teach performing second strand synthesis to generate double-stranded cDNA. Regev teaches the benefits of using microfluidic droplets as reaction compartments for partition-specific barcoding, indicating that droplet microfluidics “offers significant advantages for performing high-throughput screens and sensitive assays” through reduction in sample volume and increase in assay sensitivity (paragraph [0008]).
While Regev teaches attachment of barcoded oligonucleotides to microbeads for isolation into microfluid droplets with cells (paragraphs [00186, 00192, and 00197]), Cao in view of Regev does not teach release of the oligonucleotides from the beads upon formation of the droplet partitions. However, release of barcoded oligonucleotides from microbeads upon droplet formation with a target cell(s) is known in the art, as taught by Hindson.
Hindson teaches a method of partitioned analysis of cell populations and assessing cellular contents by generating partition-specific barcoded nucleic acids from the cells in each partition (paragraph [0006]). Hindson teaches that the oligonucleotides are reversibly attached to the beads and that upon co-partitioning into a droplet, the barcoded oligonucleotides are released (paragraphs [0007, 0008, 0079, 0082, 0085, 0090]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have modified the method of Cao in view of Regev with that of Hindson. One would be motivated to do so given that Hindson asserts that once released from the beads, the oligonucleotides can anneal to the complementary target region of the target nucleic acids released from the cells within the droplet (paragraphs [0091 and 0114]). One would have a reasonable expectation of success given that Hindson provides a working example in which barcoded oligonucleotides attached to beads are successfully co-partitioned with target cells and then the barcoded oligos are released from said bead to enable reverse transcription in the droplet. (Example 1, paragraph [0159]).
Response to Remarks
Applicants traverse the previous 103 rejections as described in the Office Action of 10/17/2025 on pages 7-10 of the Remarks filed on 4/17/2026. As noted above, the previous rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and new rejections have been made to address additional limitations that have been added. In response to Applicant’s specific arguments against the modification of Cao with the teachings of Regev have been fully considered but they are not deemed persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant argues that the “Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Cao by incorporating Regev’s microbead-based droplet system” (pg 8 of Remarks). However, as detailed above, Regev is replied upon for the teaching of delivering oligonucleotide-adorned beads to isolated compartments (which happen to be microfluidic droplets in the predominant embodiment of Regev). Cao teaches that multiple cells are delivered to each individual well with a compartment specific barcode, and Regev teaches that said barcodes can be supplied to individual compartments covalently attached to beads.
Applicant argues that “the intentional inclusion of more than one cell and or/or nucleus per microbead within a microfluid droplet is directly contrary to the teachings and operating principles of the cited art” (pg 8 of Remarks). However, as stated above, Regev is not relied upon for their methodology of barcoding, and is used as a teaching that it is known in the art to provide compartment specific barcodes via bead. Cao, which is the primary reference, teaches isolation of multiple cells per second compartment specific barcode in a method of combinatorial indexing.
Applicant argues that “increasing the number of cells per droplet would degrade, rather than improve, the quality of sequencing data” in the workflow of Regev. Regev is not being modified by the teachings of Cao. Additionally, Regev teaches that in some applications “multiple cells…may take the place of single cells or single molecules” in the encapsulation of droplets with beads (paragraph [0080]).
Applicant argues that “Cao is directed entirely to a plate-based, open reaction system” which is in contrast to the currently claimed system in which the second compartment is a microfluidic droplet (pg 8 of Remarks). Claim 1 does not require that either compartment is a droplet and therefore this argument must be directed to claim 16 which requires that the second compartment is a droplet. Regev is relied upon for teaching the advantages of using microfluidic droplets which, as noted above, can be loaded with multiple cells per bead. In terms of modification of the work flow to transition from open system to closed system, the workflow of switching between an open to a closed system is demonstrated by Regev in which beads are barcoded through a split-pool process and then loaded into the closed system of a microfluidics platform (paragraph [00195]). One of skill in the art would recognize that such preparation of substrates for a microfluidics platform is possible from an open to a closed system and therefore the adaptation of Cao to a microfluidics platform would be obvious.
Applicant argues that “combining pre-indexing with intentional droplet overloading…increases throughput by at least 15-fold, and in some implementations by 20-fold, 25-fold, or more” and that said method generates “approximately 150,000 single-cell transcriptomes per microfluidic channel” (pg 9 of Remarks). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., higher throughput (see above)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s traversal of the rejections of claims 2-5, 9, and 17 (pg 10 of Remarks) are dependent upon the deficiencies of Cao in view of Regev, which have been disputed above and therefore said arguments are not persuasive.
For these reasons, the 103 rejections of the claims as presented above are maintained.
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 KAILEY E CASH whose telephone number is (571)272-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm ET.
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, Anne Gussow can be reached at (571)272-6047. 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.
/KAILEY ELIZABETH CASH/Examiner, Art Unit 1683
/STEPHEN T KAPUSHOC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683
Prosecution Insights