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 .
Election/Restrictions
Species Election:
The newly amended claim 1 (submitted on 02/17/2026) is added with various species of at least one compound capable of deactivating an antimicrobial agent, selected from the Markush group consisting of letheen broth, thioglycolates, one or more peptones, thiosulfates, bisulfates, protease, urea, phenol, calcium, collagen, haematin, melanin, polysaccharides, humic acids, and tannic acids.
These species of the compounds capable of deactivating an antimicrobial agent are independent or distinct because they are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1., because these species do not share a common special technical feature that is a contribution over the prior art, because the technical feature linking these species has been suggested by the prior art (Horn and Fujiwara et al.), as described below in the 103 rejection.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (I) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined from the Markush group recited in the claim 1, even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143); and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Election over the phone:
During a telephone conversation with Attorney KeishA Hylton-Rodic/Sara Mattson on 06/11/2026, the examiner states the election requirement over the distinct species of at least one compound capable of deactivating an antimicrobial agent in the Markush group of Claim 1. A provisional election was made by Attorney to prosecute the species of “one or more peptones”. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this office action.
Remarks
The amendments and remarks filed on 02/17/2026 have been entered and considered. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office action. The rejections and/or objections presented herein are the only rejections and/or objections currently outstanding. Any previously presented objections or rejections that are not presented in this Office Action are withdrawn. Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, and 16-22 are pending; Claims 7, 12, and 14-15 are cancelled; Claims 1, 5-6, 11, and 13 are amended; Claims 16-22 are withdrawn; and Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13 are under examination.
As indicated above, a provisional election was made by Attorney to prosecute the species of one or more peptones for the species of at least one compound capable of deactivating an antimicrobial agent. Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13 are under examination, as being drawn to the elected invention.
Upon searching and further consideration, Examiner rejoined the species of thioglycolate and thiosulfate to be examined with the provisionally elected species of one or more peptones. However, the species election requirement over the remining species in the Markush group is still maintained.
Withdrawal of Objections
The objection to Claim 7 is withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim filed on 02/17/2026.
Withdrawal of Rejections
The rejection of claims 6, 11, and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims filed on 02/17/2026.
The rejection of Claims 1-3 and 5-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horn is withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims filed on 02/17/2026.
The rejection of Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu is withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims filed on 02/17/2026.
The rejections of Claims 1-11 and/or 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Horn, either alone or further in view of Zheng, are withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims filed on 02/17/2026.
The rejection of Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wu in view of Zheng is withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims filed on 02/17/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (specifically, a natural product/phenomenon) without significantly more. This rejection is maintained.
The claimed invention is directed to a composition which is one of four categories of patent eligible subject matter (Step 1: Yes).
The claims 1-3 define the composition comprises: (i) an ascorbic acid compound, where the ascorbic acid compound can be an ascorbic acid (vitamin C), a naturally occurring compound; (ii) at least one compound capable of deactivating an antimicrobial agent, selected from the Markush group in which naturally occurring compounds, such as protease, urea, calcium, collagen, haematin, melanin, polysaccharides, humic acid, and tannic acid, are listed as members of the Markush group; (iii) pyruvate, or salt or hydrate thereof, which is a naturally occurring compound; (iv) an emulsifier, i.e. lecithin, which is a naturally occurring compound; and (v) water, which is also a naturally occurring compound. These five components comprised in the claimed composition all can be naturally occurring cellular components; and they are present at any amounts, except that lecithin is defined at 1 g/L- 20 g/L. It is noted that there is no indication in the specification that a combination of any amounts or proportions of the components (i), (ii), (iii), and (v) with 1 g/L- 20 g/L of lecithin can result in a composition having any characteristics (structural or functional) that are significantly different from naturally occurring counterparts in their natural state. Accordingly, the claims 1-3 are directed to a “product of nature” judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes).
The judicial exception in the claims is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to a product, not a method of use (Step 2A: Prong 2: No).
The claim 1 recites in the preamble the additional limitation “to deactivate antimicrobial agents”. This limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed composition, and it does not change the fact that the claimed composition encompasses those not having any characteristics significantly different from naturally occurring counterparts. As such, the claim does not include an additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: No).
Claims 5-6 require the claimed composition further comprises peptone(s) (a protein hydrolysate) and a polyol surfactant, respectively, which are all naturally occurring compounds. Thus, the claims 5-6 are still directed to the judicial exception of the base claim 1.
Claim 8 defines that no more than 60% of ascorbic acid compound in the claimed composition is degraded after storage at 2-8 degrees C for 1 week. It is noted that the table 9 of Example 13 in the specification only discloses that more than 91.7% and more than 83.3% of ascorbic acid are still remained (i.e. no more than 9% and 18% degradation) in the claimed composition after being stored at 2-8 degrees C for 5 and 11 days, respectively. However, there is no indication in the speciation that no more than 60% of degradation is a characteristic significantly different from that of the naturally occurring counterpart. Thus, the additional limitation recited in the claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 requires the claimed composition to have a pH in the range of about 6-8. It is noted that there is no indication in the specification that the claimed composition at the pH of about 6-8 has any characteristics significantly different from their naturally occurring counterpart. Thus, the additional limitation recited in the claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 10 and 11 require the claimed composition to further comprise a buffer.
It is noted that buffer is a naturally occurring product. Furthermore, there is no indication in the specification that the claimed composition having a buffer at about 10-100 mM has any characteristics significantly different from their naturally occurring counterpart. Thus, the additional limitation recited in the claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13 requires that pyruvate is present at 1-20 g/L. However, there is no indication in the specification that a combination of any amounts or proportions of the components (i), (ii), and (v) with 1 g/L- 20 g/L of lecithin and pyruvate can result in a composition having any characteristics (structural or functional) that are significantly different from naturally occurring counterparts in their natural state. Thus, the additional limitation recited in the claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, and 13 are deemed to be patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d), or 112, Fourth Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends
Claim 5 defines that the at least one compound capable of deactivating an antimicrobial agent is selected from a Markush group consisting of … thioglycolates … and combinations thereof”. The base claim 1, upon which the claim 5 depends, defines that the at least one compound is selected from a Markush group consisting of sodium thioglycolate … and tannic acids”. Since the claim 1 does not defines that the “combinations thereof” is a member in the Markush group, the scope of the claim 5 is broader than that of Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn (US 2004/0106186, 2004, cited in IDS) in view of Fujiwara et al. (US Patent No. 6007831, 1999, of record).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5 and 9-11, Horn teaches a sterilizable nutrient medium composition based on casein soya peptone agar for detecting microorganisms on hydrogen peroxide-bearing surfaces or in air (abstract). Example 1 (para 0020) teaches the composition comprises: (a) an ascorbic acid compound, specifically a sodium salt of ascorbic acid (reading on the “ascorbic acid compound” in claims 1-3); (b) sodium thioglycolate, sodium thiosulfate, and casein soya peptone (soytone) (reading on the “compound capable of deactivating an antimicrobial agent” in claims 1 and 5); (c) a sodium pyruvate (reading on the pyruvate salt in claim 1); (d) a buffer, specifically a phosphate buffer at pH 7.3, wherein 20 ml of 1 molar solution of the phosphate buffer is added per 1 liter of the nutrient medium, resulting in a concentration 20 mM of the phosphate buffer (Note: these read on the pH range of about 6-8, the buffer, and the buffer concentration range of about 10-100 mM in claims 9-11, respectively); (e) lecithin (reading on the emulsifier lecithin in the claim 1); and (f) sufficient water to form a dispersion solution of the composition. Horn further teaches that the medium composition is stable for 6 month and it is capable of neutralizing 2% H2O2 (i.e. deactivating an antimicrobial agent H2O2), thus permitting microbial growth, while a control medium composition does not permit the growth (para 0017, lines 4 and 7-12).
The medium composition of Horn differs from the claimed composition in that Horn is silent about a specific concentrations of lecithin in his composition and does not teach a concentration in the range of 1 g/L to 20 g/L, as recited in the instant claim 1.
However, Horn teaches the composition is based on the culture medium of Microbial Content Test Agar (Difco) and Agar-agar (Example 1: page 2, left col., lines 4 and 6-7 from bottom), wherein the Agar-agar comprises lecithin along with other nutrients (Example 1, page 2/left col./line 4 from bottom), and the Microbial Content Test Agar (Difco) comprising lecithin along with soya peptone and sorbitan monooleate/Tween 80 is preferably employed (para 0013).
Fujiwara et al. teach an assay for bactericidal activity against bacteria (col 5/line 42 – col 6/line 41), and using the Microbial Content Test Agar (Difco) containing 0.07% (0.7 g/L) lecithin as neutralizers to inhibit action of germicides (i.e. deactivating antimicrobial agent) (col 6, lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious to include Microbial Content Test Agar (Difco) containing lecithin in the medium composition of Horn for neutralizing/deactivating H2O2 and other germicides/antimicrobial agent and for accurately detecting microorganisms. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, because Horn teaches that the Microbial Content Test Agar (Difco) containing lecithin is preferably employed for preparing the medium composition of his invention. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at including the Microbial Content Test Agar containing lecithin in the medium composition of Horn, because lecithin is a neutralizer well known in the art for deactivating H2O2 and other antimicrobial agent, as supported by Horn and Fujiwara et al. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated in the art that a medium composition comprising lecithin is effective at deactivating antimicrobial agent and allowing detection of microorganisms after exposure to high amounts of antimicrobial agent/H2O2, as supported by Horn (Examples 1 and 5, para 0030/lines 1-5).
Regarding the lecithin’s concentration range of 1 g/L to 20 g/L in the claim 1, Fujiwara et al. teach that Microbial Content Test Agar (Difco) contains 0.7 g/L of lecithin as neutralizer for deactivating antimicrobial agent. Although 0.7 g/L does not read on the claimed range, it is close to the low end “1 g/L” of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05(I), which states “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”. In addition, Example 1 of Horn teaches the Agar-agar also contains lecithin, which could increase the concentration of lecithin in the composition. Furthermore, It is considered that the concentration of lecithin in the composition of Horn can be readily modified by routine optimization for improving its neutralization effect for deactivating H2O2 and other antimicrobial agent and increasing detection accuracy for microorganism. It is well settled that routine optimization is not patentable, even though it results in significant improvement over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.05). Thus, the claimed range would have been obvious over the cited prior art, in the absence of showing criticality.
Regarding the claim 6, Horn teaches the composition comprises sorbitan monooleate (Example 1: page 2, left col., line 4 from bottom). Examiner notes that sorbitan monooleate is a polyol surfactant, because it is made from sorbitol (a polyol) and oleic acid, and functions as a surfactant.
Regarding the claim 8, Horn teaches the composition is stable for 6 months, but does not expressively teach that the ascorbic acid compound decreases no more than 60% after storage for one week when compared to an amount before the storage. However, stability of the ascorbic acid compound is directed the properties, rather than structures, of the claimed composition. Horn and Fujiwara et al. suggest a composition comprising exactly the same components as those in the claimed composition, meeting all the structural limitations recited in the claim. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that substances having substantially the same structures have substantially the same properties.
Regarding Claim 13, Example 1 of Horn teaches the sodium pyruvate is at 0.25 g/L (page 2, Example 1, right col/lines 5-6). Although the concentration of Example 1 does not exactly match the claimed range of 1 – 20 g/L, it is well known in the art that sodium pyruvate in the claimed concentration range is effective for growing and detecting microorganisms, as supported by Horn, who teaches medium with 1% sodium pyruvate is suitable for isolating microorganisms and conducting detection procedure (para 0006, lines 1-7). It is considered that the concentration of Horn can be readily modified by routine optimization for improving microbial growth and detection accuracy. It is well settled that routine optimization is not patentable, even though it results in significant improvement over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.05). Thus, the claimed range would have been obvious over the cited prior art, in the absence of showing criticality.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn (US 2004/0106186, 2004, cited in IDS) in view of Fujiwara et al. (US Patent No. 6007831, 1999, of record), as applied to Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, and 13, further in view of Zheng et al. (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2017, 65:4161−4166, of record).
The teachings of Horn and Fujiwara et al. are described above.
Regarding Claim 4, Horn does not teach 2-phospho ascorbic acid as a component in the medium composition. However, Horn teaches including ascorbic acid in the composition.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace ascorbic acid in the medium composition suggested by Horn and Fujiwara et al. with 2-phospho ascorbic acid for improving stability of ascorbic acid component, because it is well known in the art that ascorbic acid is unstable and 2-phospho ascorbic acid is a derivative of ascorbic acid, which has improved stability in vitro and is readily hydrolyzed to ascorbic acid in vivo. In support, Zhang et al. teach enzymatically producing ascorbic acid-2-phosphate (i.e. 2-phospho ascorbic acid) (see title), and also teach that ascorbic acid (AsA) is a well-known antioxidant that protects other compounds from oxidation, but AsA is unstable and degraded to dehydroascorbic acid due to oxidation of its hydroxyl groups (page 4161, left col., lines 1-3 and 6-9). Zhang et al. further teach that many AsA derivatives have been synthesized to improve stability of AsA, and among these AsA derivatives the ascorbic acid-2-phosphate (AsA-2P) is considered superior because of its stability in aqueous solutions, its simple hydrolysis to AsA and phosphate by phosphatase under in vivo condition, and its being widely used (page 4161/left col: para 1/lines 9-15, para 2/lines 1-4).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments about the 101 rejection in the response filed on 02/17/2026 (pages 7-11) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
First, the limitation “to deactivate antimicrobial agents” is directed to the intended use of the claimed composition and it is not the indication that the claimed composition has any characteristics markedly different from naturally occurring counterparts. Second, the activities of deactivating antimicrobial agents, demonstrated in Tables 5-7 and the examples in the specification of the instant application, require a total of 10 components in the composition to be present at specifically defined amounts (see the lists in Tables 2-3, which show amounts, such as: 1 g/L or 5 g/L ascorbic acid compound, 1.2 g/L or 2.4 g/L peptone/soytone/tryptone, 7.5 g/L pyruvate, 992.5 ml water, 15 g/L-3 g/L phosphate buffer salts, and 7.5 ml glycerol). On the other hand, the instant claim 1 recites only 5 components, and it does not recite any limitations to define concentrations or amounts of ascorbic acid compound, deactivating compound, pyruvate, water (i.e. components (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) described above). There is no factual evidence in the specification to support that a combination of any amounts of ascorbic acid compound, deactivating compound, pyruvate, and water along with 1-20 g/L lecithin in the claim can result in a composition having markedly different activities of deactivating antimicrobial agents. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments about increased stability of ascorbic acid in the claimed composition (in page 10 of the response) are based on the features not recited in the claim. It is noted that the results of Table 10 in the specification are obtained from a composition in Examples 9-12 (see the lists in Table 8), of which all the 10 components are present at specifically defined amounts, such as: 0.5 g/L – 7.5 g/L ascorbic acid, 2.4 g/L peptone/soytone/tryptone, 7.5 g/L pyruvate, 992.5 ml water, 15 g/L-3 g/L phosphate buffer salts, and 7.5 ml glycerol). The instant claim 1, however, recites only 5 components and it does not define any concentrations or amounts of ascorbic acid compound, deactivating compound, pyruvate, and water, and it does not require a buffer or glycerol. There is no factual evidence in the specification to support that a claimed composition comprising a combination of any amounts of ascorbic acid compound, deactivating compound, pyruvate, and water along with 1-20 g/L lecithin can lead to an increase in the stability of ascorbic acid. Therefore, the instant claims encompass compositions not having markedly different characteristics with regard to activities of deactivating antimicrobial agents as well as stability of ascorbic acid, when compared to their naturally occurring counterparts. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments about the 102 rejections respectively as being anticipated by Horn and Wu in the 02/17/2026 response (pages 11-15) been fully considered but they are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn, as indicated above.
Applicant's arguments about the 103 rejections over Horn, either alone or in combination of Zheng in the 02/17/2026 response (pages 15-19) been fully considered but they are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn, as indicated above.
Applicant's arguments about the 103 rejections over Wu in view of Zheng in the 02/17/2026 response (pages 23-25) been fully considered but they are moot because the rejections have been withdrawn, as indicated above.
Applicant's arguments about the 103 rejection of the claims 1-3 and 5-13 over Horn in view of Fujiwara in the 02/17/2026 response (pages 20-23) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons.
First, in response to Applicant’s arguments about the teachings of Horn in pages 21-22 of the response, Horn in Example 1 teaches a medium composition comprising lecithin, which is prepared by including the basic medium microbial content test agar and Agar-agar comprising “casein soya peptone … lecithin, sorbitan-monooleate” in the medium composition (emphasis added, see page 2/left col/lines 4-7 from bottom); and Horn in para 0013 expressively teaches that the microbial content test agar (Difco) comprising “casein soya peptone … sorbitan-monooleate =Tween 80 and lecithin” is preferably employed for preparing the medium composition of his invention (emphasis added, see page 1/para 0013/lines 1-4). Second, in response to Applicant’s arguments about the teachings of Fujiwara in pages 21-22 of the response, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the test for obviousness is not whether the secondary reference Fujiwara may be bodily incorporated into the composition of Horn; or the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in the Fujiwara. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the cited references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. As indicated above, Fujiwara teaches using the microbial content test agar (Difco) comprising 0.7 g/L lecithin as a neutralizer for deactivating antimicrobial agent. In view of the combined teachings of Horn and Fujiwara, it would have been obvious to include the microbial content test agar (Difco) comprising 0.7 g/L lecithin taught by Fujiwara in the medium composition of Horn for deactivating antimicrobial agent, for the reasons indicated above.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments based on the claimed range of 1 – 20 g/L in the paragraph spanning pages 22 and 23 of the response, these arguments are not persuasive. It is noted that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). As indicated above, the combined teachings of Horn and Fujiwara render the claimed concentration range of 1 – 20 g/L to be obvious, and the claimed invention has no novelty in the absence of evidence to support the claimed concentration range is critical.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments based on the disclosure of the paras 0028 and 0030 of the specification in the response (page 23), these arguments are not persuasive because they are based on the features not recited in the claims. Furthermore, Applicant failed to provide any factual evidence to support that 0.7 g/L lecithin is not enough to disperse all the components in the composition.
Overall, the conclusion of the obviousness of the amended claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13 has been established for all the reasons indicated above.
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PMR) 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Qing Xu, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-3076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Manjunath N. Rao, can be reached at (571) 272-0939. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-1600.
/Qing Xu/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights