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 .
Claim Status
Claims 26-27, 30-31, 34-35, and 37-50 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 5, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12-13, 17-25 and new claim 51 are under consideration in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 25, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
Any objection or rejection of record pertaining to cancelled claims 10-11 is rendered moot by applicant’s cancellation of said claim.
All of the objections and rejections of record regarding sequence compliance are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment filed November 25, 2025.
All objections to the specification and claims are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12-13, 17-23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/062604 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment to include the limitation wherein the antigen targeting domain comprises SEQ ID NO: 8, 15, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 39, or 40.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12-13, and 17-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 for being unpatentable over Vallera in view of Balakrishnan have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Balakrishnan as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Modified Rejections Necessitated by Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12-13, and 17-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The instant claims are drawn to a trispecific compound comprising an NK engaging domain of SEQ ID NO: 18, an NK activating domain comprising IL-15 or a functional variant, and a targeting domain that selectively binds an HIV antigen comprised of SEQ ID NO: 8, 15, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 39, or 40. The claims are broadly drawn to a compound that binds HIV antigen with only half of the antibody defined.
As detailed below, applicant’s disclosure is not sufficient to demonstrate possession of the entire claimed genus of antigen-binding domain that recognizes an HIV antigen, and, as such, applicant’s disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement of 30 U.S.C. 112(a).
Antibodies generally share certain characteristics such as Fc regions or hinge regions. However, these structures are not correlated with the binding function of the antibody. It is well established in the art that the formation of an intact antigen-binding site generally requires the association of the complete heavy and light chain variable regions of a given antibody, each of which consists of three complementarity determining regions that provide the majority of the contact residues for the binding of the antibody to its target epitope. The amino acid sequences and conformations of each of the heavy and light chain CDRs are critical in maintaining the antigen binding specificity and affinity, which is characteristic of the immunoglobulin. It is expected that all of the heavy and light chain CDRs in their proper order and in the context of framework sequences, which maintain their required conformation, are required in order to produce a protein having antigen-binding function and that proper association of heavy and light chain variable regions is required in order to form functional antigen binding sites (see Almagro et al, Section 3 “Antibody Structure and the Antigen Binding Site” and Figure 1; PTO-892 from 7/29/2025).
The art recognizes that the CDRs define the binding properties of an antibody and that even single amino acid changes to this region can completely abrogate the binding specificity of an antibody. See for example Kussie (PTO-892 from 7/29/2025), who demonstrates that a single amino acid change in the heavy chain of an antibody which binds p-azophenylarsonate (Ars) completely abrogates the ability of the antibody to bind Ars but adds the functionality of binding the structurally related p-azophenylsulfonate (see abstract).
Furthermore, even when provided with several related antibodies that bind the desired target, this does not represent the astronomical and potentially unknowable breadth of all possible amino acid sequences which will result in the desired binding properties. This is exemplified by the Court decision in Abbvie (Abbvie v Janssen 759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014)), where Abbvie developed over 200 antibodies that shared 99.5% identity in the variable regions (pg 7) and which bound the target, but in no way allowed one to envisage the unique structure of Centocor’s antibodies which bound the same target but shared only 50% sequence similarity (see table on pg 11).
CDRs are not generally recognized as interchangeable, such that using one light chain variable region (LCVR) from one antibody would not be reasonably expected to confer the same binding properties or even the same binding target when combined with a heavy chain variable region (HCVR) from other antibodies. For example, WO 2008068048 (instant PTO-892) discloses an antibody with a heavy chain comprising three CDRs (SEQ ID NO: 2) that binds secreted aspartyl protease from Candida sp. US 20170355756 (instant PTO-892) describes the same three CDRs in the heavy chain (C10-VH3) combined with a different light chain that binds human TDP-43. There is no evidence in the instant specification that the LCVR or HCVR is correlated to the required function when combined with any other chain. As such, the specification fails to set forth a structure-function correlation sufficient to claim all possible antibodies defined by function or one or three specified CDRs. The disclosure of three complete antibody sequences (as in new claim 51) does not convey possession of other antibodies with the same binding properties; possession of the precisely defined sequence of six CDRs for an antibody is required.
Thus, the prior art cannot provide sufficient written description of this genus of compounds and the specification as filed does not sufficiently describe the genus either as there is an unknown amount of structurally distinct antibodies in this genus (see Amgen and Centocor decisions discussed above).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
In the instant case, the specification provides insufficient direction or guidance concerning the relationship between the structure of the possible antibody to demonstrate possession of the breadth of the genera of antibodies that bind HIV antigen encompassed by the instant claims, especially in view of the unpredictability of such an endeavor. The prior art, as evidenced by Edwards et al., 2003 (PTO-892 from 7/29/2025), teaches there is a substantially huge antibody diversity produced to one single antigen target. Edwards provides evidence that over 1000 antibodies, all different amino acid sequences, were generated towards one single protein antigen target (see abstract). Without a correlation between structure and function, the claims do little more than define the claimed invention by function. That is not sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (“definition by function … does not suffice to define the genus because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is”).
According to the specification, the applicant has disclosed at least 5 species of antibody that bind HIV antigen, and these are comprised of specific variable heavy and variable light chain regions. Although applicant has disclosed some species within said genus of antibodies that bind HIV antigen, the specification does not provide adequate written description for the entire claimed genus, because one skilled in the art would be unable to immediately envision, recognize, or distinguish most of the members comprised within the genus claimed, specifically which six CDR amino acids sequences from the recited CDRs should be combined to yield an antigen-binding region that is capable of binding an HIV antigen.
To provide adequate written description and evidence of possession of the claimed genus, the specification must provide sufficient distinguishing identifying characteristics of the genus. The factors to be considered include disclosure of complete or partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics, structure/function correlation, methods of making the claimed product, or any combination thereof. In the instant case, the only factors present in the claims are a recitation of one generic, broad genus that encompassed a diverse and huge number of possible antibodies that bind the disclosed epitope. The specification does not provide a consistent structure for all of the possible antibodies and fails to provide a representative number of species for the claimed genus. Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genus.
Satisfactory disclosure of a "representative number" depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features of the elements possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus.
One cannot describe what one has not conceived. See Fiddes v. Baird, 30 USPQ2d 1481 at 1483. In Fiddes, claims directed to mammalian FGF's were found to be unpatentable due to lack of written description for that broad class. Applicant is reminded that Vas-Cath makes clear that the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. §112 is severable from its enablement provision (see page 1115).
Therefore, claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12-13, and 17-25 do not meet the written description requirement.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 3, 6-9, 12-13, 17-25, and new claim 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/062604, published April 13, 2017 (“Vallera”; see IDS from 4/17/2024) in view of US 2020/0123236A1, filed October 17, 2017 (“Guenaga”; instant PTO-892).
The instant claims are directed to a compound comprising a NK engaging domain comprising SEQ ID NO: 11, SEQ ID NO: 18, or amino acid 10240 of SEQ ID NO: 5, a NK activating domain linked to the NK engaging domain comprising IL-15 of SEQ ID NO: 4 (or functional variant comprising a N72D or N72A amino acid substitution), and a targeting domain that is operably linked to the NK activating domain and the NK engaging domain, wherein the targeting domains comprises SEQ ID NO: 8, 15, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 39, or 40.
Vallera teaches a compound comprising an NK engaging domain, an NK activating domain operably linked to the NK engaging domain, and a targeting domain that selectively binds to a viral antigen and is operably linked to the NK activating domain and the NK engaging domain (pg 1, ln 25-28), as in the claim 1.
The NK engaging anti-CD16 domain of Vallera comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 20 (pg 57, ln 16-19), which comprises SEQ ID NO: 18 of instant claim 1.
Vallera teaches that the NK activating domain can include IL-15 (pg 15 ln 8-14); which comprises the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 15. SEQ ID NO: 15 identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 4, as in instant claim 1. Vallera also teaches variants of IL-15 with N72D or N72A amino acid substitution (pg 15 ln 25-29), as in instant claim 1.
The targeting domain can selectively bind to a target on a cell infected by a virus, such as HIV (pg 15, ln 3-4), as in instant claims 1 and 3.
Vallera teaches that the NK engaging domain can include an antibody or a fragment thereof (pg 2, ln 1-2) or a nanobody (pg 31, ln 1-5), which reads on instant claim 6, and that a fragment thereof includes scFv, Fab, and Fv (pg 13, ln 14-10), which reads on claim 7. The fragment of the nanobody may be camelid (pg 31, ln 5-8), as in instant claims 8-9.
Vallera teaches that the targeting moiety can include an antibody or a fragment thereof (e.g., ScFv, or a Fab) (pg 2, ln 3-5), as in instant claims 12-13.
The molecule of Vallera can include a flanking sequence linking any two of the domains (pg 2, ln 25-26), as in instant claim 17; in some cases, the molecule can have more than one flanking sequence (pg 2, ln 26-27), as in claim 18. Vallera teaches that the flanking sequences are upstream and downstream of the NK activating domain (pg 29, ln 5-8), as in instant claim 19.
Further, Vallera teaches that the first flanking sequence is C-terminal to the anti-NK scFv and a second flanking sequence is N-terminal to the targeting domain (Vallera claim 23), as in instant claim 20.
In some embodiments, the compound may comprise a second targeting domain (Vallera claim 24), a second NK activating domain (Vallera claim 26, or a second NK engaging domain (Vallera claim 25), as in instant claims 21-23, respectively.
Vallera teaches a composition comprising the compound and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (Vallera claim 48; pg 37, ln 1-3), as in instant claim 25.
Vallera does not teach the antibody that binds HIV antigen in compound of SEQ ID NO: 8, as required by amended claim 1.
Guenaga teaches a multi-specific antibody that binds to HIV antigen of SEQ ID NO: 20 [0196]. SEQ ID NO: 20 is comprised of SEQ ID NOs: 25 and 26 of instant claims 1 and new claim 51; Guenaga teaches the targeting domain of claims 1 and 51.
Instant claim 24 is directed to a compound of SEQ ID NO: 7, wherein the targeting domain binds to an antigen of HIV. The targeting domain comprises SEQ ID NO: 8, which Guenaga teaches. SEQ ID NO: 7 comprises a NK engaging domain of SEQ ID NO: 18 and NK activating domain of SEQ ID NO: 4, which Vallera teaches (see pg 10 of this office action).
Given that Vallera teaches all the features of the compound of claim 1 except the HIV antigen binding domain and further given that Guenaga teaches an antibody that bind to HIV antigen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the antibody of Guenaga in the compound of Vallera and thereby arrive at the presently claimed invention. This is because the artisan has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp to obtain predictable results. Such would amount to the simple substitution of one functionally equivalent element for another (i.e. the antibody of Guenaga for the HIV antigen targeting domain of Vallera) to obtain predictable results. The motivation to do so comes from Vallera, which teaches the potential clinical benefit compounds targeting HIV virus infected cells for the treatment of disease (pg 15, ln 3-4).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12-13, 17-25 and new claim 51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 9, 12-14, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,098,100 in view of in view of US 2020/0123236A1, filed October 17, 2017 (“Guenaga”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to overlapping subject matter: a compound comprising an NK engaging domain comprising SEQ ID NO: 18, an NK activating domain operably linked to the NK engaging domain comprising IL-15, and a targeting domain that selectively binds to an HIV antigen and is operably linked to the NK activating domain and NK engaging domain.
Claim 1 of ‘100 teaches a compound comprising an NK engaging domain of amino acid residues 19-140 of SEQ ID NO: 14, which is comprised of instant SEQ ID NO: 18 for the NK engaging domain of instant claim 1. The NK activating domain of ‘100 comprises SEQ ID NO: 15 and the amino acid substitutions N72A and N72D, as in the NK activating domain comprised of IL-15 of instant SEQ ID NO: 4 or a functional variant thereof, of instant claims 1.
Claims 4-5 of ‘100 teach an NK engaging moiety that is an antibody or a binding fragment thereof (including scFv, F(ab)2, or Fab); which reads on instant claims 6-7. Claims 7-8 of ‘100 teach a targeting moiety comprising an antibody or binding fragment thereof (including scFv), which reads on instant claims 12-13. The antibody/nanobody of claim 14 of ‘100 is human, humanized, or camelid, as in instant claim 8.
The linkers of claims 12-13 of ‘100 read on the flanking sequences of instant claims 19-20. These linkers are the same as those in SEQ ID NO: 7 of instant claim 24.
Although claim 19 of ‘100 teaches a targeting domain that binds to an antigen of HIV, ‘100 does not teach an HIV antigen binding domain of SEQ ID NO: 8, as required by amended claim 1.
Guenaga teaches a multi-specific antibody that binds to HIV antigen of SEQ ID NO: 20 [0196]. SEQ ID NO: 20 is comprised of SEQ ID NOs: 25 and 26 of instant claims 1 and new claim 51; Guenaga teaches the targeting domain of claims 1 and 51.
Instant claim 24 is directed to a compound of SEQ ID NO: 7, wherein the targeting domain binds to an antigen of HIV. The targeting domain comprises SEQ ID NO: 8, which Guenaga teaches. SEQ ID NO: 7 comprises a NK engaging domain of SEQ ID NO: 18 and NK activating domain of SEQ ID NO: 4, which ‘101 teaches.
Given that ‘100 teaches the compound of instant claim 1 and further given that Guenaga teaches an antibody that bind to HIV antigen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the antibody of Guenaga in the composition of claim 1 of ‘100 and thereby arrive at the presently claimed invention. This is because the artisan has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp to obtain predictable results. Such would amount to the simple substitution of one functionally equivalent element for another (i.e. the antibody of Guenaga for the HIV antigen targeting domain of ‘100) to obtain predictable results.
The scope of the reference claims fully overlaps with the instant claims, and thus, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method of ‘100 is the same as that of the instant application and the indicated claims are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12-13, 17-25 and new claim 51 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,098,101 in view of in view of US 2020/0123236A1, filed October 17, 2017 (“Guenaga”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to overlapping subject matter: a compound comprising an NK engaging domain comprising instant SEQ ID NO: 18, an NK activating domain operably linked to the NK engaging domain comprising IL-15, and a targeting domain that selectively binds to an HIV antigen and is operably linked to the NK activating domain and NK engaging domain.
Claim 1 of ‘101 teaches a compound comprising an NK engaging domain of amino acid residues 19-140 of SEQ ID NO: 14, which is comprised of instant SEQ ID NO: 18 for the NK engaging domain of instant claim 1. The NK activating domain of ‘101 comprises SEQ ID NO: 15 and the amino acid substitutions N72A and N72D, as in the NK activating domain comprised of IL-15 of instant SEQ ID NO: 4 or a functional variant thereof, of instant claim 1.
Claims 3-4 of ‘101 teach an NK engaging moiety that is an antibody or a binding fragment thereof (including scFv, F(ab)2, or Fab); as in instant claims 6-7. The antibody/nanobody of claim 5 of ‘101 is human, humanized, or camelid, as in instant claim 8.
The linkers of claims 7-8 of ‘101 read on the flanking sequences of instant claims 19-20. These linkers are the same as those in SEQ ID NO: 7 of instant claim 24.
Although claim 1 of ‘101 teaches a targeting domain that binds to an antigen of HIV, ‘101 does not teach an HIV antigen binding domain of SEQ ID NO: 8, as required by amended claim 1.
Instant claim 24 is directed to a compound of SEQ ID NO: 7, wherein the targeting domain binds to an antigen of HIV. The targeting domain comprises SEQ ID NO: 8, which Guenaga teaches. SEQ ID NO: 7 comprises a NK engaging domain of SEQ ID NO: 18 and NK activating domain of SEQ ID NO: 4, which ‘101 teaches.
Given that ‘101 teaches the compound of instant claim 1 and further given that Guenaga teaches the antibody that binds to HIV antigen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the antibody of Guenaga in the composition of claim 1 of ‘100 and thereby arrive at the presently claimed invention. This is because the artisan has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp to obtain predictable results. Such would amount to the simple substitution of one functionally equivalent element for another (i.e. the antibody of Guenaga for the HIV antigen targeting domain of ‘101) to obtain predictable results.
The scope of the reference claims fully overlaps with the instant claims, and thus, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method of ‘100 is the same as that of the instant application and the indicated claims are not patentably distinct from each other.
Response to Arguments
In the response filed on November 25, 2025, applicant requests that the nonstatutory double patenting rejections over U.S. Patents 11,098,100 and 11,098,101 to be held in abeyance until notification of allowable subject matter in the present application. The applicant is reminded that a complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer. Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional. See MPEP 804.I.B.1. The rejections are maintained for the reasons of record.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER BENAVIDES whose telephone number is (571)272-0545. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Stucker can be reached at (571)272-0911. 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.
Jennifer Benavides
Examiner
Art Unit 1675
/JENNIFER A BENAVIDES/Examiner, Art Unit 1675
/AURORA M FONTAINHAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675