DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under AIA first-to-file provisions.
Status of claims
Canceled:
none
Pending:
78-99
Withdrawn:
none
Examined:
78-99
Independent:
78
Allowable:
none
Rejections applied
Abbreviations
x
112/b Indefiniteness
PHOSITA
"a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention"
112/b "Means for"
BRI
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
x
112/a Enablement,
Written description
CRM
"Computer-Readable Media" and equivalent language
112 Other
IDS
Information Disclosure Statement
x
102, 103
JE
Judicial Exception
x
101 JE(s)
112/a
35 USC 112(a) and similarly for 112/b, etc.
101 Other
N:N
page:line
Double Patenting
XXDATE
date format
Priority
As detailed on the 6/13/2022 filing receipt, this application claims priority to at least 11/13/2019. At this point in examination, all claims have been interpreted as being accorded this priority date.
Objection to the specification: title
The title should be amended to more specifically reflect the claims, particularly referencing steps/elements: setting the context of the invention, particular to all claims, and distinguishing the instant application from any related applications, for example: saliva. The title should be "descriptive" and "as... specific as possible" (MPEP 606, 1st para. and 37 CFR 1.72; also MPEP 606.01 pertains).
Objections to the specification
The specification is objected to because it contains sequence disclosures that are encompassed by the definitions for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences set forth in 37 CFR 1.821(a)(1) and (a)(2). However, this application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR §§ 1.821-1.825 for the following reasons:
Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appear in the table at p. 37, but the disclosed sequences are not clearly associated with SEQ ID numbers.
Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appear in the table at p. 37, Table 5, but the disclosed sequences are not clearly associated with SEQ ID numbers.
The 5/13/2022 SEQ.TXT.SUPP supplemental file document does not include the names of the disclosed sequences, e.g. gene names where available. Possibly specification Tables 1 and 3 include some of identifying information corresponding to the sequences, but this is not clearly disclosed. If available, the genes and / or accession numbers associated with the particular sequences should be included in the sequence listing, either directly in the listing or via a table in the specification.
Sequences of 10 or more nucleotides and 4 or more amino acids must be identified by sequence identification number, and a listing including the sequences must be supplied. It is often convenient to identify sequences in figures by amending the Brief Description of the Drawings section (see MPEP 2422.02).
Applicants are required to comply with all the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821-1.825. Any response to this action which fails to meet these requirements will be non-responsive. The nature of the sequences disclosed in the instant application has allowed an examination on the merits, as follows.
Claim objections
Claims 78 and 80 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. In each objection the claims are definite with respect to the issues cited here because interpretation would have been sufficiently clear to PHOSITA, but nonetheless the claims are objected to for consistency among the claims or as otherwise indicated. With regard to any suggested amendment below to overcome an objection, in the subsequent examination it is assumed that each amendment is made. However, equivalent amendments also would be acceptable. Any amendments in response to the following objections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate.
The following issues are objected to:
Claim
Recitation
Comment
78
...repeating steps, a-d...
Comma separating verb from object is grammatically inappropriate
80
...1-99
Each claim must end with a period.
Claim rejections - 112/b
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
Claims 78-99 are rejected under 112/b, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted, and any amendments in response to the following rejections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate. With regard to any suggested amendment below, for claim interpretation during the present examination it is assumed that each amendment suggested here is made. However equivalent amendments also would be acceptable.
The following issues cause the respective claims to be rejected under 112/b as indefinite:
Claim
Recitation
Comment (suggestions in bold)
78
general host-derived RNA biomarkers
The recited "general" is a term of relative or vague degree or form of association, neither defined in the specification ([10:24-11:7; 12:18-29]) nor having a well-known and sufficiently particular definition in the art and in the instant context. (MPEP 2173.05(b) pertains.) Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, examples from the specification are not imported into the claims as limitations absent a clearly limiting definition in the specification. (MPEP 2145.VI pertains.)
78
commonly upregulated
The recited "commonly" is a term of relative or vague degree or form of association, neither defined in the specification ([4:24-29; 28:19-29:11]) nor having a well-known and sufficiently particular definition in the art and in the instant context. (MPEP 2173.05(b) pertains.) Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, examples from the specification are not imported into the claims as limitations absent a clearly limiting definition in the specification. (MPEP 2145.VI pertains.)
78, 97-99
A method...
biomarkers...
b)... genes...
d)... transcripts...
genes...
e)... biomarkers...
This claim 78 recitation is unclear because the recitation of the various terms is inconsistent, including between claim 78 and its dependent claim 97 reciting "reads according to claim 1" when claim 1 does not recite "reads" and with claim 97 going on to additionally recite: "biomarker sequence reads," "host biomarker genes" and "host-derived biomarkers sequences." It is understood that biologically these terms can be related, but the relationships as recited are unclear. Also, the relationships among the variously recited elements are unclear, including for example their antecedent relationships between instances of "biomarkers" in claim 78 as well as versus its dependent claims.
Claims 97-99 are rejected similarly for the preceding reasons and due to the improper grammatical construction of the recited "biomarkers sequences" in which the adjective "biomarkers" should be singular, not plural.
79, 97
an RNA transcript expression data set
i) The relationship is unclear between this instance and that in step d.
ii) Use of articles "a" and "an" should be consistent, e.g. vs. claim 78, step d and also claim 97.
iii) Also for consistency, either "dataset" or "data set"
80-81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93
...the step of identifying...
In claim 80, the recitation requires but lacks clear antecedent. Possibly: "...[[the]]a step of..." If the intention is that the claim 80 "identifying" step refers to the claim 78 identifying step, then this is not clear at least due to the recitation of "further" comprising.
Claims 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91 and 93 are rejected similarly.
80-93
further comprising the step of identifying general host-derived
RNA biomarkers of infection that are commonly upregulated in response to said pathogen selected from the group consisting of: SEQ ID NO. 1-99
It is unclear whether claim 80 requires an additional "identifying" step vs. claim 78, this one limited to being "selected from the group consisting of: SEQ ID NO. 1-99" or instead just narrows the one "identifying" step from claim 78. This issue at least renders unclear how many biomarkers are required to be identified, e.g. two versus one plurality of biomarkers, i.e. a minimum of two versus four.
Claims 81-93 are rejected similarly.
80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 92, 94
the group consisting of...
In claim 80, the recitation requires but lacks clear antecedent. Possibly: "...[[the]]a group..."
Claims 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 92 and 94 are rejected similarly.
80
general host-derived RNA biomarkers of infection
The relationship is unclear between this instance and that in the preamble. Possibly this instance should recite "the general host-derived..."
95
...and pathogen of said infected saliva sample are different pathogens
i) A grammatical article is required before "pathogen," e.g. "a" or "the" depending on the intended antecedent.
ii) The antecedent of "said infected saliva sample" is unclear at least because claim 78 recited "a subject infected with said pathogen" and not "an infected saliva sample."
97
said raw dataset of host biomarker sequence reads
Requires but lacks clear antecedent
97
mapping the filtered biomarker sequence reads
Requires but lacks clear antecedent
97
assigning total number of biomarker sequence reads
The relationship is unclear between the recited "total number" and the rest of the claim at least for lack of a grammatical article before "total number," which possibly should be "a."
97
each annotated
gene within said reference genome;
Requires but lacks clear antecedent
97
the biomarker sequence reads counts
i) Requires but lacks clear antecedent
ii) "...reads counts..." both plural does not appear to be ordinary English. Since "reads" is recited here as an adjective modifying "counts," possibly "reads" should be singular.
98-99
...claim 97, and further comprising...
In claim 98, the relationship is unclear between claims 97 and 98 at least due to the not ordinary recitation "claim 97, and further comprising..." For example, it is unclear what is the relationship between the recited "method of claim 97" and the subsequently recited "further comprising the steps of:..." at least because the intervening comma renders ambiguous what would otherwise be the ordinary interpretation of the latter modifying the former.
Claim 99 is rejected similarly.
98-99
...the steps of:...
...the following steps:...
The relationships are unclear among the steps recited in claim 98 and also as they relate to claims 97 and 1 at least beginning with lack of clarity as to the nesting of step lists in claim 98. It is unclear which steps beginning with and following "directly merging..." are part of the list "the steps of" vs. the list "the following steps" at least due to the lack of clear use of indentation and/or enumeration of the steps.
Similarly, in claim 99, it is unclear how the steps of claim 99 relate to the claim 98, e.g. whether they are subject to the "one or more..." of claim 98.
99
validating... comprising...
It is unclear what step or element is modified by the recited "comprising," e.g. whether it is the recited "validating" which must comprise one or more of the subsequent steps.
Claim rejections - 112/a
The following is a quotation of 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.
Regarding issues of written description support stemming even from the original claims and original disclosure, MPEP 2161.01.I (e.g. 6th para.), 2163.I and 2163.I.A pertain: "[O]riginal claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed" (MPEP 2161.01.I,6th para.).
Written description
Claims 81-82 are rejected under 112/a as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims read on subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to PHOSITA that the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted. With regard to any suggested amendment(s) below to overcome a rejection, equivalent amendments also would be acceptable.
Claim 81 recites "...any pathogen..." First, the specification does not disclose this recitation, nor does it disclose any clear equivalent. Second, since a BRI of "any pathogen" reads on not just all known pathogens but all possible pathogens, known and unknown, then it is not clear how PHOSITA would have known how to perform the entirety of the scope of claim 81 with respect to all possible pathogens. The written description provided is not clearly commensurate with the recitation.
Claim 82 similarly lacks support.
As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, (i) by narrowing to clearly supported embodiments and/or (ii) by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations.
In general, it is requested that any claim amendment in this regard be accompanied by citations to support in the original disclosure.
MPEP 2163 generally pertains.
Claim rejections - 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC 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 of this title, 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.
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 USC 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 78-79 and 95-99
Claims 78-79 and 95-99 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Banchereau (US 2008/0171323 as cited on the 5/13/2022 IDS).
Regarding claim 78, the recited step a infected sample reads on "analyzing samples for the prognosis and diagnosis of infectious diseases" (Banchereau: [8]; and entire document). In a BRI, the recited "establishing" reads on the beginning of any interaction with a sample or data from a sample.
The recited step b quantifying upregulated genes reads on "genes over-expressed" (Banchereau: [124]; also [30 and 33]; and entire document).
The recited step c of an additional sample being a saliva sample reads "The skilled artisan will appreciate readily that samples may be obtained from a variety of sources... it may even be possible to isolate sufficient RNA from cells found in, e.g., ...saliva..." (Banchereau: [75]; and entire document). Also, repetition of previously recited steps and/or elements, e.g. a "second... sample," would have been prima facie obvious (MPEP 2143 E., Example 9 pertains).
The recited step d of analyzing correspondence between the samples reads on "...overexpression... is indicative of... infection..." (Banchereau: [15]; also [16-33]; and entire document).
The recited step e of analyzing for common host transcription response reads on "...common host transcriptional responses..." (Banchereau: [136]; also [15-33]; and entire document).
Banchereau teaches each of the limitations as described above, however Banchereau does not teach the limitations in a single embodiment in the same, consecutive sequence as recited. It would have been prima facie obvious to try the recited sequence as an example of combining prior art elements taught within the same reference according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding the repetition of claim 79, repetition of previously recited steps and/or elements, e.g. a "second... sample," would have been prima facie obvious (MPEP 2143 E., Example 9 pertains). Also, Banchereau teaches analysis and comparison of response to different pathogens (Banchereau: [136]; also [15-33]; and entire document).
Claim 95 narrows to differing pathogens between two samples which reads on "influenza A (Inf A, 11 samples...) and bacterial infections... with Escherichia coli (E. coli, 6 samples) or Streptococcus pneumoniae (S.pn, 6 samples)" (Banchereau: [27]; and entire document).
Claim 96 narrows to human subjects which reads on "human subject" (Banchereau: [9]; and entire document).
Claim 97 narrows to at least one of several computational analyses, at least one of which reads on at least one of the following: "Analysis was restricted to probe sets for which a P (present) call was obtained in at least 75% of GeneChips in at least one patient class evaluated (quality control probes)" (Banchereau: [148]; and entire document); "...identifiable genes based on the known genome, e.g., the human genome" (Banchereau: [59]; and entire document) and "reference gene for normalization" (Banchereau: [144]; also [30, 32]and entire document).
Claims 98-99 each narrow to at least one of several computational analyses and / or steps, at least the last of which in each claim, "outputting... ranked... sequences..." reads on output of "rank genes" (Banchereau: [148-149]; also [29, 55]; and entire document), noting that each claim recites "one or more of..."
Claims 80, 82-83, 85, 87, 89, 91 and 93
Claims 80, 82-83, 85, 87, 89, 91 and 93 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Banchereau as applied to claims 78-79 and 95-99 above and further in view of Henco (US 2016/0298082 as cited on the attached "Notice of References Cited" form 892 as "Transimmune").
Claim 80 narrows to specified biomarker sequences, and instant SEQ ID 1 (instant specification, p. 40, Table 1, SEQ ID 1, "Indoleamine") reads on Henco SEQ ID 101 (Henco: [84], "Indoleamine").
Claim 82 narrows to specified biomarker sequences corresponding to SEQ IDs 31-99 and disclosed "universal response genes" (specification: 4:28-29) one or more of which read on Henco's TABLE 1 markers (Henco: [79]; and entire document), e.g. ICAM1 as listed as #27 in Henco TABLE 1 and in instant Table 3 at p. 43.
Claims 83, 85, 87, 89, 91 and 93 narrow to various types of pathogens and disease and read on "Exemplary disease categories giving rise to disease-causing cells include lymphoproliferative disorders such as leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma, as well as infections including malaria, human-immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Epstein Barr virus (EBV), cytomegalovirus (CMV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), Lyme disease, leprosy, tuberculosis, and other blood borne pathogens" (Henco: [192]; and entire document).
Combining Banchereau and Henco
In the absence of a secondary consideration to the contrary, it would have been prima facie obvious for PHOSITA to modify the immune-system-related gene expression analysis of Banchereau using the related teaching of Henco. As motivation to combine, an advantage taught by Henco of modifying methods such as those of Banchereau would have been the teaching of Henco that "Preferred molecular markers the expression of which is considered indicative of immuno-stimulatory... cells" (Henco: [21]). Thus, PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify Banchereau using the above techniques of Henco in order to achieve the above advantage. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Banchereau and Henco are generally drawn to related teaching, and PHOSITA would have understood how to and would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Henco to the related teaching of Banchereau.
Claim rejections - 101
35 USC 101 reads:
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.
For each rejection below, dependent claims are rejected similarly as not remedying the rejection, unless otherwise noted.
Judicial exceptions (JE) to 101 patentability
Claims 78-99 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are not directed to patent eligible subject matter. After consideration of relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, each claim is directed to one or more JEs (i.e. an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, a law of nature and/or a product of nature), as identified below. Any elements or combination of elements beyond the JE(s) (i.e. "additional elements") are conventional and do not constitute significantly more than the JE(s). Thus, no claim includes additional elements amounting to significantly more than the JE(s), as explained below.
In Alice, citing Mayo and Bilski, two Mayo/Alice questions determine eligibility under 101: First, is a claim directed to a JE? And second, if so, does the claim recite significantly more than the JE?
MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (1st & 2nd prongs) and 2B as follows below.
MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.03
[Step 1: claims 78-99: YES]
Step 2A, 1st prong: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? -- abstract idea -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.04
Preliminarily, in a 1st prong of Step 2A, elements of independent claim 78 are interpreted as directed to the abstract idea of identifying RNA biomarkers of infection including the JE elements of each of steps a-e, each of which, including all recitation within each listed element, in at least some embodiments within a BRI, involves only manipulation of data. In a BRI, the recited "establishing a... sample" reads on, for example, designating data already acquired from an already physically obtained sample. While manipulation of data is not per se directed to an abstract idea, in this instance the above-identified elements are directed to the abstract ideas identified below.
BRIs of the claims are analogous to an abstract idea in the form of at least a mental process, at least equivalent to a computer-implemented process, including obtaining and comparing intangible data (e.g. Cybersource, Synopsys and Electric Power Group). In a BRI, it is not clear that the claim embodiments are limited so as to require complexity precluding analogy to a mental process.
The preceding case law examples are cited for the basic form of their identified abstract ideas, and analogy to these example abstract ideas need not be within the same technology field, 101 analysis generally being assumed to be neutral with respect to technology field.
As in Alice (at 306, as cited in the MPEP above) and Bilski (as cited in Alice, id), an abstract idea may comprise multiple abstract elements or steps (i.e. from Alice: "a series of steps" at 306) and need not be a single equation, relationship or principle.
It is not clear that the identified elements must represent other than an abstract idea according to any relevant analysis or case law.
[Step 2A, 1st prong, abstract idea: claim 78: YES]
Step 2A, 2nd prong: If the claims recite a judicial exception under the 1st prong, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.04(d)
MPEP 2106.04(d).I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In Step 2A, 1st prong above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs).
In Step 2B below, any remaining steps and/or elements are therefore in addition to the identified JE(s). Any such additional steps and additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B.
Here in Step 2A, 2nd prong, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application.
At this point in examination it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A, 2nd prong considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of 1. an improvement, 2. treatment, 3. a particular machine or 4. a transformation is clear in the record.
For example, regarding the first consideration at MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), the record, including for example the specification, does not yet clearly disclose an explanation of improvement over the previous state of the technology field. The claims do not yet clearly result in such an improvement (e.g. specification: 2:4-11).
[Step 2A, 2nd prong: claim 78: NO]
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of additional elements in addition to the identified JEs? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.05
As interpreted above, all elements of claim 78 are part of a JE as identified above such that no element is recited which is additional to the identified JE(s). Therefore, no claim recites significantly more than the identified JE(s), and it is not clear that any claim is otherwise sufficiently analogous to controlling case law identifying an example of an eligible claim.
It is emphasized that, outside of an improvement argument, analysis of what is conventional generally pertains to the above-identified additional elements and not to elements identified as part of a JE.
[Step 2B: claim 78: NO]
Summary and conclusion regarding claim 78
Summing up the above analysis of claim 78, viewed as a whole and considering all elements individually and in combination, no claim recites limitations that transform the claim, finally interpreted as directed to the identified JE(s), into patent eligible subject matter, and it is not clear that any claim is sufficiently analogous to controlling case law identifying an example of an eligible claim.
Remaining claims
Claims 79-96 add elements which also are part of the identified JEs for the same reasons described above regarding the independent claims and therefore do not provide the something significantly more necessary to satisfy 101.
Elements of the following claims are additional elements but nonetheless are conventional elements of a laboratory or computing environment, conventional data gathering elements or conventional post-processing elements, as in the following specific examples which also are understood to be well-known and routine:
claims 97-99: "outputting...," is a conventional post-processing element, as exemplified in MPEP 2106.05(d).II and 2106.05(f-g). Data transfer does not impose any meaningful limitation on the judicial exceptions or on how the judicial exceptions are performed. Data transfer is not sufficient to integrate judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
None of the dependent claim elements provides the something significantly more than the identified JE(s) necessary to satisfy 101.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, rejections refer to the portions of each document cited as example portions as well as to the entirety of each document, unless otherwise noted in the situation of lengthy, multi-subject documents. Other passages not specifically cited within a document may apply as well.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed. A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
Inquiries
Information regarding the filing, management and status of patent applications which are published (available to all users) or unpublished (available to registered users) may be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Further information is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center, and information about filing in DOCX format is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
The Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) is available for additional questions, and assistance from a Customer Service Representative is available at 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
The examiner for this Office action, G. Steven Vanni, may be contacted at:
(571) 272-3855 Tu-F 8-7 (ET). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D. Riggs, II, may be reached at (571) 270-3062.
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686