DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Amendment filed on March 23, 2026, has been received and entered.
Claim Disposition
3. Claims 1-15 and 23 have been cancelled. Claims 29-31 have been added. Claims 16-22 and 24-31 and are pending. Claims 16-22, 24-25 and 29-31 are under examination. Claims 26-28 are withdrawn from consideration as directed to a non-elected invention.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 26-30 been renumbered 26-31.
Claim objection
4. Claims 17-22, 24-25 and 29-31 are objected to for the following informalities:
For clarity according it is suggested that claims 17-22, 24-25 and 29-31 are amended to delete “according to” and instead recite “of” (i.e. “The composition of claim 16”).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
5. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or
a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claimed invention is directed to “a detergent composition comprising an amylase comprising a mixture of at least two different amylases that are at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 3 and 4 the encompasses a large variable genus of structures (fragments, derivatives, analogs etc., with the recitation of “at least 90% for instance, with one or more additional active components. The claimed invention also encompasses additional active components (claim 17) which encompasses a large variable genus. It is noted that these components can be surfactants, bleach catalysis, glass care agents, metal care agents etc.; however, the invention of claim 17 is not limited to that in combination with any amylase that is at least 90% identical to the structures of claim 16. Thus the claimed invention is not adequately described.
The claimed invention is not commensurate in scope with the disclosure and no correlation is made between structure and function (as a large variable genus of products are encompassed and not adequately described). The specification fails to provide a representative number of species for the claimed genus to show that applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A representative number of species means that the species, which are adequately described, are representative of the entire genus.
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, disclosure of drawings, or by disclosure of relevant identifying characteristics, for example, structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by
functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), states that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed" (See page 1117). The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed" (See Vas-Cath at page 1116). The skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed genus, and therefore, conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of isolation. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method of isolating it. The compound itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993).
Therefore, for all these reasons the specification lacks adequate written description, and one of skill in the art cannot reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the instant application was filed.
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.
6. Claims 18-20 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.
Claim 18 is indefinite for the recitation of “at least one of one or more”, because ‘at least one’ refers to ‘minimum one but can be two, or any greater amounts of items’ and ‘one or more’ refers to a minimum of one item but potentially many covering any amount greater than or equal to 1, thus one or the other phrase should be used but not both together. The dependent claims hereto are also included.
Claim 19 lacks clear antecedent basis for “the oner or more enzymes”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claim(s) 16-22, 24-25 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 2016/000972, of record in the application) in view of Andersen et al. (US Patent No. 10428321).
The primary reference teaches two amylases combined in a detergent composition, the second one (according to SEQ ID NO:2 of the cited document) having 100% identity to SEQ ID NO:1 of the present application, and variants thereof at positions 9, 26, 30, 33, 82, 37, 106, 1, 18, 128, 133, 149, 150, 160, 178, 182, 186, 193, 195, 202, 203, 214, 231, 256, 257, 258, 269, 270, 272, 283, 295, 296, 298, 299, 303, 304, 305, 311, 314, 315, 318, 319, 320, 323, 339, 345, 361, 378, 383, 419, 421, 437, 441, 444, 445, 446, 447, 450, 458, 461, 471, 482, and 484 and/or deletion at positions 183 and 184 (see for example, claim 3). Therefore, a detergent composition comprising two amylases with an amylase having at least 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1 (the parent amylase) of the application, and having a substitution at the positions corresponding to 9 in SEQ ID NO: 1. The primary reference is silent on the structure of SEQ ID NOs: 3 and 4, however, these structures and fragments thereof are known in the art. Andersen et al. is one such reference see the below alignment. Andersen et al. teaches amylase in a detergent, mixtures with amylases and other enzymes, surfactants and liquid/powder automatic dishwashing detergent (see the below excerpts). At paragraph [(25)] it is disclosed:
“Detergent composition: The term “detergent composition” as used herein, refers to a composition suitable for use within the field of detergents, such as for use in laundry and dish wash. A detergent composition may be in the form of a liquid or powder form, and may be suitable for both handwash or automated wash. Thus, the term “detergent composition” includes otherwise indicated by context, granular or powder-form all-purpose or heavy-duty washing agents, especially the so-called heavy-duty liquid (HDL) types; liquid fine-fabric detergents; hand dishwashing agents or light duty dishwashing agents, especially those of the high-foaming type; machine dishwashing agents, including the various tablet, granular, liquid and rinse-aid types for household and institutional use; liquid cleaning and disinfecting agents, including antibacterial hand-wash types, cleaning bars, soap bars, mouthwashes, denture cleaners, car or carpet shampoos, bathroom cleaners; hair shampoos and hair-rinses; shower gels, foam baths; metal cleaners; as well as cleaning auxiliaries such as bleach additives and “stain-stick” or pre-treat types. The terms “detergent composition” and “detergent formulation” are used in reference to mixtures which are intended for use in a wash medium for the cleaning of soiled objects. In some embodiments, the term is used in reference to laundering fabrics and/or garments (e.g., “laundry detergents”). In alternative embodiments, the term refers to other detergents, such as those used to clean dishes, cutlery, etc. (e.g., “dishwashing detergents”). It is not intended that the present invention be limited to any particular detergent formulation or composition. The term “detergent composition” is not intended to be limited to compositions that contain surfactants. It is intended that in addition to the variants herein described, the detergents compositions may comprise, e.g., surfactants, builders, chelators or chelating agents, bleach system or bleach components, polymers, fabric conditioners, foam boosters, suds suppressors, dyes, perfume, tannish inhibitors, optical brighteners, bactericides, fungicides, soil suspending agents, anti corrosion agents, enzyme inhibitors or stabilizers, enzyme activators, transferase(s), hydrolytic enzymes, oxido reductases, bluing agents and fluorescent dyes, antioxidants, and/or solubilizers”.
It is also disclosed at paragraph [(41)] that, ‘It is known in the art that a host cell may produce a mixture of two of more different mature polypeptides (i.e., with a different C-terminal and/or N-terminal amino acid) expressed by the same polynucleotide”. Further at paragraph [(365)] additional amylases are disclosed and paragraph [(366)] provides a list: “suitable amylases which may be used together with the enzyme preparation of the invention may be an alpha-amylase, a pullulanase or a glucoamylase and may be of bacterial or fungal origin. Chemically modified or protein engineered variants are included. Amylases include, for example, alpha-amylases obtained from Bacillus, e.g., a special strain of Bacillus licheniformis, described in more detail in GB 1,296,839.
(367) Suitable amylases include amylases having SEQ ID NO: 2 in WO 95/10603 or variants having 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 3 thereof. Preferred variants are described in WO 94/02597, WO 94/18314, WO 97/43424 and SEQ ID NO: 4 of WO 99/019467, such as variants with substitutions in one or more of the following positions: 15, 23, 105, 106, 124, 128, 133, 154, 156, 178, 179, 181, 188, 190, 197, 201, 202, 207, 208, 209, 211, 243, 264, 304, 305, 391, 408, and 444.
(368) Different suitable amylases include amylases having SEQ ID NO: 6 in WO 02/010355 or variants thereof having 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6. Preferred variants of SEQ ID NO: 6 are those having a deletion in positions 181 and 182 and a substitution in position 193.
(369) Other amylases which are suitable are hybrid alpha-amylase comprising residues 1-33 of the alpha-amylase derived from B. amyloliquefaciens shown in SEQ ID NO: 6 of WO 2006/066594 and residues 36-483 of the B. licheniformis alpha-amylase shown in SEQ ID NO: 4 of WO 2006/066594 or variants having 90% sequence identity thereof. Preferred variants of this hybrid alpha-amylase are those having a substitution, a deletion or an insertion in one of more of the following positions: G48, T49, G107, H156, A181, N190, M197, I201, A209 and Q264. Most preferred variants of the hybrid alpha-amylase comprising residues 1-33 of the alpha-amylase derived from B. amyloliquefaciens shown in SEQ ID NO: 6 of WO 2006/066594 and residues 36-483 of SEQ ID NO: 4 are those having the substitutions: M197T; H156Y+A181T+N190F+A209V+Q264S; or G48A+T49I+G107A+H156Y+A181T+N190F+I201F+A209V+Q264S.
(370) Further amylases which are suitable are amylases having SEQ ID NO: 6 in WO 99/019467 or variants thereof having 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 6. Preferred variants of SEQ ID NO: 6 are those having a substitution, a deletion or an insertion in one or more of the following positions: R181, G182, H183, G184, N195, I206, E212, E216 and K269. Particularly preferred amylases are those having deletion in positions R181 and G182, or positions H183 and G184.
(371) Additional amylases which may be used are those having SEQ ID NO: 1, SEQ ID NO: 3, SEQ ID NO: 2 or SEQ ID NO: 7 of WO 96/023873 or variants thereof having 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1, SEQ ID NO: 2, SEQ ID NO: 3 or SEQ ID NO: 7. Preferred variants of SEQ ID NO: 1, SEQ ID NO: 2, SEQ ID NO: 3 or SEQ ID NO: 7 are those having a substitution, a deletion or an insertion in one or more of the following positions: 140, 181, 182, 183, 184, 195, 206, 212, 243, 260, 269, 304 and 476, using SEQ ID NO: 2 of WO 96/023873 for numbering. More preferred variants are those having a deletion in two positions selected from 181, 182, 183 and 184, such as 181 and 182, 182 and 183, or positions 183 and 184. Most preferred amylase variants of SEQ ID NO: 1, SEQ ID NO: 2 or SEQ ID NO: 7 are those having a deletion…..”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed invention as a whole because the combined teaching of the references renders the claims as obvious. The references are considered to be analogous art, thus motivation to combine exists.
Moreover, the Supreme Court pointed out in KSR, “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. The Court thus reasoned that the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103 "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the “inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 1741. The Court further advised that “[a] person of ordinary skill is…a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation.” Id. at 1742. Therefore, the claimed invention was obvious to make and use at the time the invention was made and was prima facie obvious.
Alignment
RESULT 3 (SEQ ID NO:3)
US-15-317-881C-40
Sequence 40, US/15317881C
Patent No. 10428321
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Novozymes A/S
TITLE OF INVENTION: Alpha amylase variants
FILE REFERENCE: 12706-WO-PCT
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/317,881C
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2016-12-09
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 41
SEQ ID NO 40
LENGTH: 485
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: synthetic construct
Query Match 99.7%; Score 2710; Length 485;
Best Local Similarity 99.8%;
Matches 484; Conservative 0; Mismatches 1; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 HHDGTNGTIMQYFEWNVPNDGQHWNRLHNNAQNLKNAGITAIWIPPAWKGTSQNDVGYGA 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 HHDGTNGTIMQYFEWNVPNDGQHWNRLHNNAQNLKNAGITAIWIPPAWKGTSQNDVGYGA 60
Qy 61 YDLYDLGEFNQKGTVRTKYGTKAELERAIRSLKANGIQVYGDVVMNHKGGADFTERVQAV 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 YDLYDLGEFNQKGTVRTKYGTKAELERAIRSLKANGIQVYGDVVMNHKGGADFTERVQAV 120
Qy 121 EVNPQNRNQEVSGTYQIEAWTGFNFPGRGNQHSSFKWRWYHFDGTDWDQSRQLANRIYKF 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 EVNPQNRNQEVSGTYQIEAWTGFNFPGRGNQHSSFKWRWYHFDGTDWDQSRQLANRIYKF 180
Qy 181 RGDGKAWDWEVDTENGNYDYLMYADVDMDHPEVINELNRWGVWYANTLNLDGFRLDAVKH 240
|| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 RGTGKAWDWEVDTENGNYDYLMYADVDMDHPEVINELNRWGVWYANTLNLDGFRLDAVKH 240
Qy 241 IKFSFMRDWLGHVRGQTGKNLFAVAEYWKNDLGALENYLSKTNWTMSAFDVPLHYNLYQA 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 IKFSFMRDWLGHVRGQTGKNLFAVAEYWKNDLGALENYLSKTNWTMSAFDVPLHYNLYQA 300
Qy 301 SNSSGNYDMRNLLNGTLVQRHPSHAVTFVDNHDTQPGEALESFVQGWFKPLAYATILTRE 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 SNSSGNYDMRNLLNGTLVQRHPSHAVTFVDNHDTQPGEALESFVQGWFKPLAYATILTRE 360
Qy 361 QGYPQVFYGDYYGIPSDGVPSYRQQIDPLLKARQQYAYGRQHDYFDHWDVIGWTREGNAS 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 QGYPQVFYGDYYGIPSDGVPSYRQQIDPLLKARQQYAYGRQHDYFDHWDVIGWTREGNAS 420
Qy 421 HPNSGLATIMSDGPGGSKWMYVGRQKAGEVWHDMTGNRSGTVTINQDGWGHFFVNGGSVS 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 HPNSGLATIMSDGPGGSKWMYVGRQKAGEVWHDMTGNRSGTVTINQDGWGHFFVNGGSVS 480
Qy 481 VWVKR 485
|||||
Db 481 VWVKR 485
ESULT 3(SEQ ID NO:4)
US-15-317-881C-40
Sequence 40, US/15317881C
Patent No. 10428321
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Novozymes A/S
TITLE OF INVENTION: Alpha amylase variants
FILE REFERENCE: 12706-WO-PCT
CURRENT APPLICATION NUMBER: US/15/317,881C
CURRENT FILING DATE: 2016-12-09
NUMBER OF SEQ ID NOS: 41
SEQ ID NO 40
LENGTH: 485
TYPE: PRT
ORGANISM: Artificial Sequence
FEATURE:
OTHER INFORMATION: synthetic construct
Query Match 99.7%; Score 2710; Length 485;
Best Local Similarity 99.8%;
Matches 484; Conservative 0; Mismatches 1; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 1 HHDGTNGTIMQYFEWNVPNDGQHWNRLHNNAQNLKNAGITAIWIPPAWKGTSQNDVGYGA 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 HHDGTNGTIMQYFEWNVPNDGQHWNRLHNNAQNLKNAGITAIWIPPAWKGTSQNDVGYGA 60
Qy 61 YDLYDLGEFNQKGTVRTKYGTKAELERAIRSLKANGIQVYGDVVMNHKGGADFTERVQAV 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 YDLYDLGEFNQKGTVRTKYGTKAELERAIRSLKANGIQVYGDVVMNHKGGADFTERVQAV 120
Qy 121 EVNPQNRNQEVSGTYQIEAWTGFNFPGRGNQHSSFKWRWYHFDGTDWDQSRQLANRIYKF 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 EVNPQNRNQEVSGTYQIEAWTGFNFPGRGNQHSSFKWRWYHFDGTDWDQSRQLANRIYKF 180
Qy 181 RGDGKAWDWEVDTENGNYDYLMYADVDMDHPEVINELNRWGVWYANTLNLDGFRLDAVKH 240
|| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 RGTGKAWDWEVDTENGNYDYLMYADVDMDHPEVINELNRWGVWYANTLNLDGFRLDAVKH 240
Qy 241 IKFSFMRDWLGHVRGQTGKNLFAVAEYWKNDLGALENYLSKTNWTMSAFDVPLHYNLYQA 300
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 IKFSFMRDWLGHVRGQTGKNLFAVAEYWKNDLGALENYLSKTNWTMSAFDVPLHYNLYQA 300
Qy 301 SNSSGNYDMRNLLNGTLVQRHPSHAVTFVDNHDTQPGEALESFVQGWFKPLAYATILTRE 360
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 301 SNSSGNYDMRNLLNGTLVQRHPSHAVTFVDNHDTQPGEALESFVQGWFKPLAYATILTRE 360
Qy 361 QGYPQVFYGDYYGIPSDGVPSYRQQIDPLLKARQQYAYGRQHDYFDHWDVIGWTREGNAS 420
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 361 QGYPQVFYGDYYGIPSDGVPSYRQQIDPLLKARQQYAYGRQHDYFDHWDVIGWTREGNAS 420
Qy 421 HPNSGLATIMSDGPGGSKWMYVGRQKAGEVWHDMTGNRSGTVTINQDGWGHFFVNGGSVS 480
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 421 HPNSGLATIMSDGPGGSKWMYVGRQKAGEVWHDMTGNRSGTVTINQDGWGHFFVNGGSVS 480
Qy 481 VWVKR 485
|||||
Db 481 VWVKR 485
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant’s comments have been considered in full. Withdrawn objections/rejections will not be discussed herein as applicant’s comments are moot. Note that some objections remain over the claim language. Applicant states that to advance prosecution, claims are amended, however, not all the claims were amended. Since the issues raised were not addressed or amended they remain.
Note also the 112 first paragraph rejection, written description remains over claims 16-17 because the language is overly broad. It is suggested that claim 17 is merged with claim 18 to define the ‘components’.
Regarding the art rejection, applicant traverses the rejection by stating that the claims have been amended and Anderson does not teach or suggest a detergent composition comprising a mixture of at least two different amylases. This argument is not persuasive because the amylases set forth in SEQ ID NO:3 and 4 are well established in the art in detergent compositions, thus to combine them provides the benefit of added effect. There are several references such as the one cited that teaches both SEQ ID NOs:3 and 4 in the same reference thus for routine optimization the ordinary person in the field would know to try these in combination or singly. Thus applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection remains.
Conclusion
10. No claims are presently allowable.
11. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new/modified 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOPE A ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-0957. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm on Monday to Friday.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached on (408) 918-7584. 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.
/HOPE A ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights