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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 5-6, 8-22, and 24-26 are pending.
Claims 5-6, 8-22, and 24-26 have been examined on their merits.
Withdrawn Objections & Rejections
The objections and rejections presented herein represent the full set of objections and rejections currently pending in the application. Any objections or rejections not specifically reiterated are hereby withdrawn.
The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 is maintained as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - maintained
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.
Claims 5-6, 8-10, 15, 19-22, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karyampudi et al. (WO2018209115, published 11/15/2018, filed 05/10/2018, on IDS 03/16/2026).
In regards to claim 5, Karyampudi teaches a method (process) for expanding peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBLs) from a whole blood sample (claim 60; paragraph [00151]).
In regards to step (a), Karyampudi teaches obtaining PBMCs from whole blood from a patient having a liquid tumor (claim 60, paragraphs [00126-00127, 00182]).
Karyampudi is silent as to the specific amount of blood obtained from a liquid tumor.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at an amount of 50 mL by routine optimization and the disclosure does not point to a criticality in this amount (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art 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)).
In the instant case since Karyampudi teaches that in other embodiments immune cells (including lymphocytes specifically) can be expanded from 10-50 mL of bone marrow aspirates obtained from a patient (paragraph [00198]), which overlaps with the claimed amount, it could have been done with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to step (b), Karyampudi teaches that the cells are cultured (admixed) with beads selective for CD3 and CD28 (claim 60). Karyampudi teaches that the cells can be cultured at a ratio of 3 beads : 1 cell (paragraph [00191]).
In regards to step (c), Karyampudi teaches that the beads and about 2.5 x 105 to about 5 x 105 cells are cultured on a gas-permeable container in a medium comprising IL-2 between 3 to 6 days (claim 60). A timing of 3 to 6 days overlaps with the claimed range of about 4 days.
In regards to the density of the cells, Karyampudi teaches that the term “about” can be “within an order of magnitude” (paragraph [00149]). Thus, a range of “about 2.5 x 105 to about 5 x 105 cells” reads on a broad range of 2.5 x 104 to 5 x 106 cells.
In regards to the density of cell per cm, in embodiments Karyampudi teaches that a G-Rex 100 which has a 100 cm2 gas permeable culture surface may be used (paragraph [00224]). On a 100 cm2 gas permeable culture surface, a population 5 x 106 cells results in 50,000 cells per cm2 which overlaps with the claimed density.
In regards to step (d), Karyampudi teaches that the cells can be further cultured in a second medium that comprises IL-2 between 3 to 6 days (claim 60). A timing of 3 to 6 days overlaps with the claimed range of about 5 days.
In regards to step (e), Karyampudi teaches that the cells are harvested (claim 60).
In regards to claim 6, in regards to the total number of harvested cells, Karyampudi teaches the expansion process can yield between 1.6 x 108 (160 million) to 20 x 109 (20 billion) PBLs (paragraph [00180], which overlaps with the claimed range of 8 to 15 billion.
In regards to claims 8 and 9, Karyampudi teaches that the beads selective for CD3 and CD28 are beads conjugated to anti-CD3 antibodies and anti-CD28 antibodies (paragraph [0014], e.g., anti-body coated Dynabeads). It is noted that it is well-known in the art that Dynabeads are magnetic beads that function by forming complexes with targeted cells. Additionally, Karyampudi teaches that these beads are separated with a magnet and cells counted (paragraphs [00152, 00169]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the complexed cells would also be removed in this process.
In regards to claims 10 and 15, Karyampudi teaches that B cells can be removed from the PBLs (claim 61; paragraph [00178]). In regards to the order of the specific step of removing B cells (whether after step (d) or before step (b), Applicant should note that the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (in re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); see MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C)). In the instant case a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to remove B cells after expansion in order to have a purer population of lymphocytes (e.g., T cells). Furthermore, because Karyampudi teaches that B cells can be removed, it could have been done with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claims 19 and 20, Karyampudi teaches that the concentration of IL-2 is 3000 IU/mL in each of the steps (paragraph [0013]).
In regards to claim 21, in embodiments Karyampudi teaches that TILs (lymphocytes) can be cultured in flasks containing IL-2 in conditions of 37°C and 5% CO2 (paragraph [00235]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to culture PBLs under these conditions because Karyamputi indicates that there are suitable for culturing lymphocytes. Furthermore, because Karyamputi cultures lymphocytes under conditions of 37°C and 5% CO2 in the presence of IL-2 for the expansion of lymphocytes, it could have been done with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 22, the timing of the expansion appears to be minimally about 4 days (claims 38; paragraph [0008) (stimulating and culturing steps only take about 2 days each). Additionally, in other similar embodiments Karyamputi teaches that expansion can be performed over a period of between 3 to 11 days, which also overlaps with the claimed range of about 9 days.
In regards to claims 24 and 25, Karyampudi teaches that the patient can be pretreated with an ITK inhibitor and specifically ibrutinib (claims 60-66).
In regards to claims 26, Karyampudi teaches that the patient is suffering from chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Therefore, Karyampudi renders the invention unpatentable as claimed.
Claims 11-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karyampudi et al. (WO2018209115, published 11/15/2018, filed 05/10/2018, on IDS 03/16/2026) as applied to claims 5 and 10 above, and further in view of Tran et al (WO2016053338A1, on IDS 03/16/2026).
In regards to claim 11-14 and 16-18, Karyampudi teaches that CD19+ B cells are selected for and can be removed from the PBLs using binding to (magnetic) beads (claim 61; paragraph [00178]), and removed with a magnet a magnet (paragraphs [00152, 00169]). While Karyampudi is silent as to the mechanism of their selection, Karyampudi teaches the use of selective Dynabeads throughout the specification (paragraph [00182, etc.]), and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Karyampudi is referring to CD19-selective beads. Furthermore, because Tran teaches that CD19 (conjugated) microbeads (from Miltenyi which are well-known magnetic beads) can be used to select B cells (paragraph [0086]), it could have been done with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Karyampudi and Tran render the invention unpatentable as claimed.
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 5-6, 8-22, and 24-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-9, 11-12, and 15-26 of co-pending Application No. 18/182,676 in view of Karyampudi et al. (WO2018209115, published 11/15/2018, filed 05/10/2018, on IDS 03/16/2026) and Tran et al (WO2016053338A1, on IDS 03/16/2026).
Although the conflicting claims of co-pending Application No. 18/182,676 are not identical to the currently prosecuted claims, they are not patentably distinct because said claims of both inventions are drawn to methods for preparing (expanding, culturing, and harvesting over a range that overlaps with 5 to 7 days) peripheral blood lymphocytes from blood comprising obtaining samples of blood from a patient with a liquid tumor comprising stimulating PBLs in a culture medium with IL-2 (at 3000 IU/mL) and anti-CD3/28 antibodies, and treating a patient with an ITK inhibitor such as ibrutinib. Co-pending Application No. 18/182,676 also teaches that about 2.5x105 to about 5x105 cells are added to a gas-permeable container.
While co-pending Application No. 18/182,676 does not explicitly teach that less than or equal to 50mL of blood were drawn from a patient, as discussed above, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at an amount of 50 mL by routine optimization and the disclosure does not point to a criticality in this amount (see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art 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)).
In the instant case since Karyampudi, who teaches similar methods for expanding PBLs, teaches that in other embodiments immune cells (including lymphocytes specifically) can be expanded from 10-50 mL of bone marrow aspirates obtained from a patient (paragraph [00198]), which overlaps with the claimed amount, it could have been done with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
While co-pending Application No. 18/182,676 does not explicitly teach adding beads at bead to cell ratio of 3:1, it would have been predictably obvious to culture cells with beads at this ratio because as above, Karyampudi indicates that this is sufficient for stimulating PBLs (paragraph [00191]).
Additionally, while co-pending Application No. 18/182,676 does not explicitly teach steps of removing remnant B cells from the expanded population or by doing so with beads selective for CD19 and conjugated to anti-CD19 antibodies, as discussed above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to remove B cells in order to provide a purer population of cells (e.g., T cells), Furthermore, because as above, Karyampudi teaches that CD19+ B cells are selected for and can be removed from the PBLs using binding to (magnetic) beads (claim 61; paragraph [00178]) and removed with a magnet (paragraphs [00152, 00169]), and because Tran teaches that CD19 (conjugated) microbeads (from Miltenyi which are well-known magnetic beads) can be used to select B cells (paragraph [0086]), it could have been done with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Karyampudi does not provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation with a reasonable expectation of success to use 50 mL of whole blood or less for PBL expansion from a patient with a liquid tumor. (Remarks, p7).
Specifically, Applicant argues that a POSITA would recognize that bone marrow aspiration and peripheral blood collection are distinct clinical procedures and that bone marrow is substantially enriched for lymphocytes and progenitor cells relative to peripheral blood. (Remarks, p7-8). As a result, Applicant argues that a volume sufficient to yield an adequate immune cell population from bone marrow provides no indication of what volume would be needed to yield a comparable, therapeutically relevant population of lymphocytes from peripheral whole blood. (Remarks, p7-8).
Regarding routine optimization, Applicant argues that the general condition – the volume of whole blood used to obtain PBMCs is not disclosed in Karyampudi. (Remarks, p8). Applicant also argues that there is no teaching in Karyampudi that the tissue sources are interchangeable. (Remarks, p8).
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
As discussed above, Karyampudi explicitly teaches a method (process) for expanding peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBLs) from whole blood samples (claim 60; paragraph [00151]) from a patient with a liquid tumor (claim 60, paragraphs [00126-00127, 00182]).
While Karyampudi is silent as to the specific volume of blood obtained from patients, the method of Karyampudi still requires some volume of whole blood, and as a result, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art.
Furthermore, as above, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art 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).
In the instant case, there is no indication of criticality in the specification or in the claim.
Indeed, claim 5 requires no specific result, but rather, only generically expands PBLs from a population of PBMCs. However, as discussed above, Karyampudi achieves this same effect (claim 60; paragraph [00151]).
In regards to Applicant’s assertions regarding the differences in the concentrations of mononuclear cells in whole blood and bone marrow, the claims do not require any specific concentration of mononuclear cells. Rather, the claim only generically states that these cells are expanded from volume of less than or equal to 50 mL of whole blood from patients, and as noted by Applicant, there are still mononuclear cells in bone marrow.
Furthermore, while claim 6 identifies a total number of harvested (expanded) PBLs, as above, Karyampudi teaches the expansion process can yield between 1.6 x 108 (160 million) to 20 x 109 (20 billion) PBLs (paragraph [00180], which overlaps with the claimed range of 8 to 15 billion. Thus, the method of Karyampudi achieves the same effect.
Moreover, as admitted by Applicant, this result is achieved by the initial seeding PBMCs on a G-Rex 100 device (“the claimed process achieves an average yield of 1.4x10¹⁰ expanded PBLs at a seeding density of 5x104 cells/cm², and 2.1x10¹⁰ expanded PBLs at a seeding density of 2.5x104 cells/cm², using a G-Rex 100 device” (Remarks 07/02/2026, p10, referring to Fig. 9), which is beyond the scope of the claims, and again, there is no indication that the specific volume of about 50 mL is critical to achieve this result beyond Applicant’s assertions.
Additionally, as above, Karyampudi teaches that in other embodiments immune cells (including lymphocytes specifically) can be expanded from 10-50 mL of bone marrow aspirates obtained from a patient (paragraph [00198]), which both overlaps with the claimed amount and suggests that volumes may vary.
As a result, since the general conditions of the method were known, because Karyampudi achieves the same effect (whether generically in claim 5 or specifically in claim 6), because there is no indication of criticality in the claimed volume of less than or equal to 50 mL, and because in other embodiments, Karyampudi teaches obtaining mononuclear cells from patients in volumes that overlap with the claimed ranges, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at the claimed volume of less than or equal to 50 mL of whole blood by routine optimization with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant argues that Karyampudi does not provide a predicably obvious teaching to utilize a cell seeding density between 12,500 to 50,000 cells/cm2 (+/- 20%). (Remarks, p8).
Applicant argues that even accepting the Examiner’s mapping arguendo, 2.5 x 105 to about 5 x 105 cells distributed over a 100 cm2 gas-permeable surface only corresponds to 2,500 to 5,000 cells/cm2, which is below the claimed amount (Remarks, p8-9; repeated p10).
Applicant argues that while Karyampudi’s general definition of “about” as potentially encompassing a variation “within an order of magnitude”, together, this only overlaps with the upper endpoint of the claimed range. (Remarks, p9). Continuing, Applicant argues that Karyampudi also teaches narrower preferred variations. (Remarks, p9).
Applicant also argues that other embodiments of Karyampudi are not within the presently claimed G-Rex 100 seeding-density range of 12,500 to 50,000 cells/cm² (+/-20%). (Remarks, p9-10).
Therefore, Applicant concludes that the Examiner's position depends on selecting the broadest possible outer boundary from a general definitional paragraph and applying it to a specific cell-number disclosure, without identifying any working example, data, or technical teaching in Karyampudi showing that the constructed extreme would have been selected, or expected to be suitable, for the claimed PBL expansion process. (Remarks, p9). As a result, Applicant argues that this is not a “general condition” disclosed for purposes of routine optimization under In re Aller and MPEP § 2144.05. (Remarks, p9-10).
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
As discussed above, Karyampudi teaches that about 2.5 x 105 to about 5 x 105 cells are cultured on a gas-permeable container (claim 60). In regards to the density of the cells, Karyampudi teaches that the term “about” can be “within an order of magnitude” (paragraph [00149]). Thus, a range of “about 2.5 x 105 to about 5 x 105 cells” reads on a broad range of 2.5 x 104 to 5 x 106 cells.
In regards to the density of cell per cm, in embodiments Karyampudi teaches that a G-Rex 100 which has a 100 cm2 gas permeable culture surface may be used (paragraph [00224]). On a 100 cm2 gas permeable culture surface, a population of 5 x 106 cells (which is within the range of “about” (i.e., a magnitude) of 5 x 105 cells) results in 50,000 cells per cm2 which overlaps with the claimed density.
In regards to other meanings of the word “about” as disclosed by Karyampudi, as noted by Applicant, the term may explicitly mean “within an order of magnitude” (paragraph [00149]), and while Karyampudi may disclose other meanings of the term, “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
In regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding routine optimization, it has not been argued that a POSITA could arrive at the seeding density as claimed by routine optimization, but rather, that this is specifically taught by Karyampudi as discussed above.
In regards to a method that uses a Grex-100, the claims do not require using this device and 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).
Applicant argues that the method produces unexpected results. (Remarks, p10-11). Specifically, Applicant argues that as demonstrated in Fig. 9, the claimed process achieves an average yield of 1.4x10¹⁰ expanded PBLs at a seeding density of 5x104 cells/cm², and 2.1x10¹⁰ expanded PBLs at a seeding density of 2.5x104 cells/cm², using a G-Rex 100 device. (Remarks, p10).
Continuing, Applicant argues that the unexpected nature of the claimed results arises from the unexpectedly high yields achieved by the presently claimed combination of limited whole-blood starting volume and defined gas-permeable culture conditions, and that the claimed method provides a practically meaningful improvement over that of Karyampudi: high final PBL yields from 50 mL or less of whole blood using the claimed seeding-density conditions. (Remarks, p11).
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s allegations of unexpected results, whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP 716.02(d)).
In the instant case, claim 5 does not require any specific result other than expansion of PBLs generically.
However, as discussed above, Karyampudi explicitly teaches that PBLs can be expanded from the whole blood of patients having a liquid tumor.
Additionally, while claim 6 requires a specific number of PBLs, as discussed above, Karyampudi teaches the expansion process can yield between 1.6 x 108 (160 million) to 20 x 109 (20 billion) PBLs (paragraph [00180], which overlaps with the claimed range of 8 to 15 billion.
Furthermore, the results obtained in Fig. 9, are explicitly premised on the use of a G-Rex 100 device (see Applicant’s Remarks filed 07/02/2026, p10, “the claimed process achieves an average yield of 1.4x10¹⁰ expanded PBLs at a seeding density of 5x104 cells/cm², and 2.1x10¹⁰ expanded PBLs at a seeding density of 2.5x104 cells/cm², using a G-Rex 100 device”).
However, the claims do not require the use of a G-Rex 100 device, and as discussed above, 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).
Moreover, even if the claims were limited to a G-Rex 100 device, as discussed above, Karyampudi teaches that a G-Rex 100 may be used for expanding PBLs (paragraph [00224]).
In regards to the specific volume of less than or equal to about 50 mL whole blood, as discussed above, a person of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at this volume by routine optimization and there is no indication of criticality is this amount. Indeed, Fig. 9 only compares seeding densities on a G-Rex 100, but does not compare differences in blood volume.
Therefore, Karyampudi achieves the claimed results as claimed.
Applicant argues that Tran does not cure the deficiencies of Karyampudi (Remarks, p12).
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive because Karyampudi is not deficient as discussed above.
Applicant argues that Karyampudi and Tran do not bridge the conflicting claims in the double-patenting rejection over the cited co-pending applications. (Remarks, p12).
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive because Karyampudi and Tran are not deficient as discussed above (the double patenting rejection over co-pending Application No. 18/182,676 is maintained as discussed above).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH (PAUL) MIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-0341. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James (Doug) Schultz can be reached at (571) 272-0763. 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.
/JOSEPH PAUL MIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
/JAMES D SCHULTZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Prosecution Insights