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 .
Claims status
Claims 190, 192, 195-196, 198, 201-202, 203, 204, 207- 209, 210-217 is/are currently pending with claims 203, 204, 207-209 is/are withdrawn. Claims 190, 192, 195-196, 198, 201-202, 210-217 is/are under examination.
Priority – Updated due to Specification amendments
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/970,588, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The disclosure in `588 does not provide support for the claims 190, 192, 195-196, 198, 201-202, 210-217 that specifically recite targeting intron 2 of the BCL11A gene. The disclosure in `588 does not disclose intron 2 of BCL11A gene (as instantly recited in claims 190, 196) or the enhancer region within this intron (as instantly recited in claims 192, 198) or the specifically recited DHS sites of claims 210-217. Furthermore, none of the sequences claimed in claims 195 and 201 were disclosed in `588.
Instant specification is amended to delete recitation of duplicate sequences and better identify sequences in the instant specification that were provided in the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/084,487. Sequences now claimed in claims 195 and 201 find support in prior-filed application, Application No. 62/084,487.
Taken together, claims 190, 192, 195, 196, 198, 201, 202, 210-217 have priority date of 11/25/2014 based on Application No. 62/084,487.
Claim Objections – New, necessitated by claim amendments
Claim 195 and 201 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims are amended to recite “a targeting domain sequence consisting of SEQ ID NOs 4835, […], 4847-49, 4852-59”. No conjunction is recited in the Markush group. Based on Applicant’s remarks filed 5/27/2026, these sequences are alternatives (page 8, para 2). Thus, following correction is recommended: “a targeting domain sequence consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 4835, […], 4847-49, or 4852-59”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 210 and 214 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims are amended to recite “the targeting domain is complimentary to a target domain between +52.0 to +64.4 kilobases (kb) from a Transcription Start Site”. In the remarks filed 5/27/2026, Applicant state that the amended claims clarify that “the targeting domain is complementary to a target domain that is between +52.0 to +64.4 kb from the TSS of the BCL11A gene” (emphasis added; page 7, last para). In order to present a proper relationship between the target domain and the +52.0 to +64.4 kilobases (kb) from a Transcription Start Site, use of “that is”, as is mentioned in the remarks, is required. Thus, following correction is recommended: “the targeting domain is complimentary to a target domain that is between +52.0 to +64.4 kilobases (kb) from a Transcription Start Site”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Withdrawn
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.
Rejection of Claims 210-217 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 is withdrawn in light of claim amendments and arguments presented in the remarks filed 5/27/2026 (page 7, last para). Applicant state that the claim clarifies that “the targeting domain is complementary to a target domain that is between +52.0 to +64.4 kb from the TSS of the BCL11A gene”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - Withdrawn
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.
Rejection of Claims 195 and 201 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in light of claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) - Withdrawn
Improper Dependence Rejection
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Rejection of Claims 195 and 201 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn because claims are amended to recite SEQ IDs that target only intron 2, and not other regions, as was previously recited.
Improper Markush Rejection
Rejection of Claims 195 and 201 on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives is withdrawn because claims are amended to recite SEQ IDs that target only intron 2 and function with only SpCas9, and not other regions or CRISPR enzymes, as was previously recited.
Claim interpretation - Reiterated
On page 67, the specification defines “A gRNA molecule, as that term is used herein, refers to a nucleic acid that promotes the specific targeting or homing of a gRNA molecule/Cas9 molecule complex to a target nucleic acid”.
Claim 192 and 198 recite gRNAs comprising targeting domain “configured to” target an enhancer region of the BCL11A gene. These claims depend from claim 190 and 196 respectively, that each require the targeting domain to be complementary to a target domain in intron 2 of BCL11A gene. Thus, the phrase “configured to” in claims 192 and 198 are interpreted such that the targeting domains are configured to a target due to complementarity to the target. Furthermore, since claim 190 and 196 require the target domain to be in intron 2 of BCL11A gene, it is interpreted that the “enhancer region” recited in claims 192 and 198 are enhancer regions within intron 2 of BCL11A gene. These claims maybe amended to reflect this interpretation in the following way: “wherein said targeting domain is complementary to the target domain in an enhancer region within intron 2 of the BCL11A gene”.
Similarly, for claims 210-217, it is interpreted that the TSS+52kB to TSS+64.4kb is a region within intron 2 of BCL11A gene.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Maintained
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 190, 192, 195, 196, 198, 201, 210-217 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canver et al (THE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY VOL. 289, NO. 31, pp. 21312–21324, August 1, 2014) in view of Bauer et al (SCIENCE VOL 342 11 OCTOBER 2013; IDS 4/21/2022) and BCL11A gene from hg19 RefSeq (Genome assembly GRCh37; Feb 2009, available through UCSC Genome Browser; Sequence for BCL11A gene from hg19 attached in PTO-892).
Regarding claims 190, 196 and 202, Canver teaches plasmid pSpCas9(BB) i.e. a nucleic acid in which sequences encoding gRNA molecules that target intronic sequences within a genome are cloned into and comprises sequences encoding SpCas9, as required by claim 202 (Figure 1A, Experimental Procedures: CRISPR Design and Creation). Canver teaches that “A strategy of using two DSBs to create a deletion of the intervening segment by NHEJ has previously been successfully applied using zinc finger nucleases, TAL effector nucleases, and CRISPR systems (6, 20–25). However, the efficiency, reliability, and genomic outcomes of using pairs of CRISPRs to introduce genomic deletions remain incompletely characterized. Here, we sought to test the capability and efficiency of creating deletions in mammalian cell lines. Our results indicate that the CRISPR/Cas9 system is a powerful tool for the robust and dependable generation of genomic deletions.” (page 21313, col. 1, para 2). Herein reference 21 is Bauer et al (SCIENCE VOL 342 11 OCTOBER 2013).
Canver exemplifies the use of CRISPR/Cas9 system that uses gRNAs by targeting distinct sequences (exonic, intronic, intergenic) in different loci on different chromosomes (Figure 1A, B).
Canver teaches methods to design gRNAs and nucleic acids encoding the gRNA. On page 21312, col. 2, para 1, Canver teaches that for SpCas9 sgRNA “Site-specific cleavage is directed by complementarity of the sgRNA to a 20-bp genomic sequence (protospacer) immediately 5’ of a protospacer-adjacent motif (PAM), which is NGG for SpCas9”. In the Experimental Procedures: CRISPR Design and Creation, Canver teaches that using RefSeq (human genome sequence from NCBI) and publicly available on-line tools, sgRNAs can be designed with minimized off-target effects which can be cloned into Cas9 encoding plasmid pSpCas9(BB). Referencing Bauer again, Canver teaches that “The CRISPR-mediated deletion strategy appears particularly suited for the study of noncoding regulatory DNA where frame-shift
mutations do not pertain (21)” (page 21323, col. 2, para 4).
Canver does not explicitly teach targeting an enhancer region within intron 2 of BCL11A gene (as recited in claims 190, 192, 196, 198), specifically wherein the enhancer region comprises the DNAse 1 hypersensitivity sites of TSS+55kb, TSS+58kb or TSS+62kB (as recited in claims 210-217). Thus, Canver does not explicitly teach a gRNA with a targeting domain complementary to an enhancer region within intron 2 of BCL11A gene that comprises the DNAse 1 hypersensitivity sites of TSS+55kb, TSS+58kb or TSS+62kB or the specifically recited sequences for the targeting domain in claims 195 and 201.
However, these regions and targeting these regions by TAL-effectors, as already mentioned by Carver, was taught by Bauer.
Bauer teaches that TSS+55kb, TSS+58kb or TSS+62kB sites in the BCLA11 gene are DNAse 1 hypersensitivity sites in intron 2 of this gene and these are enhancer regions (Figure 1; page 254, col. 2, para 1, and col. 3, para 1; as required by claims 190, 192, 196, 198, 210-217).
Furthermore, Bauer also teaches targeting these enhancer regions using TALEN-based genome engineering technique in a mouse cell wherein a TALEN pair was used to target +50kbTSS and +60.4kbTSS to delete the target region within TSS+52kb to TSS+64.4kb (Figure S7; Supplementary: Materials and Methods: TALEN-mediated chromosomal deletion). Bauer teaches that deletion of the enhancer region increases embryonic globin expression and thus shows its utility for treatment of sickle cell disease (Figure S9).
The chromosomal locations taught by Bauer are in reference to hg19 human genome reference sequence (Supplementary: Materials and Methods: Fine-mapping BCL11A locus).
hg19 Ref Seq teaches the sequence for the entire BCL11A gene, including the sequence for intron 2 and the location of DHS sites within this intron is taught by Bauer (see BCL11A gene sequence from hg19 with intron 2 start and end sites highlighted in blue in PTO-892).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Canver to design a gRNA that comprises a targeting domain complementary to a target domain in intron 2 of BCL11A gene, such that the gRNA targets the DHS sites in the enhancer region in intron 2 in the BCLA11 gene (such as TSS+55kb, TSS+58kb or TSS+62kB), as taught by Bauer and sequence taught by hg19 RefSeq. Such a design would predictably yield a gRNA molecule as claimed. An ordinary artisan would be motivated to design such a gRNA because Canver teaches CRISPR/Cas9 systems, that use gRNAs, are a powerful tool for robust and dependable generation of genomic deletions and can be used as alternatives to methods such as taught by Bauer where TALENs was used to target BCL11A DHS sites in intron 2. An ordinary artisan reasonably expects to generate a gRNA targeting BCL11A intron 2 DHS sites because Canver teaches methods to design gRNAs using publicly available tools such publicly available genomic sequences (such as RefSeq) and gRNA selection tools, Bauer teaches the chromosomal location of each of the DHS sites in the BCL11A intron 2 (Supplementary: Materials and Methods: Fine-mapping BCL11A locus) and hg19 taught the sequence for intron 2 of BCL11A gene. Specifically, Canver taught the method to design gRNAs that have a 20bp targeting domain complementary the target domain that is next to a NGG PAM sequence for a SpCas9-gRNA (page 21312, col. 2, para 1). An ordinary artisan would reasonably expect to use this method to identify target domains in intron 2 of BCL11A gene resulting in several targetable domains which would be the same as listed in claim 195 and 201. An ordinary artisan would identify target sequences complementary to SEQ ID NOs 16261 and 16262 that are upstream of a NGG PAM within intron 2 and thus design gRNAs comprising SEQ ID NOs 16261 and 16262 to target these sequences in intron 2, amongst other testable gRNA sequences. A list of targetable domains could be identified using Canver’s method and hg19 BCL11A intron sequence, such as the several listed in claims 195 and 201 without requiring any inventive ingenuity.
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.
Double Patenting - Maintained
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). 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); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 190, 192, 195-196, 198, 201-202, 210-217 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,242,525. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 12 in `525 are methods of altering a cell that disclose a gRNA with the structure that is identical to the claimed gRNA and a Cas9 molecule. Claims 1, 12 in `525 discloses a gRNA that comprises a targeting domain with SEQ ID NOs 16261-16279 which are identical to claimed SEQ ID NOs: 4836-4859. See Applicant’s remarks filed 5/27/2026 and substitute specification that identifies that these sequences are duplicates (page 5-7). These sequences are identical to instantly claimed sequences in claims 195 and 201 which target DHS enhancer region in intron 2 of BCL11A gene, as recited in claims 190, 192, 196, 198, 210-217. Claim 21 in `525 further recite the gRNA and Cas9 are encoded by a nucleic acid, as instantly claimed for claims 196, 198, 201, 214-217. Therefore, in teaching a method that uses the instantly claimed gRNA and a nucleic acid encoding the claimed gRNA, claims 1, 12 and 21 in `525 render obvious the instantly claimed gRNA and nucleic acid encoding the claimed gRNA.
Claims 190, 192, 196, 198, 210-217 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11, 13-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,963,982. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 in `982 are directed to a system and a method of altering a genome of a cell and method of treating a hemoglobinopathy that each disclose a gRNA. Claims 2-6 that depend from claim 1, claims 8-11 that depend from claim 7 and claims 14-17 that depend from claim 13 each identify that the target for the gRNA in claims 1, 7 and 13 is BCL11A gene, DHS in intron 2 that +58TSS.
Therefore, in teaching a system and methods that uses a gRNA that is a nucleic acid and targets intron 2 in BCL11A gene at DHS sites, claims 11-11, 13-17 in `982 render obvious the instantly claimed gRNA of claims 190, 192, 196, 198, 210-217.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 regarding U.S.C. 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Application argue that “the cited references do not teach or suggest targeting within the BCLI IA enhancer region with a gRNA.” because Canver “does not teach or suggest designing individual gRNAs for single-site targeting of enhancer elements.” and “Bauer employed TALENs to excise the entire -10 kb enhancer region of BCL11A, not to target specific sequences within it. Bauer at 255-256. The prior art thus consistently points a skilled artisan toward deletion of the entire enhancer using paired nucleases, not toward targeting individual positions within it with a single gRNA. Neither Canver nor Bauer teaches or suggests that a gRNA with a targeting domain complementary to a target domain within the enhancer region, as recited in claims 192 and 198, or within specific DHS sites, as recited in claims 210-217, would be useful or desirable.” (page 10, para 2).
In response, pairs comprise two individual single gRNAs. Thus, in rendering obvious two gRNA, the prior art renders obvious each of the two gRNA in a pair. Furthermore, the instant specification also uses gRNA pairs, and envisions methods requiring at least two breaks using gRNA pairs. See “Methods of Altering BCL11A”, wherein when altering BCL11A gene by deletion of a genomic sequence in the erythroid enhancer of BCL11A gene, the specification states “methods described herein introduce two or more breaks to flank the erythroid enhancer” (page 50, last para). Similarly, see “NHEJ-mediated deletion of the erythroid enhancer of the SCD target position”, stating “the method comprises the introduction of two double strand breaks -one 5’ and the other 3’ to (i.e., flanking) the SCD target position (e.g. the erythroid enhancer).” (page 53, last para). Although, individual gRNAs were used in example 4 but this was for screening purposes and pairs of gRNA were used in example 5 that tested “Deletion of the Erythroid Enhancer Elements Using Two gRNAs Flanking the Sequence”. Thus, the usefulness or desirableness of singular gRNAs is not established in the instant specification.
Of note, the claims are directed to gRNAs and not methods of using single or paired gRNAs. Methods using pair of gRNA, render obvious making each of the gRNA in the pair thus render obvious each of the gRNA in the pair.
Next, Applicant argue “the cited references do not provide a basis for selecting a single position within a DHS site to target. Bauer demonstrated that the enhancer is a composite element comprising three distinct DHS sites (+55, +58, +62), each with independent GATA1 and TAL1 transcription factor occupancy, with functional SNPs acting combinatorially. Bauer at 253-256. Given this composite architecture, there is no teaching or suggestion in the cited references to pursue targeting a single position within one DHS site rather than deleting the entire composite element as Bauer did. The enhancer region spans approximately 12.4 kb and contains hundreds of potential target sites, and neither Canver, Bauer, nor hg 19 provides any guidance on selecting a specific position within a DHS site to target with a gRNA.” (page 11, para 1).
In response, this argument is similar to the one presented and addressed above. The claims are directed to gRNAs and not methods of using single or paired gRNAs. Methods using pair of gRNA, render obvious making each of the gRNA in the pair thus render obvious each of the gRNA in the pair. There is no requirement that claimed gRNAs be used individually.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 regarding NSDP rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant state that “will address the double patenting rejections upon indication of otherwise allowable subject matter” and “reserves the right to file terminal disclaimers over U.S. Patent Nos. 11,242,525 and 11,963,982 at the appropriate time” (page 12, para 1).
This response is acknowledged. Rejection is maintained till the time rejection is addressed or TD filed.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATASHA DHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm (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 Jr. can be reached at (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 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.
/MATASHA DHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1632
/ANOOP K SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1632
Prosecution Insights