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 .
Applicant’s amendment, filed 12/12/2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 10 and 11 are cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 12-22 are currently pending.
Claims 4 and 12-16 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions and/or species.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 17-22 are under examination.
In view of the amendments and arguments filed on 12/12/2025, the following rejections remain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 2, 5-9, and 17-22 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 contains 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 17-22 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the Office Action mailed on 9/15/2025. Briefly, the claims encompass a genus of polypeptides with the function of “γc chain or an intracellular region thereof” without adequate written description support in the instant specification.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed 12/12/2025, have been fully considered, but have been found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the γc chain is one specific naturally occurring protein represented by UnitProt entry P31785 (remarks filed 12/12/2025 pg. 2). Applicant further argues that this one species of polypeptide structure does not include variants, and therefore arts demonstrating sequence variability of the γc chain changes its signaling function do not apply.
This has been found to be not persuasive. UnitProt entry P31785 and SEQ ID NO: 16 and 14 represent the sequence of the wildtype γc or intracellular region, respectively, from humans.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 17-22 recite γc chains or intracellular regions thereof from any animal species. However, the instant specification only discloses one representative species from humans. It is unclear as to what species of γc chains were known in the art other than human. The identification of γc chains from unknown species is unpredictable. Thus, the written description provided in the instant specification is not commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention. In view of the aforementioned problems regarding description of the claimed invention, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed invention herein.
See The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Company, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404-7 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1995) the inventors claimed a genus of DNA species encoding insulin in different vertebrates or mammals, but had only described a single species of cDNA which encoded rat insulin. The court held that only the nucleic acids species described in the specification (i.e. nucleic acids encoding rat insulin) met the description requirement and that the inventors were not entitled to a claim encompassing a genus of nucleic acids encoding insulin from other vertebrates, mammals or humans, id. at 1240. The Federal Circuit has held that if an inventor is "unable to envision the detailed constitution of a gene so as to distinguish it from other materials. . .conception has not been achieved until reduction to practice has occurred", Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd., 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Attention is also directed to the decision of The Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Company (CAFC, July 1997) wherein is stated: The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 222 USPQ 369, 372-373 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does "little more than outlin[e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate."). Accordingly, naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of, is not a description of that material. T2d at 1606.
Additionally, instant claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 17-22 recite “a γc chain or intracellular signaling region thereof” and not the structural elements of the single species of wildtype human γc chain disclosed in the instant specification (i.e., amino acid sequence). Thus, it is the Examiner’s position that while the instant specification discloses one species of γc chain, the instant claims are directed to a genus of polypeptide variants of any length and sequence, and from any species, all that function as “a γc or intracellular region thereof”. For the reasons set forth in the Office Action mailed on 9/15/2025, there is inadequate written description support for this broad genus of polypeptides with the recited function.
Instant claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 17-22 do not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C 112(a) for written description.
Amending instant claim 1 to include the structure of the disclosed species of the signaling region of wildtype γc chain from humans (i.e., SEQ ID NO: 16), would resolve this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-9, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Rezvani et al. (WO2018195339). This is a new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Applicant has amended instant claim 1 to include “wherein the chimeric antigen receptor does not contain intracellular regions of IL-2Ra, IL2Rb, IL4Ra, IL7Ra, IL9Ra, IL15Ra, and IL21Ra”, necessitating the new grounds of rejection.
Rezvani et al. teaches cells comprising chimeric antigen receptors (i.e., chimeric antigen receptors; claim 1), wherein the chimeric antigen receptor comprises an antigen binding region (claim 31), a transmembrane domain (claim 47), and one or more intracellular signaling domains (claim 43). Rezvani et al. additionally claims the intracellular signaling domains, including IL-2RG/CD132 (i.e., “a γc chain or intracellular signaling region thereof”; Rezvani et al. claim 45).
Rezvani et al. teaches the chimeric antigen receptor can comprise the following intracellular signaling regions (claim 45): 4-1BB (i.e., “a co-stimulatory domain” or the limitations of instant claim 9) CD3ζ (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 8), and IL2-RG/CD132/γc, leading to a CAR that does not contain intracellular regions of IL-2Ra, IL2Rb, IL4Ra, IL7Ra, IL9Ra, IL15Ra, or IL21Ra (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Rezvani et al. teaches the antigen binding region can be an scFv (i.e., “a monoclonal antibody”; Rezvani et al. claim 30).
Regarding claim 6, Rezvani et al. teaches the antigen binding region of the CAR can bind to CD19 (claim 32).
Regarding claim 7, Rezvani et al. teaches the TM can be a CD8 TM domain (claim 48).
Regarding claim 9, Rezvani additionally explicitly teaches that the 4-1BB intracellular signaling region is a co-stimulatory domain (Fig. 7A and ¶[0030]): “[t]he antigenic receptor construct (TCR or CAR) can further include co-stimulatory molecules such as CD3ζ, 4-1BB-L…”.
Regarding claim 17, Rezvani et al. teaches pharmaceutical compositions comprising the CAR (claim 49), as well as these compositions comprising the CAR and an acceptable carrier/excipient (¶[00232]-[00233]).
Claim 18 is included because a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, Rezvani et al. teaches the same structure encompassed by claim 18, and is therefore capable of performing the intended use recited in instant claim 18, meeting the claim limitations.
Rezvani et al. anticipates the invention of instant claims 1, 5-9, 17, and 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezvani et al. (WO2018195339, supra). This is a new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Rezvani et al. teaches cells comprising chimeric antigen receptors (i.e., chimeric antigen receptors; claim 1), wherein the chimeric antigen receptor comprises an antigen binding region (claim 31), a transmembrane domain (claim 47), and one or more intracellular signaling domains (claim 43). Rezvani et al. additionally claims the intracellular signaling domains, including IL-2RG/CD132 (i.e., “a γc chain or intracellular signaling region thereof”; Rezvani et al. claim 45).
Rezvani et al. teaches the chimeric antigen receptor can comprise the following intracellular signaling regions (claim 45): 4-1BB (i.e., “a co-stimulatory domain” or the limitations of instant claim 9) CD3ζ (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 8), and IL2-RG/CD132/γc, leading to a CAR that does not contain intracellular regions of IL-2Ra, IL2Rb, IL4Ra, IL7Ra, IL9Ra, IL15Ra, or IL21Ra (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 1).
Rezvani et al. teaches the antigen binding region can be an scFv (i.e., “a monoclonal antibody” or the limitations of instant claim 5; Rezvani et al. claim 30). Rezvani et al. additionally teaches the antigen binding region of the CAR can bind to CD19 (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 6; Rezvani et al. claim 32), teaches the TM can be a CD8 TM domain (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 7; Rezvani et al. claim 48).
Rezvani additionally explicitly teaches that the 4-1BB intracellular signaling region is a co-stimulatory domain (Fig. 7A and ¶[0030]): “[t]he antigenic receptor construct (TCR or CAR) can further include co-stimulatory molecules such as CD3ζ, 4-1BB-L…”. Rezvani et al. further teaches pharmaceutical compositions comprising the CAR (claim 49), as well as these compositions comprising the CAR and an acceptable carrier/excipient (¶[00232]-[00233]).
Rezvani et al. does not explicitly teach that the arrangement of the 4-1BB, CD3ζ, and IL-2RG/γc signaling domains in this arrangement, from near to far away from the cell membrane (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 2).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have modified the teachings of Rezvani et al. to make variants of the taught CAR that have different arrangements of the 4-1BB, CD3ζ, and γc signaling domains using routine experimentation, leading to the arrangement of 4-1BB, CD3ζ, and γc, with 4-1BB being closest to the cell membrane (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 2) with a reasonable expectation of success, as Rezvani et al. teaches all three of these signaling domains can be incorporated in to a CAR. One would have been motivated to make this change to rearrange the intracellular signaling domain parts of the CAR taught by Rezvani et al. through routine experimentation. Also see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 18 is included because a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, Rezvani et al. teaches the same structure encompassed by claim 18, and is therefore capable of performing the intended use recited in instant claim 18, meeting the claim limitations.
Claims 19-22 are included because, as discussed supra, Rezvani et al. teaches the CAR can have an anti-CD19 antigen binding domain (claim 32), a CD8 TM domain (claim 48), a CD3ζ signaling domain (claim 45), and a 4-1BB co-stimulatory domain (claim 45), meeting these claim limitations.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezvani et al (supra) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 17-22 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (WO2019242339, in Office Action mailed 9/15/2025). This is a new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
The teachings of Rezvani et al. have been discussed supra. Rezvani et al. does not teach the specific γc sequence recited in instant claim 3.
Yang et al., in the same field of endeavor teaches the IL2Rg sequences that can be successfully incorporated into CARs (Figure 1), including SEQ ID NO: 7, which is 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 16 (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 3):
Qy 1 ERTMPRIPTLKNLEDLVTEYHGNFSAWSGVSKGLAESLQPDYSERLCLVSEIPPKGGALG 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 ERTMPRIPTLKNLEDLVTEYHGNFSAWSGVSKGLAESLQPDYSERLCLVSEIPPKGGALG 60
Qy 61 EGPGASPCNQHSPYWAPPCYTLKPET 86
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 EGPGASPCNQHSPYWAPPCYTLKPET 86
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have modified the CAR taught by Rezvani et al. in view of Yang et al. to use the IL2Rg/γc chain taught by Yang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as Yang et al. teaches that this sequence can be successfully incorporated into CARs. The IL2-Rg signaling domains taught by Rezvani et al. and Yang et al. are considered art-recognized equivalent structures with the function of “γc chain”, and it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to swap these art-recognized γc chain regions to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (supra). This is a new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Yang et al. teaches (Abstract): “a chimeric antigen receptor having a structure of scFv(X)-(Y)CD3zeta-MN”. Yang et al. teaches that X is the target of the scFv (i.e., “a monoclonal antibody” or the limitations of instant claim 5; Yang et al. Abstract), and can be targeting CD19 (i.e., the limitations of instant claims 6 and 19; Yang et al. pg. 11, ¶6): “…X is selected from the group consisting of an anti-CD19 antibody…”
Yang et al. teaches that Y is a co-stimulatory region (Abstract), and can be 4-1BB (i.e., instant claim s 9 and 22; Yang et al. pg. 5, Step 2): “Y is an intracellular region of a co-stimulatory receptor selected from ICOS, … 4-1BB…”. Yang et al. additionally teaches (pg. 5, Step 2): “M is the intracellular region of the gamma chain family cytokine receptor selected from IL2Ra, IL2Rb, IL4Ra, IL7Ra, IL9Ra, IL15Ra, IL21Ra ; N is the intracellular region of IL2Rg”. Also see Figure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
304
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang et al. teaches that the CAR additionally comprises a CD8 TM region (i.e., the limitations of instant claims 7 and 20; Yang et al. pg. 5): “the transmembrane region of the chimeric antigen receptor is selected from one of CD8a…”.
Yang et al. teaches a CAR in the following format: CD19scFv–4-1BB–CD3ζ–(gamma chain family cytokine receptor)–IL2Rg with a CD8 TM region. IL2Rg is a γc chain intracellular region. The arrangement of the 4-1BB co-stimulatory domain, CD3ζ intracellular signaling domain (i.e., the limitations of instant claims 8 and 21), and γc chain are in sequence from near to far away from the cell membrane when expressed in a cell (i.e., the limitations of instant claims 1 and 2).
Yang et al. additionally teaches a IL2Rg sequence of SEQ ID NO: 7, which is 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 16 (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 3):
Qy 1 ERTMPRIPTLKNLEDLVTEYHGNFSAWSGVSKGLAESLQPDYSERLCLVSEIPPKGGALG 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 ERTMPRIPTLKNLEDLVTEYHGNFSAWSGVSKGLAESLQPDYSERLCLVSEIPPKGGALG 60
Qy 61 EGPGASPCNQHSPYWAPPCYTLKPET 86
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 EGPGASPCNQHSPYWAPPCYTLKPET 86
Yang et al. teaches pharmaceutical compositions containing the CAR (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 17; Yang et al. pg. 6): “[a] fifth object of the present invention is to provide a preparation containing the above CAR-T cells or a CAR-T cell prepared by the above mentioned preparation method; further, the preparation further includes a pharmaceutically acceptable diluent or excipient”.
Yang et al. does not specifically teach CARs comprising all of the elements discussed supra without the only the 4-1BB, CD3ζ, and γc signaling domains (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 1). However, Yang et al. teaches that all of these elements all function as signaling domains that can be used in a CAR. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to have rearranged the CAR signaling elements taught by Yang et al. to produce CARs with different combinations of the signaling elements through optimization via routine optimization, including CARs comprising the 4-1BB, CD3ζ, and γc signaling domains only (i.e., the limitations of instant claim 1). For example, one with ordinary skill in the art would be able to add a γc signaling chain to the BBZ CAR taught by Yang et al. in Figure 1, or remove the IL2Rg signaling domain from the BBZIL2RbIL2Rg CAR in Figure 1, all for the purposes of routine experimentation to optimize the efficacy of the produced CARs.
Claim 18 is included because a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, Yang et al. teaches the same structure encompassed by the instant claims, and therefore is capable of performing the intended use recited in instant claim 18, meeting the claim limitations.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
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, 5-9, and 17-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7-12, 15, 18-20, 23-26, and 29-31 of copending Application No. 18/263,439 (herein App '439, in Office Action mailed 9/15/2025). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
The invention claimed by App ‘439 is a prima facie obvious variant of the instant claimed invention, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Applicants amendments and remarks, filed 12/12/2025, have been fully considered, but have been found to be not convincing.
The amendments to the instant claims do not overcome the rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed on 9/15/2025.
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 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 ALEC JON PETERS whose telephone number is (703)756-5794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm 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, Misook Yu can be reached at (571) 272-0839. 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.
/ALEC JON PETERS/Examiner, Art Unit 1641
/MAHER M HADDAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1641