DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application 17/761,785 filed on 04/06/2022 is a 371 national phase of PCT/GB2020/052263 filed on 09/18/2020, and claims the benefit of United Kingdom Application No. 1913594.6, filed on 09/20/2019.
The priority date of claim 26 and its dependent claims 27-38 and 41-45 is determined to be 09/20/2019, the filing date of United Kingdom Application No. 1913594.6.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to claims filed 02/16/2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/16/2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 44 and 45 are amended.
Claims 26-45 are pending and claims 26-38 and 41-45 under examination.
Response to Remarks filed 02/16/2026
The amendments and arguments presented in the papers filed 02/16/2026 ("Remarks”) have been thoroughly considered. The issues raised in the Office action dated 10/16/2025 listed below have been reconsidered as indicated.
a) The objections to the specification regarding the use of trade names or marks are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the specification.
b) The objections to the claims 44 and 45 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
This action is FINAL.
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.
Claims 26-29, 31, 32 and 41-44 remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimasauskas et al. (US PGPub US 20130130922) in view of Park et al. (Useful Tools for Biomolecule Isolation, Detection, and Identification: Acylhydrazone-Based Cleavable Linkers. 2009. Chemistry & Biology.16(7): 763-772).
Regarding claim 26, Klimasauskas teaches a method for labeling unmethylated CpG dinucleotides within a DNA fragment, and use of the method in profiling of genomic DNA methylation (Abstract), making use of DNA methyltransferase-directed transfer of functional groups from synthetic cofactors based on S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAM or AdoMet) (mTAG technology) in combination with sequencing techniques (para 21).
Regarding step (a), Klimasauskas teaches the method comprises fragmenting genomic DNA by sonication (para 178).
Regarding step (b), Klimasauskas teaches contacting the DNA fragment with a mutant C5-methyltransferase enzyme and a co-factor under conditions which allow for the transfer of a part of the co-factor onto the unmethylated CpG dinucleotide to form a modified CpG dinucleotide (i.e., selectively functionalizing any non-methylated CpG sites) (para 12 and claim 1). Klimasauskas further teaches use of a disulphide linkage (a hydrolyzsable moiety) (para 121).
Regarding step (c), Klimasauskas teaches attaching biotin (a label) to the linker (Fig. 6, last step and para 75).
Klimasauskas further teaches enriching the labeled DNA fragments (para 18), thus enabling the labeled DNA fragments to be separated from the unlabeled DNA fragments (para 120 and Fig. 1); and sequencing the enriched (released) nucleic acid fragments (para 123).
Klimasauskas teaches selective chemical or enzymatic cleavage of the connecting linker to enrich (i.e. select) labeled DNA fragments (para 121).
However, Klimasauskas does not teach hydrolyzing the hydrolyzable moiety of the linker.
Park teaches acylhydrazone-based (hydrolysable moiety) cleavable linkers that can be used for the selective release of tagged molecules (p. 763, Abstract). Park teaches acylhydrazone linkers can undergo hydrolysis (p. 74, col. 2) and teaches cleavage under acidic conditions (i.e. hydrolyzing) (p. 769, col. 1). Park states that advantages of selecting an acylhydrazone linker include ease of synthesis, stability and chemoselectivity (p. 770, col. 1).
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 modify the teachings of Klimasauskas and Park to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The modification would have entailed hydrolyzing the hydrolysable moiety of the linker as taught by Park for cleavage and release of labeled fragments. One would have been motivated by the teachings of Park that demonstrate hydrolyzing a hydrolyzable moiety cleaves the linker to release molecules, allowing downstream . Further, applicant states in their specification that “the hydrolyzing agent will be selected by the skilled person in accordance with the nature of the hydrolysable moiety” (p. 14), indicating that a skilled person could choose a hydrolyzing agent for the chemical or enzymatic cleavage of the linker, as necessitated by the identity of the linker. In the case of Klimasauskas the hydrolyzsable moiety, as stated above, is the disulphide linkage and one of skill in the art would have known to select the appropriate agents for hydrolyzing. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are widely known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the prior art.
Regarding claim 27, Klimasauskas teaches alternatively modifying the DNA fragment at the unmethylated CpG dinucleotide by contacting the DNA fragment with a
methyltransferase and a co-factor comprising a label (claim 1), as encompassed by the steps of (a) cleaving genomic DNA into DNA fragments; (c) attaching a label to the linker; and (b) selectively functionalizing any non-methylated CpG sites present in the DNA with a linker, thus carrying out step (c) before step (b).
Regarding claim 28, Klimasauskas teaches DNA methyltransferase-directed transfer of functional groups from synthetic cofactors based on S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAM or AdoMet) (para 21), with the transfer being made onto unmethylated CpG dinucleotides (para 12).
Regarding claim 29, Klimasauskas teaches using a C5-methyltransferase as the DNA methyltransferase (para 11).
Regarding claim 31, Klimasauskas teaches chemical linkages imine, oxime moiety, and hydrazone (Table 1, p.20).
Regarding claim 32, Klimasauskas teaches a stable chemical linkage imine formed by reaction between the functional or reactive groups (1) primary amine and (2) aldehyde or ketone (Table 1, p.20), i.e. a Schiff base.
Regarding claim 41, Klimasauskas teaches attaching a label to the linker using Biotin Maleimide reacting with a sulfhydryl group (-SH) (Fig.6), which forms a covalent bond.
Regarding claim 42, Klimasauskas teaches the label can be an aptamer (ligand) (para 109). Klimasauskas further teaches that the label comprises a functional group F2 ( a second functional group) which reacts with a functional group F1 (functional group of the linker) (para 104).
Regarding claim 43, Klimasauskas teaches enrichment of the labeled DNA fragments (separating the labeled DNA fragments from any non-labeled DNA fragments) generally comprises affinity purification that involves a ligand (capture agent) immobilized on a solid phase (such as the surface of a bead) that binds to the label, enabling the labeled DNA fragments to be separated from the unlabeled DNA fragments (para 120 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 44, Klimasauskas teaches amplifying the enriched labeled DNA fragments (para 19) and analyzing the amplified DNA fragments (para 20), where analyzing the amplified DNA fragments may sequencing, thus satisfying the requirement of “at least one of the steps of ligating the released DNA fragments together and amplifying the DNA, prior to sequencing”.
Claim 30 remains/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimasauskas et al. (US PGPub US 20130130922) in view of Park et al. (Useful Tools for Biomolecule Isolation, Detection, and Identification: Acylhydrazone-Based Cleavable Linkers. 2009. Chemistry & Biology.16(7): 763-772) as applied to claims 26-32 and 41-44 above, and further in view of Deen et al. (A general strategy for direct, enzyme-catalyzed conjugation of functional compounds to DNA. 2018. Nucleic Acids Research. 46(11):1-8, published 03/13/2018).
Regarding claim 30, Klimasauskas teaches using protein engineering approaches to construct novel mutants of C5 DNA methyltransferase enzymes (para 25).
Neither Klimasauskas nor Park teach the DNA methyltransferase enzyme is a double mutant (Ql36A/N374A) of M.Mpel.
Deen teaches methyltransferases for delivering modifications to sites on DNA (p.1, Abstract). Deen specifically teaches using a double mutant (Q136A/N374A) of M.MpeI as the methyltransferase (p. 4, col. 2).
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 combine the teachings of Klimasauskas and Park with Deen to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The modification would have entailed using the double mutant M.MpeI methyltransferase of Deen as the mutant DNA methyltransferase enzymes of Klimasauskas. One would have been motivated to select a mutant methyltransferases that would effectively transfer modifications to sites on DNA. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are widely known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the prior art.
Claims 33-38 remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimasauskas et al. (US PGPub US 20130130922) in view of Park et al. (Useful Tools for Biomolecule Isolation, Detection, and Identification: Acylhydrazone-Based Cleavable Linkers. 2009. Chemistry & Biology.16(7): 763-772) as applied to claims 26-32 and 41-44 above, and further in view of Lukinavičius et al. (Enhanced chemical stability of AdoMet analogues for improved methyltransferase-directed labeling of DNA. 2013. ACS Chem Biol. 8(6):1134-9).
Regarding claims 33-38, Klimasauskas teaches formula (I) shown below
PNG
media_image1.png
300
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein X1 and X2 represent —OH; X3 represents —O—; X4, X5, X7 and X8 represent —N—; X6 represents —NH2; X9 represents —CO2H; X10 represents —NH2; and Z represents S, (para 29 and claim 6)
which is encompassed by
PNG
media_image2.png
232
251
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and k=2 of the elected species of claims 33 and 35-38.
Klimasauskas further teaches modifying the structure with an R group (para 29) at the same location as the instantly claimed structure. R further comprises functional groups (para 29) and combinations of functional groups (para 76), as well as accommodating varying chain lengths (para 86), including choices determined by relative positioning of different functional groups (para 85).
However, Klimasauskas does not teach an acylhydrazone linker as the hydrolysable moiety or the specific design of the attached R group.
Park teaches use of an acylhydrazone cleavable linker (p. 763, Abstract). Park states that advantages of selecting an acylhydrazone linker include ease of synthesis, stability and chemoselectivity (p. 770, col. 1).
Neither Klimasauskas nor Park specifically teach the R group of the instant claims.
Lukinavičius teaches modifying S-adenosyl-l-methionine cofactor analogs to increase chemical stability (p. 1134, Abstract), investigating extended side chains (R groups) (p. 1134, col. 2). Lukinavičius teaches synthesizing and studying side chains in order to permit efficient amplification and analysis of subsequently labeled DNA by PCR and sequencing techniques (p. 1137, col. 1). Lukinavičius teaches adding these side chains to the base structure of Klimasauskas (Fig. 1).
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 combine the teachings of Klimasauskas and Park with Lukinavičius to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. Selecting the claimed substituents for the R side chain to synthesize a transferable group for a S-adenosyl-l-methionine cofactor analog would be a design choice that one skilled in the art would have known how to perform. The claimed R side chain is considered an obvious variant that would have been selected by design to function effectively with the claimed DNA methyltransferase. Adding different R groups to S-adenosyl-l-methionine cofactor analogs and testing their stability and efficiency was well known and conventional at the time of the effective filing date. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are widely known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the prior art.
Claim 45 remains/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klimasauskas et al. (US PGPub US 20130130922) in view of Park et al. (Useful Tools for Biomolecule Isolation, Detection, and Identification: Acylhydrazone-Based Cleavable Linkers. 2009. Chemistry & Biology.16(7): 763-772) as applied to claims 26-32 and 41-44 above, and further in view of Gao (US PGPub 20150031552).
Regarding claim 45, Klimasauskas teaches DNA fragments may be formed by enzymatic digestion of the nucleic acid (para 118 and claim 17) and that methods of sequencing nucleic acid fragments are well known to a person skilled in the art (para 123).
Neither Klimasauskas nor Park teach at least one of the DNA is sequenced using nanopore sequencing and cleavage of the genomic DNA is carried out using a restriction enzyme.
Gao teaches a method for detecting hydroxymethylation modification in nucleic acids, the method comprising digesting genomic DNA using a restriction enzyme (Fig. 1 and para 102) and sequencing using Nanopore (para 29).
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 combine the teachings of Klimasauskas and Park with Gao to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. The modification would have entailed using the restriction enzyme digestion for fragmentation method of Gao as the enzyme digestion step of Klimasauskas. The modification would further have entailed selecting nanopore as the sequencing platform. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with these methods and been motivated to select the appropriate tools for fragmenting and sequencing a genomic DNA sample. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the underlying materials and methods are widely known, successfully demonstrated, and commonly used as evidenced by the prior art.
Response to Arguments against Claim Rejection - 35 U.S. C § 103
The response asserts that, as acknowledged by the Examiner, Klimasauskas does not teach hydrolyzing the hydrolyzable moiety of the linker (p. 9). The response further asserts that Park is non-analogous art entirely geared towards the field of protein technology and protein affinity-based chromatography, with no reference to DNA technology, let alone methods for analyzing DNA, or in particular for epigenetic profiling. Thus Park is not from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (p. 9-10). In addition, the response asserts that there is no teaching or guidance in Park which would have informed the skilled person that this technology would successfully translate from the field of protein affinity-based chromatography to DNA analysis, let alone have motivated them to do so. Thus the teachings of Park are not reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by the inventors (p. 10).
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Park is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Park teaches hydrolyzing the hydrolyzable moiety of the linker.
As written, claim 26 is to the genus of hydrolysable moieties and any method of hydrolyzing hydrolysable moieties. Park teaches an example of hydrolyzing a hydrolyzable moiety that teaches the mechanism of hydrolyzing to cleave a hydrolysable moiety. Regarding claims 33-38, as described in the rejection, Klimasauskas teaches chemical linkages that include hydrazone moieties. One of skill in the art would have recognized the acylhydrazone moiety of Park as a hydrazone moiety with the general advantage of cleavability that could be applied in different contexts.
The response asserts that the inventors have surprisingly found that functionalizing the
DNA fragments with a linker containing a hydrolyzable moiety allows the efficient removal of the label from the DNA following fractionation, which provides advantages for downstream processing. The inventors have also surprisingly found that the hydrolyzable linker advantageously does not interfere at all with downstream processing of the DNA (p. 9)
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that functionalizing the DNA fragments with a linker containing a hydrolyzable moiety allows the efficient removal of the label from the DNA following fractionation, which provides advantages for downstream processing and does not interfere at all with downstream processing of the DNA) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
(i). Claims 27-29, 31- 38, 43 and 44 remain/are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 27-46 of copending Application No. 17/761,817 in view of Klimasauskas et al. (US PGPub US 20130130922).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are drawn to methods for labeling a molecule using a cofactor to transfer a group onto the molecule.
Regarding instant claim 26, copending claim 27 requires providing a linker comprising a cleavable moiety, attaching a label and cleaving the cleavable moiety of the linker molecule to remove a label.
Regarding instant claim 26, copending claim 46 requires providing a linker molecule comprising a cleavable moiety; transferring (functionalizing) an R group to a polynucleotide molecule; attaching a label and hydrolyzing the cleavable moiety to remove a label.
The additional limitations of the copending claims 27 and 46 are encompassed by the open claim language "comprising" found in the instant claims.
Regarding instant claim 26, the claims of the copending application do not require cleaving DNA into fragments; separating the labeled DNA fragments from any non-labeled DNA fragments; or sequencing released DNA fragments.
The teachings of Klimasauskas as they relate to this claim are given previously in this office action and are fully incorporated here.
Regarding instant claim 27, copending claims do not require step (c) is carried out before step (b), and/or step (a) is carried out after step (b) or after step (c).
The teachings of Klimasauskas as they relate to this claim are given previously in this office action and are fully incorporated here.
Regarding instant claim 28, copending claim 46 requires using a DNA methyltransferase enzyme which is capable of using Compound A (a linker) as a cofactor under conditions that allow for the transfer of the R group of Compound A onto the polynucleotide molecule.
Regarding instant claim 29, copending claims do not require the DNA methyltransferase enzyme is a cytosine-5 methyltransferase.
The teachings of Klimasauskas as they relate to this claim are given previously in this office action and are fully incorporated here.
Regarding instant claim 31, copending claims do not require the hydrolyzable moiety comprises an imine moiety, an oxime moiety, or a hydrazone moiety.
The teachings of Klimasauskas as they relate to this claim are given previously in this office action and are fully incorporated here.
Regarding instant claim 32, copending claim 46 requires a Schiff base moiety for the linker molecule and further requires
Regarding instant claim 33, copending claims 38 and 46 require the claimed structure.
Regarding instant claim 34, copending claims 41 requires a functional group (FG) that is an azide .
Regarding instant claims 35-38, copending claim 40 requires the instantly claimed structures.
Regarding instant claim 41, copending claim 27 requires forming a covalent bond between a first label and the reactive center of a functional group.
Regarding instant claim 42, copending claims do not require the label comprises a ligand conjugated to a moiety comprising a second functional group which is capable of reacting with a functional group of the linker to form a covalent bond.
The teachings of Klimasauskas as they relate to this claim are given previously in this office action and are fully incorporated here.
Regarding instant claims 43 and 44, copending claims do not require wherein separating the labeled DNA fragments from any non-labeled DNA fragments comprises using an immobilized capture agent which selectively binds to the label (instant claim 43); or further comprising at least one of the steps of ligating the released DNA fragments together and amplifying the DNA, prior to sequencing (instant claim 44).
The teachings of Klimasauskas as they relate to these claims are given previously in this office action and are fully incorporated here.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(ii). Claim 30 remains/is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 27-46 of copending Application No. 17/761,817 in view of Deen et al. (A general strategy for direct, enzyme-catalyzed conjugation of functional compounds to DNA. 2018. Nucleic Acids Research. 46(11):1-8, published 03/13/2018)
Regarding instant claim 30, the copending claims do not require the DNA methyltransferase enzyme is a double mutant (Q136A/N374A) of M.MpeI.
The teachings of Deen as they relate to these claims are given previously in this office action and are fully incorporated here.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
(iii). Claim 45 remains/is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 27-46 of copending Application No. 17/761,817 in view of Gao (US PGPub 20150031552).
Regarding instant claim 45, the copending claims do not require at least one of the DNA is sequenced using nanopore sequencing and cleavage of the genomic DNA is carried out using a restriction enzyme.
The teachings of Gao as they relate to these claims are given previously in this office action and are fully incorporated here.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments against Double Patenting
The response requests that the provisional non statutory double patenting rejections be held in abeyance until the claims of this application and/or copending Application No. 17/761,817 are approaching allowance.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
No terminal disclaimer has been filed and no argument has been presented
against the double patenting rejections.
Thus, for the reasons stated above, and those already of the record, the rejection
is maintained.
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 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.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA GRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5 with second Fridays off.
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, WINSTON SHEN can be reached at (571)272-3157. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 1682
/WU CHENG W SHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights