DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s Amendment/Remarks filed 9/9/2025.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2 and 8 have been amended. Claims 4 and 15 are cancelled. No claims are newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-14 and 16-22 remain pending in the application. Claims 8-14 and 16-22 stand withdrawn from further consideration, without traverse. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are currently under examination.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 stands 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 2 recites, “wherein a time release of the at least one morphogen is varied via changing a composition of the nanogel to change a time release duration of the at least one morphogen”. Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 sets out the components of the nanogel composition (i.e., polyethylene oxide macromer, lactide-glycolide, and an acrylate functional group). The claim is indefinite because it is unclear the metes and bounds of what encompasses “changing a composition”. Changing a composition usually indicates that a component or components are added, modified or removed, however the removal of a component would render the claim not properly further limiting the subject matter of claim 1 and there is no indication what added or modified structural components would have the claimed effect of changing the time release duration of a morphogen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 9/9/2025, regarding the 112(b) rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim has been amended to obviate the rejection. Remarks, page 8.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that while the claim has been amended, the indefinite issue remains. As the rejection explains, it is unclear the metes and bounds of what encompasses “changing a composition”. Claim 1 sets out the components of the nanogel composition (i.e., polyethylene oxide macromer, lactide-glycolide, and an acrylate functional group). Changing a composition usually indicates that a component or components are added, modified or removed, however the removal of a component would render the claim not properly further limiting the subject matter of claim 1 and there is no indication what added or modified structural components would have the claimed effect of changing the time release duration of a morphogen. Furthermore, the instant specification does not give guidance as to what is meant by “changing a composition of the nanogel” to yield the effect of changing the time release duration of a morphogen.
Thus, for these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive. Said rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jabbari (US 2018/0256780 A1, Sep. 13, 2018, hereafter as “Jabbari”) in view of Sutherland et al. (“Decellularized Cartilage May Be a Chondroinductive Material for Osteochondral Tissue Engineering”, PLOS ONE, 2015, 10(5): e0121966, pp. 1-13; hereafter as “Sutherland”), and Stephenson et al. (“Recent advances in bioreactors for cell-based therapies”, F1000 Faculty Rev:517, Apr 2018, pp. 1-9; hereafter as “Stephenson”).
The instant invention is drawn to a method for forming a novel monolayer implant construct comprising: forming at least one nanogel in at least one microcapsule via; chain extending at least one first polyethylene oxide macromer with at least one lactide-glycolide; terminating at least one chain end with an acrylate functional group; crosslinking the at least one first polyethylene oxide macromer with at least one lactide-glycolide terminated on at least one chain end with an acrylate functional group with a second polyethylene oxide macromer with at least one lactide- glycolide terminated on at least one chain end with an acrylate functional group to form at least one nanogel; and conjugating at least one morphogen to the at least one nanogel to form at least one morphogen-encapsulated nanogel; forming at least one cartilage microparticle from articular cartilage wherein the at least one cartilage microparticle is decellularized; transferring the at least one cartilage microparticle to a cell culture bioreactor containing at least one cell culture medium wherein at least one cell adheres to the at least one cartilage microparticle; forming a suspension comprising the at least one cartilage microparticle with at least one cell adhered, the at least one morphogen-encapsulated nanogel, and at least one crosslinking agent in a tissue culture medium; and allowing the suspension to settle via gravity onto a predefined shaped mold and employing a cross-linking initiator to form a cross-linked monolayer implant comprising solid, fused decellularized cartilage microparticles entrapping the at least one morphogen encapsulated nanogel in a matrix of the solid, fused decellularized cartilage microparticles.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 7, Jabbari teaches compositions and implants for articular cartilage repair or regeneration, wherein said composition comprises nano-sized particles (i.e., nanogels) that include a crosslinked polymer conjugated to a signaling molecule (e.g., a morphogen) that stimulate articular cartilage formation or repair (abstract; [0007] and [0030]). Jabbari teaches a method of forming a multi-layered articular cartilage implant comprising a first composition that includes microcapsule/nanogel composites that stimulate formation or repair of the superficial zone of articular cartilage, a second composition that includes microcapsule/nanogel composites in which a polymer of the nanogels is conjugated with a signaling molecule that stimulates formation or repair of the middle zone of articular cartilage, and a third composition that includes microcapsule/nanogel composites in which a polymer of the nanogels is conjugated with a signaling molecule that stimulates formation or repair of the calcified zone of articular cartilage ([0012]). Fig. 1 of Jabbari illustrates the process of forming the composite microcapsule/nanogel structures comprising functionalizing a polymer, cross-linking and protein grafting (see also [0014] and [0031]). In a particular embodiment, Jabbari teaches nanogels based on acrylated polyethylene oxide macromers chain-extended with short lactide-glycolide segments (PEG-sLG-Ac) that are conjugated with a protein and further encapsulated in microcapsules ([0086]). Jabbari further teaches a composition including a limited number of signaling molecules directed to a particular zone of articular cartilage can be used as is (implies single zone or monolayer), for instance through injection of the composition into a site of damaged cartilage and that a composition can include nanogel/microcapsule composites and a crosslinkable matrix-forming polymer, wherein the matrix-forming polymer can be crosslinked following formation or placement (e.g., injection) of the composition to provide a hydrogel including a crosslinked matrix (injected at a tissue injury site prior to crosslinking) ([0060] and[0066]). Prior to crosslinking Jabbari also teaches pipetting the hydrogel precursor composition (suspension) onto a Teflon or glass mold (implies settling via gravity; [0072]-[0073]). Jabbari also teaches crosslinking initiators ([0042]).
Jabbari is silent to forming at least one cartilage microparticle from articular cartilage and transferring the at least one cartilage microparticle to a cell culture bioreactor containing at least one cell culture medium wherein at least one cell adheres to the at least one cartilage microparticle wherein the at least one cartilage microparticle is decellularized (instant claim 1), wherein the articular cartilage is harvested from frozen human cadaver or animal tissue (instant claim 3), wherein at least one cartilage microparticle ranges in size from 50 to 500 microns (instant claim 5), and wherein the at least one cell culture medium comprises at least one mesenchymal stem cell (instant claim 6).
Sutherland teaches articular cartilage sourced from porcine (animal) knee and hip joints were ground into microparticles and decellularized (Materials and Methods section at page 3; Fig. 1). Sutherland also teaches that rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (rBMSC) were harvested and suspended in a culture medium with the decellularized cartilage particles to develop a pellet (BMSC Harvest and Pellet Formation section at page 4). Additionally, Fig. 5 of Sutherland illustrates at least one cartilage particle as being 50-500 microns in size. Sutherland found that the decellularized cartilage and rBMSC pellets have increased chondroinduction of rBMSCs and increased collagen II gene expression as compared to TGF-β (abstract). Sutherland teaches that such bioactivity is promising in the use of endogenous cell recruitment and differentiation for cartilage regeneration such as in tissue engineering scaffolds, pastes, hydrogels, etc. (abstract; paragraph bridging pages 2-3).
Stephenson teaches cell culture bioreactors are used to maintain well-controlled microenvironments to regulate cell growth, differentiation, and tissue development. Stephenson teaches that bioreactors are essential for providing standardized, reproducible cell-based products for regenerative medicine applications or to establish physiologically relevant in vitro models for testing of pharmacologic agents (abstract).
The references are all drawn to tissue engineering applications, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the steps of forming at least one cartilage microparticle from articular cartilage and transferring the at least one cartilage microparticle to a cell culture bioreactor containing at least one cell culture medium wherein at least one cell adheres to the at least one cartilage microparticle, wherein the articular cartilage is harvested from frozen human cadaver or animal tissue, wherein the at least one cartilage microparticle is decellularized, wherein at least one cartilage microparticle ranges in size from 50 to 500 microns, and wherein the at least one cell culture medium comprises at least one mesenchymal stem cell into the invention of Jabbari as suggested by Sutherland and Stephenson with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Sutherland teaches that the decellularized cartilage and rBMSC pellets produced by the method steps yield increased chondroinduction of rBMSCs and increased collagen II gene expression making the pellets good candidates for inclusion in implantable cartilage repair/regeneration products and Stephenson teaches that cell culture bioreactors are effective in providing well-controlled environments and reproducible cell-based products.
Regarding the limitation, “to form a cross-linked monolayer implant comprising solid, fused decellularized cartilage microparticles entrapping the at least one morphogen encapsulated nanogel in a matrix of the solid, fused decellularized cartilage microparticles”, MPEP 2111.04 states, “the court noted that a ‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited’”. The references, as discussed above, teach/suggest the method steps claimed and, as such, meet the intended result limitation claimed.
Regarding instant claim 2, Jabbari teaches that the release rate can be controlled by changing the molecular weight of the PEG (PEO) ([0086]).
Thus, the combined teachings of Jabbari, Sutherland, and Stephenson render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 9/9/2025, regarding the 103 rejection over Jabbari, Sutherland, and Stephenson have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose Applicant’s claims nor would one skilled in the art modify the references to do so and points to, namely, the newly added imitations. Remarks, page 8.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection has been modified to account for the newly added limitations. While Jabbari is silent to forming at least one cartilage microparticle from articular cartilage wherein the at least one cartilage microparticle is decellularized, Sutherland and Stephenson remedy this deficiency of Jabbari. For the sake of brevity, details of the teachings and reasoning can be found above in the rejection. With respect to the limitation, “allowing the suspension to settle via gravity onto a predefined shaped mold”, Jabbari teaches pipetting the hydrogel precursor composition (suspension) onto a Teflon or glass mold (implies settling via gravity; [0072]-[0073]). Thus, Jabbari meets the limitation “allowing the suspension to settle via gravity onto a predefined shaped mold”. Regarding the limitation, “to form a cross-linked monolayer implant comprising solid, fused decellularized cartilage microparticles entrapping the at least one morphogen encapsulated nanogel in a matrix of the solid, fused decellularized cartilage microparticles”, MPEP 2111.04 states, “the court noted that a ‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited’”. The references, as discussed above, teach/suggest the method steps claimed and, as such, meet the intended result limitation claimed. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the references teach/suggest the claimed invention including the newly added limitations.
Applicant asserts that Jabbari forms only gel matrix whereas Applicant’s claim solid, fused decellularized cartilage microparticles entrapping the at least one morphogen encapsulated nanogel in a matrix of the solid, fused decellularized cartilage microparticles and that modifying Jabbari away from its disclosed purpose and formation would change the references principle of operation and destroy its intended purpose of providing a gel matrix. Remarks, page 9.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection is based on the combined of teachings of Jabbari, Sutherland and Stephenson. Applicant’s arguments are to Jabbari only and, as such, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Additionally, MPEP 2143.01(V) states that the proposed modification cannot render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and MPEP 2143.01(VI) states that the propose modification cannot change the principle of operation of a reference. Jabbari is drawn to compositions and implants for the purpose and function of articular cartilage repair or regeneration. Sutherland teaches articular cartilage sourced from porcine (animal) knee and hip joints were ground into microparticles and decellularized (Materials and Methods section at page 3; Fig. 1). Sutherland found that the decellularized cartilage and rBMSC pellets increase chondroinduction of rBMSCs and increase collagen II gene expression as compared to TGF-β (abstract). Sutherland teaches that such bioactivity is promising in the use of endogenous cell recruitment and differentiation for cartilage regeneration such as in tissue engineering scaffolds, pastes, hydrogels, etc. (abstract; paragraph bridging pages 2-3). Stephenson teaches cell culture bioreactors are used to maintain well-controlled microenvironments to regulate cell growth, differentiation, and tissue development. Stephenson teaches that bioreactors are essential for providing standardized, reproducible cell-based products for regenerative medicine applications or to establish physiologically relevant in vitro models for testing of pharmacologic agents (abstract). All of the references are all drawn to tissue engineering applications, thus, contrary to applicant’s assertions, any of the proposed modifications would maintain Jabbari’s intended use and principle of operation of repairing or regenerating articular cartilage.
Thus, for these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive. Said rejection is maintained.
Double Patenting
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 1-3 and 5-7 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,967,098 B2 in view of Sutherland et al. (“Decellularized Cartilage May Be a Chondroinductive Material for Osteochondral Tissue Engineering”, PLOS ONE, 2015, 10(5): e0121966, pp. 1-13; hereafter as “Sutherland”), and Stephenson et al. (“Recent advances in bioreactors for cell-based therapies”, F1000 Faculty Rev:517, Apr 2018, pp. 1-9; hereafter as “Stephenson”).
The instant claims are described above.
The patented claims are drawn to a composition for tissue engineering (e.g., articular cartilage) comprising; a plurality of first nanogels, each first nanogel including a first crosslinked degradable polymer conjugated to a first signaling molecule, the first degradable polymer comprising a first polyethylene glycol having a first molecular weight, the first signaling molecule stimulating formation or repair of a biological tissue, the first molecular weight of the first polyethylene glycol providing a first degradation rate to the first nanogel; a plurality of first microcapsules, each first microcapsule carrying a plurality of the first nanogels, the first microcapsules each comprising a shell that includes a first bioerodable polymer; a plurality of second nanogels, each second nanogel including a second crosslinked degradable polymer conjugated to a second signaling molecule, the second degradable polymer comprising a second polyethylene glycol having a second molecular weight, the second signaling molecule stimulating formation or repair of the biological tissue, the second molecular weight of the second polyethylene glycol providing a second degradation rate to the second nanogel, the second degradation rate differing from the first degradation rate; a plurality of second microcapsules, each second microcapsule carrying a plurality of the second nanogels, the second microcapsules each comprising a shell that includes a second bioerodable polymer; a crosslinkable polymer. The patented claims further recite, “the composition further comprising a plurality of living cells”, “wherein the living cells comprise stem cells”, “the composition further comprising one or more components of an extra-cellular matrix”, “the first and second polyethylene glycols comprising hydrophobic segments at the termini”, “the hydrophobic segments comprising lactide monomers and glycolide monomers”, and “the composition is an injectable composition” and crosslinked in situ following placement (see abstract; claims; para. bridging cols 2-3). Figures 2 and 3 illustrate placement in a predefined shaped mold which implies settling via gravity. The patent also teaches that the release rate can be controlled by changing the molecular weight of the PEG (PEO) (col. 13, lines 7-11), a cross-linking initiator can be employed (col. 6, lines 49-51) as well as terminating at least one chain end with an acrylate group (col. 6, lines 35-48; col. 13, lines 14-16).
The patent is silent to forming at least one cartilage microparticle from articular cartilage and transferring the at least one cartilage microparticle to a cell culture bioreactor containing at least one cell culture medium wherein at least one cell adheres to the at least one cartilage microparticle, wherein the articular cartilage is harvested from frozen human cadaver or animal tissue, wherein the at least one cartilage microparticle is decellularized, wherein at least one cartilage microparticle ranges in size from 50 to 500 microns, and wherein the at least one cell culture medium comprises at least one mesenchymal stem cell.
Sutherland teaches articular cartilage sourced from porcine (animal) knee and hip joints were ground into microparticles and decellularized (Materials and Methods section at page 3; Fig. 1). Sutherland also teaches that rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (rBMSC) were harvested and suspended in a culture medium with the decellularized cartilage particles to develop a pellet (BMSC Harvest and Pellet Formation section at page 4). Additionally, Fig. 5 of Sutherland illustrates at least one cartilage particle as being 50-500 microns in size. Sutherland found that the decellularized cartilage and rBMSC pellets have increased chondroinduction of rBMSCs and increased collagen II gene expression as compared to TGF-β (abstract). Sutherland teaches that such bioactivity is promising in the use of endogenous cell recruitment and differentiation for cartilage regeneration such as in tissue engineering scaffolds, pastes, hydrogels, etc. (abstract; paragraph bridging pages 2-3).
Stephenson teaches cell culture bioreactors are used to maintain well-controlled microenvironments to regulate cell growth, differentiation, and tissue development. Stephenson teaches that bioreactors are essential for providing standardized, reproducible cell-based products for regenerative medicine applications or to establish physiologically relevant in vitro models for testing of pharmacologic agents (abstract).
The references are all drawn to tissue engineering applications, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the steps of forming at least one cartilage microparticle from articular cartilage and transferring the at least one cartilage microparticle to a cell culture bioreactor containing at least one cell culture medium wherein at least one cell adheres to the at least one cartilage microparticle, wherein the articular cartilage is harvested from frozen human cadaver or animal tissue, wherein the at least one cartilage microparticle is decellularized, wherein at least one cartilage microparticle ranges in size from 50 to 500 microns, and wherein the at least one cell culture medium comprises at least one mesenchymal stem cell into the patented invention as suggested by Sutherland and Stephenson with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Sutherland teaches that the decellularized cartilage and rBMSC pellets produced by the method steps yield increased chondroinduction of rBMSCs and increased collagen II gene expression making the pellets good candidates for inclusion in implantable cartilage repair/regeneration products and Stephenson teaches that cell culture bioreactors are effective in providing well-controlled environments and reproducible cell-based products.
Regarding the limitation, “to form a cross-linked monolayer implant comprising solid, fused decellularized cartilage microparticles entrapping the at least one morphogen encapsulated nanogel in a matrix of the solid, fused decellularized cartilage microparticles”, MPEP 2111.04 states, “the court noted that a ‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited’”. The patent/references, as discussed above, teach/suggest the method steps claimed and, as such, meet the intended result limitation claimed.
The examiner has relied upon the specification to delineate the scope of the invention embraced by the patent, consistent with the decision in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Co. U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, 95 USPQ2d 1797.
Thus, the instant claims are unpatentable over the patented claims in view of Sutherland and Stephenson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant did not provide arguments regarding the double patenting rejection over USPN 10,967,098 in view of Sutherland and Stephenson. The rejection has been reconsidered in the light of the claim amendments and the rejection has been modified to account for the new limitations. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
All claims have been rejected; 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY HAGOPIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6097. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Sue Liu can be reached on 571-272-5539. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
Casey S. Hagopian
Examiner, Art Unit 1617
/CARLOS A AZPURU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617