DETAILED ACTION
In application filed on 07/20/2022, Claims 1-6 are pending. Claims 1-6 are considered in the current office 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/20/2022, 05/01/2024, 05/23/2025 and 09/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims have been analyzed for eligibility in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation. All claims are directed to statutory categories, i.e., a method (Claims 1-6) (Step 1: YES).
Analysis:
Claim 1: Ineligible.
Step 1:
The claim recites a series of steps or acts, including “a method for treating a lung cancer patient”. Thus, the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites “determining an expression level of a protein present in the exosomes by a mass spectrometry method”(math step); and “administering an immune checkpoint inhibitor to the lung cancer patient when the protein expression level is a predetermined reference value or less (a math step)”. Therefore, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea, and more specifically to the abstract idea group of a math or mental process since claim 1 relates to using a math process to “determine an expression level of a protein present in the exosomes by a mass spectrometry method” and “administer an immune checkpoint inhibitor to the lung cancer patient when the protein expression level is a predetermined reference value or less”.(Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Once the determination is done, No further action takes place, much less a particular practical application.
In addition, it appears that the steps of “taking a biological sample from the lung cancer patient”; “isolating exosomes from the biological sample derived from the lung cancer patient wherein the protein is one or more proteins selected from the group of proteins shown in Table 1-1 to Table 1-6 are recited at a high level of generality that that they amount to mere data gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, while “mass spectrometry” is used for “determining an expression level of a protein present in the exosomes” is claimed, this does not appear to be a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b), Specifically the section about why the antenna was considered particular (included details such as shape of the antenna, length, conductors, etc.)). The presently claimed “mass spectrometry method” do not appear to recite that degree of particularity.
Accordingly, these steps are ‘additional elements’ which do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore these ‘additional elements’ of claim 1 do not integrate the abstract ideas (the taking, isolating and protein selecting steps) into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B:
Furthermore, the courts have found that limitations adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the judicial exception, such as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea, are limitations found not to be enough to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility of the Federal Register dated December 16, 2014; and MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)). Note that mere data gathering is not significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, there are no additional elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea in independent Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6. The “taking biological samples from the lung cancer patient; “isolating exosomes from the biological sample from the lung cancer patient”; and wherein the protein is selected from a registry/database” steps, from the background section of the claim, appear well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the field of proteomics and laboratory/clinical diagnostics, as evidenced by any of Blelloch et al. (WO2019178334A1), Vogelstein et al. (WO2019067092A1), Anderson et al. (US20190008902A1), Pawlowski et al. (US20150152474A1) and Hicks (US20160193252A1) (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, Claim 1 is ineligible.
Moreover, Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 2-6: Ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One and Prong Two: Claims 2-6 further define the data gathering steps which appear to be generic and WURC.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite any elements which are significantly more.
Therefore, Claims 2-6 are ineligible.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Blelloch et al. (WO2019178334A1), in view of Vogelstein et al. (WO2019067092A1) and further in view of Anderson et al. (US20190008902A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Blelloch teaches a method for treating a lung cancer patient (See Para 0032… treatment of cancer in a subject…. a cancer selected from the group…including lung cancer) comprising:
taking a biological sample (‘tumor sample’) from the lung cancer patient (See Para 0032… treatment of cancer in a subject…. a cancer selected from the group…including lung cancer);
isolating exosomes from the biological sample (See Para 0108…Circulating EVs such as exosomes may be assessed in a biological sample. Further, Blelloch teaches the abundance of EVs in the sample may be assessed by methods such as size exclusion chromatography, ultracentrifugation, or precipitation reagents combined with detection of suppressive species (e.g. PD-L1), thereby teaching ‘isolating exosomes’; Also See Para 0032…other EV isolation steps known in the art.) derived from the lung cancer patient (See Para 0132… a subject to which the therapeutic suppressive EVs will be administered ‘lung cancer patient’); and
administering an immune checkpoint inhibitor (See Para 0063…the suppressive EV inhibitor is co-administered with an immune checkpoint inhibitor where immune checkpoint inhibitors include, for example, inhibitors of CTLA-4, for example, Ipilimumab; inhibitors of PD-l, for example, Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab; and inhibitors of PD-L1) to the lung cancer patient (See Para 0043… a method of treating cancer in a subject by the administration to the subject of a therapeutically effective amount of an of a suppressive EV inhibitor; See Para 0032… treatment of cancer in a subject…. a cancer selected from the group…including lung cancer).
While Blelloch teaches “administering an immune checkpoint inhibitor to the lung cancer patient”,
Bleloch does not explicitly teach
“determining an expression level of a protein present in the exosomes by a mass spectrometry method”; and
“administering an immune checkpoint inhibitor to the lung cancer patient when the protein expression level is a predetermined reference value or less”.
In the analogous art of a methods and materials for detecting and/or treating subject (e.g. a human) having cancer, Vogelstein teaches “determining an expression level of a protein present in the exosomes by a mass spectrometry method (See Para 222…the technique includes determining exosomal proteins (e.g., an exosomal surface protein (e.g., CD24, CD147, PCA-3)); See Para 199…where assays for the protein biomarkers include liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS)…See Para 613…mass spectrometry); and
“administering an immune checkpoint inhibitor (See Claim 17…wherein the subject is administered one of more of the following therapeutic interventions: …an immune checkpoint inhibitor) to the lung cancer patient (See Claim 15…the cancer in the subject includes lung cancer) when the protein expression level (‘one or more reference levels of the protein biomarkers’) is a predetermined reference value or less” (See Claim 9…comparing the detected levels of the one or more protein biomarker to one or more reference levels of the protein biomarkers…identifying the presence of cancer in the subject when the detected levels of the one or more protein biomarkers are higher than the reference levels of the one or more protein biomarkers, or both, thereby teaching the “predetermined value or less”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blelloch to incorporate the steps of “determining an expression level of a protein present in the exosomes by a mass spectrometry method”; and “administering an immune checkpoint inhibitor to the lung cancer patient when the protein expression level is a predetermined reference value or less”, as taught by Vogelstein, for the benefit of testing one or more protein biomarkers can be tested from any of a variety of biological samples isolated or obtained from a subject (e.g., a human subject) including, but not limited to the blood, plasma, serum towards mutation detection,… (Vogelstein, Para 221-223) and for the benefit of the benefit of identifying the presence of pancreatic cancer in a subject and administering to the subject one of more of the following therapeutic interventions including an immune checkpoint inhibitor (Vogelstein, Claims 9, 15 and 17), allowing for the provision of a method with increased sensitivity and/or specificity in detecting cancer in a subject (e.g. a human) (Vogelstein, Para 4).
The combination of Blelloch and Vogelstein does not teach that the protein is one or more proteins selected from the group of proteins shown in Table 1-1 to Table 1-6.
In the analogous art of methods for purifying the cell-derived vesicles, Anderson teaches:
wherein the protein (‘ITGB5 (Integrin beta-5)’) is one or more proteins selected from the group of proteins shown in Table 1-1 to Table 1-6 (See Para 0131, 0134… proteins including ITGB5 (Integrin beta-5) were detected in exosomes and/or microvesicles of the present disclosure via gas chromatography and mass spectrometry analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of the combination of Blelloch and Vogelstein to incorporate that the protein is one or more proteins selected from the group of proteins shown in Table 1-1 to Table 1-6, as taught Anderson for the benefit of detecting therapeutic proteins such as ITGB5 (Integrin beta-5) in purified populations of cell-derived vesicles (e.g., exosomes and/or microvesicles) by mass spectrometry analysis (Anderson, Para 0131, 0134), allowing for the identity of the components of the exosome and/or microvesicles, including proteins, responsible for the observed healing effects. Identification of the exosome and/or microvesicle components could have a great impact in the treatment of ischemic tissue-related diseases and other diseases. Identification would also facilitate the development of promising vesicle-based therapeutics in delivering the appropriate factors to a target cell to treat a specific disease (Anderson, Para 0007).
Regarding Claim 2, the method of Claim 1 is obvious over Blelloch in view of Vogelstein and further view of Anderson.
While Blelloch further teaches that PD-L1 is a trans-membrane protein (Para 0159),
Blelloch does not teach that the protein is one or more membrane proteins selected from the group of proteins shown in Table 2.
In the analogous art of methods for purifying the cell-derived vesicles, Anderson teaches that the protein (‘ITGB5 (Integrin beta-5)’) is one or more membrane proteins (See Para 0189… robust proteomic profiling of MSC membrane proteins to date) selected from the group of proteins shown in Table 2 (See Para 0131, 0134… proteins including ITGB5 (Integrin beta-5) were detected in exosomes and/or microvesicles of the present disclosure via gas chromatography and mass spectrometry analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blelloch and Vogelstein to use a protein that is one or more membrane proteins selected from the group of proteins shown in Table 2, as taught Anderson for the benefit of detecting therapeutic proteins such as ITGB5 (Integrin beta-5) in purified populations of cell-derived vesicles (e.g., exosomes and/or microvesicles) by mass spectrometry analysis (Anderson, Para 0131, 0134), allowing for the identity of the components of the exosome and/or microvesicles, including proteins, responsible for the observed healing effects. Identification of the exosome and/or microvesicle components could have a great impact in the treatment of ischemic tissue-related diseases and other diseases. Identification would also facilitate the development of promising vesicle-based therapeutics in delivering the appropriate factors to a target cell to treat a specific disease (Anderson, Para 0007).
Regarding Claim 3, the method of Claim 1 is obvious over Blelloch in view of Vogelstein and further view of Anderson.
While Blelloch further teaches that PD-L1 is a trans-membrane protein (Para 0159),
Blelloch does not teach that the protein is one or more membrane proteins selected from the group of proteins shown in Table 2.
In the analogous art of methods for purifying the cell-derived vesicles, Anderson teaches that the protein (‘ITGB5 (Integrin beta-5)’) is one or more membrane proteins (See Para 0189… robust proteomic profiling of MSC membrane proteins to date) selected from the group of proteins shown in Table 3 (See Para 0131, 0134… proteins including ITGB5 (Integrin beta-5) were detected in exosomes and/or microvesicles of the present disclosure via gas chromatography and mass spectrometry analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of the method of Blelloch and Vogelstein to use a protein that is one or more membrane proteins selected from the group of proteins shown in Table 3, as taught Anderson for the benefit of detecting therapeutic proteins such as ITGB5 (Integrin beta-5) in purified populations of cell-derived vesicles (e.g., exosomes and/or microvesicles) by mass spectrometry analysis (Anderson, Para 0131, 0134), allowing for the identity of the components of the exosome and/or microvesicles, including proteins, responsible for the observed healing effects. Identification of the exosome and/or microvesicle components could have a great impact in the treatment of ischemic tissue-related diseases and other diseases. Identification would also facilitate the development of promising vesicle-based therapeutics in delivering the appropriate factors to a target cell to treat a specific disease (Anderson, Para 0007).
Regarding Claim 4, the method of Claim 1 is obvious over Blelloch in view of Vogelstein and further view of Anderson.
Blelloch further teaches the immune checkpoint inhibitor is an anti-PD-1 antibody or an anti-PD-L 1 antibody (See Para 0063…the suppressive EV inhibitor is co-administered with an immune checkpoint inhibitor where immune checkpoint inhibitors include, for example, inhibitors of CTLA-4, for example, Ipilimumab; inhibitors of PD-l, for example, Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab; and inhibitors of PD-L1).
Regarding Claim 5, the method of Claim 1 is obvious over Blelloch in view of Vogelstein and further view of Anderson.
Blelloch further teaches that the immune checkpoint inhibitor is one or more selected from the group consisting of nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab (See Para 0063…the suppressive EV inhibitor is co-administered with an immune checkpoint inhibitor where immune checkpoint inhibitors include, for example, inhibitors of CTLA-4, for example, Ipilimumab; inhibitors of PD-l, for example, Nivolumab and Pembrolizumab; and inhibitors of PD-L1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blelloch et al. (WO2019178334A1) in view of Vogelstein et al. (WO2019067092A1) further in view of Anderson et al. (US20190008902A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pawlowski et al. (US20150152474A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the method of Claim 1 is obvious over Blelloch in view of Vogelstein and further view of Anderson.
Blelloch teaches isolating exosomes from the biological sample (See Para 0108…Circulating EVs such as exosomes may be assessed in a biological sample. Further, Blelloch teaches the abundance of EVs in the sample may be assessed by methods such as size exclusion chromatography, ultracentrifugation, or precipitation reagents combined with detection of suppressive species (e.g. PD-L1), thereby teaching ‘isolating exosomes’; Also See Para 0032…other EV isolation steps known in the art.) derived from the lung cancer patient (See Para 0132… a subject to which the therapeutic suppressive EVs will be administered ‘lung cancer patient’).
The combination of Blelloch, Vogelstein and Anderson does not teach:
“isolating the exosomes from the biological sample derived from the lung cancer patient with a mixture of magnetic particles bound to an anti- CD9 antibody, an anti-CD81 antibody, or an anti-CD63 antibody is used”.
In the analogous art of methods and compositions for characterizing a phenotype by analyzing circulating biomarkers, such as a vesicle, microRNA or protein present in a biological sample, Pawlowski teaches isolating the exosomes (See Para 0342… vesicles such as microvesicles or exosomes) from the biological sample (See Para 0175… the antibody-bound particle is used to isolate a vesicle from a biological sample, where binding agent can also be bound to particles such as beads or microspheres) derived from the lung cancer patient (See Para 0342…sample from responders; See Para 0352… vesicles that are specifically shed from lung cancer cells are isolated from a biological sample; Also See Para 0522 for sample from lung cancer patients) with a mixture of magnetic particles (See Para 0175… the microspheres may be magnetic or fluorescently labeled) bound (See Para 0042… vesicles were captured with anti-CD9 antibodies tethered to microspheres) to an anti- CD9 antibody, an anti-CD81 antibody, or an anti-CD63 antibody is used (See Para 0042… vesicles were captured with anti-CD9 antibodies tethered to microspheres; See Para 0171…A binding agent can be for an antigen comprising one or more of CD9,CD81 and CD63; See Para 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blelloch, Vogelstein and Anderson to have a process of isolating the exosomes from the biological sample derived from the lung cancer patient with a mixture of magnetic particles bound to an anti- CD9 antibody, an anti-CD81 antibody, or an anti-CD63 antibody is used, as taught by Pawlowski for the benefit of characterizing a phenotype by analyzing circulating biomarkers, such as a vesicle (exosome), microRNA or protein present in a biological sample (Pawlowski, Para 0006), which allows for the development of diagnostic, therapy-related or prognostic methods to identify phenotypes, such as a condition or disease, or the stage or progression of a disease, select candidate treatment regimens for diseases, conditions, disease stages, and stages of a condition, and to determine treatment efficacy (Pawlowski, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/17/2025, with respect to the objections on the specification regarding the trade names is been fully considered and persuasive.
Examiner submits that the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/17/2025, with respect to the objections on the drawing regarding the Figures 4-7 is been fully considered and persuasive.
Examiner submits that the drawing objection appears to be a typographical error and therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/17/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections on Claims 1-6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully submits the amended claims of the current application as a whole integrate any possible any abstract idea present in the claims into a practical application. Therefore, the subject matter of the claims are patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo test. Withdrawal of the rejections are respectfully requested.
Specifically, regarding Step 2A-Prong I, Applicant notes that the mere fact that a claim involves the use of a mathematical calculation does not mean the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter. "[A]n invention is not considered to be ineligible for patenting simply because it involves a judicial exception. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1980-81 (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981)). "[W]hile an abstract idea, law of nature, or mathematical formula could not be patented, 'an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection."' Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187, 209 USPQ 1, 8 (1981)).
Here, the claims are not directed to the law of nature or abstract idea, but specifically apply a natural correlation in the specific useful method for treating or preventing a disease based on the determination of the protein expression level of a lung cancer patient and administering an immune checkpoint inhibitor when the protein expression level is a predetermined reference value or less. The claims recite determining the specific protein expression level as in a case where the protein expression level is a predetermined reference value or less, the patient is potentially sensitive to the immune checkpoint inhibitor and treatment is potentially effective.
Based on this, Applicant respectfully submits the claims as a whole incorporate any abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the subject matter of the claims are patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo test. Withdrawal of the rejections are respectfully requested.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument, Examiner submits that this is not persuasive as “determining an …” is certainly an abstract idea as it is either a mental process or math, as disclosed in the Claim 1 rejection.
Further, the claim recites “administering an immune checkpoint inhibitor to the lung cancer patient when the protein expression level is a predetermined reference value or less” and this appears to be an evaluation based on a mathematical step.
Lastly, Examiner submits that the steps of “taking biological samples from the lung cancer patient; “isolating exosomes from the biological sample from the lung cancer patient”; and wherein the protein is selected from a registry/database” steps, from the background section of the claim, appear well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the field of proteomics and laboratory/clinical diagnostics, as evidenced by any of Blelloch et al. (WO2019178334A1), Vogelstein et al. (WO2019067092A1), Anderson et al. (US20190008902A1), Pawlowski et al. (US20150152474A1) and Hicks (US20160193252A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 14, filed 07/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blelloch et al. (WO2019178334A1), in view of Vogelstein et al. (WO2019067092A1) and further in view of Anderson et al. (US20190008902A1).
Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 has been amended to recite a method of treating a lung cancer patient and a method of administering an immune checkpoint inhibitor to the lung cancer patient when the protein expression level is a predetermined reference value or less, wherein the protein is one or more proteins selected from the group of proteins shown in Tables 1-1 to 1-6. Applicant concludes that neither Blelloch nor Anderson, however, teach administering an immune checkpoint inhibitor to the lung cancer patient when the protein expression level is a predetermined reference value or less.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that the limitations of amended Claim 1 is taught as disclosed in the rejection of Claim 1 (Supra) by Blelloch et al. (WO2019178334A1), in view of Vogelstein et al. (WO2019067092A1) and further in view of Anderson et al. (US20190008902A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 15, filed 07/17/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blelloch et al. (WO2019178334A1) in view of Vogelstein et al. (WO2019067092A1) further in view of Anderson et al. (US20190008902A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pawlowski et al. (US20150152474A1).
Applicant respectfully submits that similarly to Blelloch and Anderson, Pawlowski does not disclose a method of administering an immune checkpoint inhibitor to the lung cancer patient when the protein expression level is a predetermined reference value or less. Accordingly, none of Blelloch, Anderson, and Pawlowski, alone or in combination, render the claimed method obvious.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 6 has been considered and Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner submits that the limitations of Claim 6 is taught as disclosed in the rejection of Claim 6 (Supra) by Blelloch et al. (WO2019178334A1) in view of Vogelstein et al. (WO2019067092A1) further in view of Anderson et al. (US20190008902A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pawlowski et al. (US20150152474A1).
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI whose telephone number is (571)272-1678. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached on (571) 272-1254. 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.
/OYELEYE ALEXANDER ALABI/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/LYLE ALEXANDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1797