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 .
Applicant's amendments and remarks, filed 03/03/2026, are acknowledged. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Status of Claims
Claims 34-50, 52-63 are under presently under examination.
Claims 1-33 and 51 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
The following rejection is maintained.
Claims 34-50, 52-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, in determining what concept the claim is “directed to,” we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)) (Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim contains an “‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’” the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82). In so doing, we thus consider whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine and conventional in the field” (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019).
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.(Guidance Step 2B). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-56.
Guidance Step 1:
The instant invention (claim 34 being representative) is directed to a method that performs a process. Thus, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention. MPEP 2106.03.
A. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
The Revised Guidance instructs us first to determine whether any judicial exception to patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The Revised Guidance identifies three judicially-excepted groupings identified by the courts as abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human behavior such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes. Regarding claim(s) 34 and 49 the claimed steps that are part of the abstract idea are as follows:
generating…an estimation of a chromosome frequency for a Y chromosome and the first autosome; (mental process; mathematical concept)
estimating a chromosome frequency for an Y chromosome and the first autosome; (mental process)
calculating a fetal nucleic acid proportion in the maternal blood, serum or plasma sample by analyzing a frequency of polymorphisms on at least one autosome; (mental process; mathematical concept)
calculating…values of likelihood that the Y chromosome is present in no copies, one copy or two or more copies in the maternal blood, serum or plasma sample using the calculated fetal nucleic acid proportion; (mental process; mathematical concept)
generating…a calculated risk of aneuploidy of the Y chromosome in the maternal blood, serum or plasma sample by comparing the values of likelihood to a first mathematic model assuming no copies of the Y chromosome, a second mathematic model assuming one copy of the Y chromosome, and a third mathematic model assuming two or more copies of the Y chromosome. (mental process; mathematical concept)
calculating a risk of aneuploidy of the Y chromosome in the maternal blood, serum or plasma sample by comparing the values of likelihood to a first mathematic model assuming one copy of the Y chromosome, a second mathematic model assuming two copies of the Y chromosome, and a third mathematic model assuming three copies of the Y chromosome (mental process; mathematical concept)
Mental Processes
With regards to said generating, estimating, calculating, and generating, these steps are all recited at a high level of generality (without any technological details directed to how they are performed). Under the BRI, these limitations encompass counting frequencies and calculating proportions or likelihood values, all of which can be performed by the human mind. Moreover, Applicant is reminded that the Office's eligibility guidance does not set limit on the number of calculations that can or cannot be performed mentally. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)III. The specification also provides sufficient evidence that the claims are directed to an abstract idea since the specific descriptions provided for accomplishing these tasks include algorithms for performing data analysis [see at least pages 46-47]. As such, but for the recitation of a computer, these steps encompass mental processes of observing chromosomal data, analyzing the data, and making a judgement. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), section III. [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES].
Mathematical Concept
With regards to calculating nucleic acid proportions and calculating values of likelihood, these steps are recited at a high level of generality (without any technological details or rules directed to how they are performed). Moreover, the artisan would recognize that these steps result in calculating numerical values. As such, these steps encompass a mathematical concept of manipulating information through mathematical calculations or correlations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Section I.
With regards generating and calculating a risk of aneuploidy, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (without any technological details or rules directed to how they are performed). Moreover, they require calculating new values by comparing the values of likelihood to a first mathematic model. Accordingly, these steps encompass a mathematical concept of manipulating information through mathematical correlations and/or calculations. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Section I.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because “[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.” In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See, e.g., SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a ‘‘series of mathematical calculations based on selected information’’ are directed to abstract ideas). See also Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. Therefore, when read in light of applicant’s own specification, the above limitations are directed to mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES].
Natural Correlation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above claims also recite a natural correlation. In particular, the instant claims require calculating numerical values associated with chromosomal loci wherein the score are associated with risk of aneuploidy (i.e. a particular disease). Therefore, the claims require determining a naturally occurring relationship between a subject’s chromosomal data and disease. See MPEP 2106.04(b). It is noted that even if a claim does recite a law of nature or natural phenomenon, it may still be eligible. For example, claims reciting a naturally occurring relationship between a patient’s genotype and the risk of QTc prolongation (a law of nature) were held eligible as not “directed to” that relationship because they also recited a step of treating the patient with an amount of a particular medication that was tailored to the patient’s genotype. Vanda Pharms., 887 F.3d at 1134-36, 126 USPQ2d at 1279-81. This particular treatment step applied the natural relationship in a manner that integrated it into a practical application. The court’s analysis in Vanda is equivalent to a finding of eligibility at Step 2A Prong Two (Pathway B).
B. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional steps/elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional steps/elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, the additional steps/elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception are as follows:
interrogating one or more Y chromosomal loci by hybridizing a first set of two or more sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes to twelve or more non-polymorphic loci and interrogating one or more loci on at least a first autosome by hybridizing a third set of two or more sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes to twelve or more non- polymorphic loci; (claims 34, 49);
ligating the hybridized first set of sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes and ligating the hybridized…set of sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes; (claims 34, 49);
amplifying the ligated first set of sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes and amplifying the ligated…set of sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes (claims 34, 49).
In this case, the interrogating, ligating, and amplifying steps are nothing more than steps directed to collecting data for use by the abstract idea. Accordingly, these steps amount to extra-solution activity and are not indicative of an integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
With regards to the model, this is recited at a high of generality (without any details regarding structure) and is interpreted as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and/or as a generic computer component used as tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, this additional element fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
With regard to the claimed computer processor and processor, these features are generically recited and merely used as tools to obtain information or perform the abstract idea. Moreover, applicant is reminded that “generic computer components such as a computer and database do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement.” See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, the courts have explained that the use of generic computer elements do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. See DDR Holdings (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, the additionally recited steps/elements amount to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Even when viewed in combination, these additional steps/elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) for a list of considerations when evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO].
C. Guidance Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above, the non-abstract steps/elements do not recite significantly more than the recited judicial exception. A review of the specification teaches a plurality of routine and conventional computer elements and devices for obtaining and processing data [pages 50-51] as well as conventional techniques for hybridization of probes to nucleic acid regions as well as ligation and amplification of probes [0021, 0092, 0171]. In addition, Oliphant et al. (US2012/0219950; Pub. Date: 08/30/2012; cited as “Prior Art not relied upon” in the previous Office Action) teaches conventional methods for interrogating samples using hybridization of multiple probes to loci, including non-polymorphic loci, and ligation of oligonucleotides [0021, 0027, 0154]; amplifying probes and selected nucleic acid regions [0019, 0094, 0096, 0099]; estimating chromosomal frequencies for X and Y chromosomes [0077-0078, Table 2, 0090, 0143, ref. claims 3-7, and para. 0012-0015]. Moreover, courts have also recognized the following laboratory techniques as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
ii. Using polymerase chain reaction to amplify and detect DNA, Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1377, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
v. Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546;
Taken alone or in combination, there is nothing unconventional with regards to the above non-abstract elements/steps. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(Part II). Therefore, the independent claim(s) as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself and are not patent eligible. [Step 2B: NO].
D. Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 35-48 and 50-63 have also been considered under the two-part analysis but do not include additional steps/elements appended to the judicial exception that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) for the following reasons. In particular, claims 35-48 and 50-63 are directed to limitations that further limit the specificity of the calculations being made (i.e. abstract idea) or the nature of the data being used by the abstract idea. Accordingly, these claims are also directed to an abstract idea for the reasons set forth above (Step 2A, prong 1 analysis). Regarding claim(s) 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, these claims further limit type or amount of data being interrogated which is still data collection (i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity). Accordingly, these steps are not indicative of an integration into a practical application and do not amount to significant more for reasons set forth above (Step 2A, prong 2 analysis, and Step 2B analysis). Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea (and/or natural correlation) without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/03/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides an improvement to the technology, namely by the ability to more efficiently determine and deliver time-sensitive healthcare information to a patient and by providing improved aneuploidy determination. In response to aggregate arguments, the MPEP is clear that the word "improvements" in the context of this consideration is limited to improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology/technical field, whether in Step 2A Prong Two or in Step 2B. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). In this case, applicant has not provided any objective evidence to support the case that the claims result in an improvement to the functioning of a computer and no such evidence is provided in the specification. Applicant has failed to identify any steps/elements appended to the abstract idea that provide for a new clinical technology (Step 2A, prong 2 or Step 2B) or provided any evidence of an unconventional combination of steps. Therefore, applicant is essentially arguing that the improvement is entirely in the realm of abstract ideas and that abstract idea is providing the improvement (by providing “better data”), However, Applicant is reminded that the claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed (i.e. the abstract idea) cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). It is also well settled that mere computer-based efficiency does not save an otherwise abstract method. Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (US.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1277-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (explaining that performance by computer of operations that previously were performed manually or mentally, albeit less efficiently, does not convert a known abstract idea into eligible subject matter). Similarly, the courts have also instructed that “[t]he different use of a mathematical calculation, even one that yields different or better results, does not render patent eligible subject matter.” Board Of Trustees Of Leland Stanford Junior University, 991 F.3d 1245, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2021). For these reasons, the examiner maintains that the claims do not provide an improvement to the technology (under Step 2A, prong 2, or Step 2B). See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Applicant additionally argues that the claimed invention is patent eligible because existing processes and methods for determining risks of Y chromosomal aneuploidy have limitations, including lower accuracy, and the claimed invention improves upon these by involving a safe and non-invasive procedure. In response, these aggregate arguments are not persuasive. As set forth above, the claims do not provide any improvement with regards to how the data is being obtained for subsequent analysis (Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B). The claims do not constitute a technological improvement to computer capabilities or an improvement to existing technology, but instead relate to an improvement to an apparent business practice (i.e. providing non-invasive treatment and better data). To the extent that fetal chromosomal testing is a business practice, the optimization of a business process through modification to perform it more efficiently (i.e., faster or cheaper) is a common economic act which is ordinarily performed in the course of conducting a business. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) citing Bilski, wherein the concept of optimizing a business practice recited in applicant’s claims "is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce." Alice, 573 U.S. at 216 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, the claimed invention also does not result in an “unconventional technological solution to a technical problem” and applicant has not provided any evidence that there is anything unconventional with regards to the additional steps/elements appended to the abstract idea. Indeed, the claim relies upon routine and conventional data collection steps in combination with the abstract idea steps. That is not the kind of “technological” improvement that suffices for patent eligibility. See also Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For these reasons, the examiner maintains that the claims do not provide an improvement to the technology (under Step 2A, prong 2, or Step 2B). See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Applicant additionally asserts that the instant claims are patent eligible in view of the Kingsley declaration (cited in parent application US 13/917,329). In response, this argument is not persuasive for the following reasons. Firstly, while the ‘329 claims are similar, they still recite different limitations and are therefore directed to a different fact pattern. In addition, the Kingsley declaration has not been filed in the instant application and therefore cannot be given full consideration.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patent eligible because they include elements that are not routine or conventional (by virtue of the lack of any rejections under 35 USC 102/103), and citing the Berkheimer memo. In response, Applicant is reminded that it is improper to conflate 35 USC 101 analysis with prior art analysis under 35 USC 102/103. It is additionally noted that the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See MPEP 2106.05. In other words, it is true that claims can be free of the prior art and yet still rejected under 35 USC 101. That being said, applicant has not provided any evidence to support their assertion. In addition, the Berkheimer Memo merely requires examiners to support their Step 2B analysis relating to non-abstract claim steps and/or elements being routine and conventional. In this case, the examiner has clearly met the criteria by: citing case law showing various laboratory techniques as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (e.g. Using polymerase chain reaction to amplify and detect DNA, Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1377, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546), applicant’s own specification showing conventional techniques for hybridization of probes to nucleic acid regions as well as ligation and amplification of probes [0021, 0092, 0171], and by additionally including the Oliphant et al. reference (which was cited as prior art not relied upon in the last Office Action). As such, absent any evidence to the contrary, the examiner maintains that the non-abstract steps and/or elements are indeed routine and conventional, as discussed above. Therefore, even upon reconsideration, there is nothing unconventional with regards to the above non-abstract elements/steps alone or in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(Part II).
Therefore, absent any evidence to the contrary, the rejection is maintained. For clarity of record, it is noted that any differences between the instant Office action and the previous Office action are nothing more than a change in the two-step analysis in response to the issues raised by Applicant, as discussed above, or necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims. In other words, the basic thrust of the rejection has remained the same, i.e. the claims are still directed to an abstract idea. This position is further supported by MPEP 1207.03, Part III.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112, 2nd Paragraph
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.
The following rejections are maintained.
Claims 34-50, 52-63 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims that depend directly or indirectly from claim(s) 34 and 49 are also rejected due to said dependency.
Claims 34 and 49 recite “generating…a calculated risk of aneuploidy of the Y chromosome in the maternal blood, serum or plasma sample by comparing the values of likelihood to a first mathematic model assuming no copies of the Y chromosome, a second mathematic model assuming one copy of the Y chromosome, and a third mathematic model assuming two or more copies of the Y chromosome.” This limitation is problematic for the following reasons. (1) With regards to said generating, it is unclear in what way “comparing” values to a mathematical model achieves the intended result of “calculating a risk of aneuploidy” since the artisan would recognize that comparing values and calculating a value are different operations (e.g. since comparisons do not necessarily require calculations). A review of the specification does not provide any limiting definition or guidance that would serve to clarify the issue. Clarification is requested via amendment.
(2) With regards to said “mathematical models”, it is unclear as to the metes and bounds of this term such that the artisan would know how to avoid infringement. In particular, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a mathematical model is generally understood to be a relationship between output variables and corresponding variables in a dataset via equations or rules. In this case, however, the model is not associated with any variables nor does it produce a numerical output and a review of the specification does not provide any limiting definition (e.g. equations, parameters, or prose equivalent) that would serve to clarify the scope. Clarification is requested via amendment.
(3) With regards to the claimed “assuming”, it is unclear what limiting effect is intended by this term. More specifically, it is unclear whether this phrase seeks to further limit the mathematical model (i.e. a mathematical assumption), the comparing step, the calculating step, or otherwise. Applicant is additionally reminded that claim scope is not limited by “conditional” limitations that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. See MPEP 2111.04. As a result, in each case, it is unclear what limiting effect of the claimed “calculating” step is intended by the “assuming” phrases. A review of the specification does not provide any limiting definition that would serve to clarify the scope. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/03/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant generally argues that a person reading claim 34 who is "skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification," as required under MPEP 2173.02. In response, the examiner has provided a reasonable analysis that sets forth the problematic aspects of the above claims and the above arguments do not address the specific issues that have been raised by the examiner. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained as applicant has not provided any illuminating arguments or clarifying amendments.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
Claims 34-50, 52-63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-20, 22-35 of US application 13,917,329 (now allowed as US Patent 11,270,781). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each for the following reasons:
In the present case, reference claim 1 of the ‘781 patent recites all the limitations of those required by instant claims 34 and 49 plus additional limitations. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, above instant claim(s) 34-63 is/are anticipated by the narrower reference claims of the issued patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s request that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance is denied, as applicant has not argued the merits of these rejections and no terminal disclaimer(s) in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.321 (c) have been filed to overcome these rejections, as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.130(b).
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 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 PABLO S WHALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4425. The examiner can normally be reached between 1pm-9pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anita Coope can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/PABLO S WHALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights