DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Please note that the Patent Examiner of your application has changed. All communications should be directed to Mary Lyons, Art Unit 1645, whose telephone number is (571)272-2966.
Claim Status
3. The amendment, filed 06/02/25, has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8-21 are pending. Claims 3, 5, and 7 are cancelled. Claims 19-21 are newly added. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 16, and 18 are amended. Claims 12 and 14-17 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/28/24. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 18-21 are under examination.
Withdrawal of Objections/Rejections
4. The following are withdrawn from the Office Action, filed 03/14/25:
The rejection of claims 4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, found on page 4, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments thereto.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form, found on page 6, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments thereto.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-9, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 101, found on page 6, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments thereto coupled with the showing of synergism when specific bacterial and fungal DNases are combined (see Remarks, pages 10-13 with regards to the art rejections).
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 18 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HUEFFER (WO 2021074430A1), found on page 10, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments thereto.
All double patenting rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the independent claim.
New Claim Objections
5. Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: miss-matched square bracket (see “…[L/I/P/V][ (SEQ…” in line 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Maintained Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-11, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUEFFER (WO 2021074430A1) in view of GORI (WO 2017060493A1).
Regarding claim 1, HUEFFER discloses a method for preparing a detergent or cleaning formulation (composition), wherein, “Cleaning may mean laundering or hard surface cleaning. Soiled material according to the invention includes textiles and/or hard surfaces” (Page 47, lines 17-19). HUEFFER discloses a cleaning composition wherein, “component (a) in one embodiment comprises a combination of at least two DNAses” (Page 22, lines 23-24). The disclosure of at least two DNases in the prior art cleaning composition meets the instant claim limitations of a “first DNase” and a second “DNase”. HUEFFER also discloses that “Detergent formulations of the invention comprise at least one compound selected from surfactants, builders, polymers, fragrances and dyestuffs.” (Page 51, lines 13-14). “Surfactants, builders, polymers, fragrances and dyestuffs” are all species of the genus “cleaning adjunct”. HUEFFER discloses, “At least one DNase comprised in component (a) may be selected from DNases originating from Bacillus…and variants thereof” (Page 22, lines 7-10). The instant specification states that the, “term "bacterial" as used herein in relation to DNase polypeptide refers to both polypeptides encoded by and thus directly derivable from the genome of a bacteria, as well as to genetically modified variants of such polypeptides." (Specification, Page 56). “Bacillus DNase” is a species of the genus “bacterial DNase”.
Regarding claim 2, HUEFFER discloses at least two DNases in the cleaning composition including endonucleases and exonucleases (Pages 21-22).
Regarding claim 4, HUEFFER discloses the composition comprises a DNase originating from Bacillus. The instant specification states, “In the context of the present invention, the terms "bacterial DNase", "DNase obtained/obtainable from a bacterial source "or "polypeptide having DNase activity obtained/obtainable from a bacterial source thus refer to both wildtype bacterial DNase polypeptides and genetically modified variants thereof” (Specification, Page 56, lines 17-20). A DNase originating from Bacillus is equivalent to a DNase obtainable from Bacillus.
Regarding claim 18, the specification does not define “kit”. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase is a set of items grouped together, in the case of the instant application, cleaning. HUEFFER discloses, “In one aspect of the invention, at least one enzyme comprised in component (a) is part of a liquid enzyme concentrate” (solution) (Page 6, lines 30-31). The cleaning solution with at least two DNases, and a cleaning agent disclosed by HUEFFER includes all of the claim elements of the instant claim.
Therefore, the primary difference(s) between the prior art and the invention is that, although HUEFFER provides multiple examples using enzymes of fungal origin (see Page 12, lines 9-11; Page 16, lines 19-25; and Page 18, line 30); HUEFFER does not disclose the use of DNase enzymes of fungal origin.
However, GORI discloses several fungal DNases suitable for use in the invention stating, “The DNase may be obtained from Aspergillus preferably Aspergillus sydowii” (Page 24, line 20). The instant specification states that the, “term "fungal" as used herein in relation to DNase polypeptide refers to both polypeptides encoded by and thus directly derivable from the genome of a fungus, as well as to genetically modified variants of such polypeptides." (Specification, Page 58, lines 16-19). “Aspergillus DNase” is a species of the genus “fungal DNase”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the DNase of bacterial origin as taught by HUEFFER with the DNase of fungal origin as taught by GORI, thereby arriving at the claimed invention, in order to degrade DNA on textile and laundry surfaces as taught by both references. Accordingly, each and every element is taught in the prior art and the combination has a beneficial result; however, the combination amounts to no more than a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because MPEP 2144.06 states that combining equivalents known for the same purpose. “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because each of HUEFFNER and GORI already demonstrated that individually these DNases were effective in cleaning compositions. Therefore, the combination leads to expected results because each element performs the same function as it does individually.
Further:
Regarding claim 6, A DNase obtained from Aspergillus meets the claim limitation of, “wherein the fungal DNase is obtained from Aspergillus”. Therefore, the claim embodiment “wherein the fungal DNase is obtained from Aspergillus” is made obvious in view of the prior art for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 8, The instant specification states, “The NUC1_A nucleases…can be separated into distinct sub-clusters, where we previously denoted one sub-cluster comprising the motif [F/L/Y/I]A[N/R]D[L/I/P/V][(SEQ ID NO: 158)… see further in WO2017/060475 (Novozymes A/S). Another motif characteristic of this sub-cluster is C[D/N]T[A/R] (SEQ ID NO: 159…In addition to comprising any of the motifs above, the polypeptides having DNase activity belonging to the NUC1_A domain share the common motif [D/Q][I/V]DH (SEQ ID NO: 160)…The NUC2 nucleases are exo_endo_phos nucleases comprising the motif [G/Y/W/F/A/H]NI[R/Q/D/E/V] (SEQ ID NO: 161) (Specification, Page 6, lines 17-28). Further, “The nucleotides in NUC2 can be separated into at least two distinct sub-clusters, based on structural and functional similarities, which are denoted NUC2_A and NUC2_B…The Nucleases of NUC2_A comprise the motif GR[DN][DN]G (SEQ ID NO: 162)…The sub-group NUC2_B is defined with motif SDH[D/H/L]P (SEQ ID NO: 163)…The polypeptides of the NUC2_B domain may also comprise the motif GGNI[R/Q] (SEQ ID NO: 164)”. (Specification, Page 7, lines 4-14). And GORI discloses, “a domain termed NUC1 by the inventors, this domain comprises the motifs…[F/L]AND[L/I], C[D/N]T[A R] and [D/Q][I/V]D[H] (Page 16, lines 20-25) (Corresponding to the motifs in SEQ ID NO: 158, 159, and 160, respectively, of the NUC_1A DNases of the instant claim, mentioned above) … NUC2… domain comprises the motif [G/Y/W/F/A H]NI[R/Q/D/E/V] (Corresponding to the motif in SEQ ID NO 161 of the instant application, mentioned above) … The polypeptides of the invention having DNase activity preferably comprises the motif [G/Y/W/F/A/H]NI[R/Q/D/E/V] ... Polypeptides having DNase activity and comprises these motif have shown to effectively prevent, remove or reduce biofilm and the DNases are particularly useful in cleaning processes, such as laundry and dish wash (Page 16, lines 29-34)…The polypeptides in NUC2 can be separated into at least one distinct sub-clusters, which were denoted NUC2_B and is defined with motif SDH[D/H/L]P… The polypeptides of the NUC2_B domain may also comprise the motif GGNI[R/Q]” (Page 17, lines 1-7) (Corresponding to the motifs in SEQ ID NO: 163 and 164 of the NUC_2B DNases of the instant claim, mentioned above). The prior art makes obvious the instant claim embodiment, “A composition according to claim 1, wherein each of the first DNase and the second DNase is independently a NUC1_A DNase, or NUC2_B DNase”. Therefore, instant claim 8 is obvious in view of the prior art for the same reasons as the previous claims.
Regarding claim 9, the claim embodiment “A composition according to claim 1, wherein the first and the second DNase comprise at least one motif selected from the group consisting of [F/L/Y/I]A[N/R]D[L/I/P/V][ (SEQ ID NO: 158), and C[D/N]T[A/R] (SEQ ID NO: 159)” is made obvious over the prior art for the same reasons as discussed for claim 8, as GORI discloses the use of [F/L]AND[L/I], and C[D/N]T[A R] in the composition. Therefore, instant claim 9 is obvious in view of the prior art for the same reasons as above.
Regarding claim 10, the claim embodiment, “A composition according to claim 1, wherein the first DNase comprises at least one motif selected from the group consisting of [F/L/Y/I]A[N/R]D[L/I/P/V][ (SEQ ID NO:158), and wherein the second DNase comprises at least one motif selected from the group consisting of [G/Y/W/F/A/H]NI[R/Q/D/E/V] (SEQ ID NO: 161)” is made obvious by the prior art for the same reasons as claim 8, as GORI discloses the use of [F/L]AND[L/I], and [G/Y/W/F/A/H]NI[R/Q/D/E/V] in the composition. Therefore, instant claim 10 is obvious in view of the prior art for the same reasons as the previous claims.
Regarding claim 11, the claim embodiment, “A composition according to claim 1, wherein the first DNase comprises the motif [G/Y/W/F/A/H]NI[R/Q/D/E/V] (SEQ ID NO: 161) and wherein the second DNase comprises at least one motif selected from the group consisting of [F/L/Y/I]A[N/R]D[L/I/P/V][ (SEQ ID NO: 158)” is made obvious by the prior art for the same reasons as claim 8, as GORI discloses the use of [G/Y/W/F/A/H]NI[R/Q/D/E/V], and [F/L]AND[L/I] in the composition. Therefore, instant claim 11 is obvious in view of the prior art for the same reasons as the previous claims.
Regarding claim 13, the claim embodiment, “A composition according to claim 1, wherein the first DNase comprises one or both of the motifs SDH[D/H/L]P (SEQ ID NO: 163) and/or GGNI[R/Q] (SEQ ID NO: 164), and wherein the second DNase comprises at least one motif selected from the group consisting of [F/L/Y/I]A[N/R]D[L/I/P/V][ (SEQ ID NO: 158)” is made obvious by the prior art for the same reasons as claim 8, as GORI discloses the use of SDH[D/H/L]P, GGNI[R/Q], and [F/L]AND[L/I] in the composition. Therefore, instant claim 13 is obvious in view of the prior art for the same reasons as the previous claims.
Additionally, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, is obvious unless its application is beyond that person's skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) also discloses that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. In the instant case, all elements (i.e. DNases of both bacterial and fungal original used in cleaning compositions) were known in the art. In addition, combining these elements yields a composition wherein each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; thus the results of the combination would be recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine these prior art elements according to a known method to yield predictable results.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art, absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.
Applicant’s Arguments and Response to Arguments
11. All of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but were not deemed persuasive; accordingly, the rejection is maintained for reasons of record. For example:
With regards to the argument for unexpected results (see Remarks, pages 10-13), the Office agrees but only for particular combinations that are not currently found in the rejected claims. Newly added claims 19 and 20 recite the combinations for which Applicant has demonstrated synergy and thus, are not included in this rejection. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive because they are not commensurate in scope with the scope of the rejected claims (i.e. all combinations of all fungal and bacterial DNases).
New Rejections Necessitated by Applicant’s Amendments
New Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. 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.
13. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a written description rejection.
Newly added claim 21 broadly encompasses a large genus of proteins variants that can differ in sequence from a fully described sequence (e.g. SEQ ID NO: 1 and/or SEQ ID NO: 130) by up to 20%. Accordingly, the claim scope is vast and highly varied. However, the specification does not provide sufficient written description to inform a skilled artisan which domains or residues can differ from those of SEQ ID NO: 1 or 130 (or any other sequence listed) while still retaining its functional activity, and thus does not provide evidence that the Applicant had full possession of the claimed invention.
For example, claim 21 broadly recites “The composition according to claim 1, wherein the first DNase has at least 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 and the second DNase has at least 80% sequence identity to one of SEQ ID NO: 107, 130, 126, 141, 112, 131, 122, 129, 138, 114, 113, 132, 125, 109, 139, 115, 135, 119, 128, 127, 133 ,123 ,120, 111, 110, 116, 118, 121, 136, 148, 150, 146, 145, 147, and 142.” However, it is the Office’s position that all sequence variants with 80% identity have not been described with sufficient particularity, such that one skilled in the art would recognize that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention, at the time of filing, because of (A) a lack of a correlation, known or disclosed, between the claimed functional requirements and the structures that meet those requirements; and/or (B) a lack of a representative number and variety of species to constitute possession of the full scope of the claimed genus.
Thus, the specification does not provide adequate written description to identify the broad genus of the claims because, inter alia, the specification does not disclose a correlation between the necessary structure of the claimed polypeptide sequence (e.g. which 80% of the amino acids must be maintained and which 20% may be substituted within the variant sequence) and the claimed function to be maintained (e.g. DNase enzymatic activity for a cleaning composition). It is noted that while the description of the ability of a claimed protein sequence may generically describe that protein molecule's function, it does not describe the protein molecule itself. For example, the specification fails to identify critical amino acids or subsequences within any of the sequences that must be retained in order to maintain the claimed functional activity. Consequently, the specification fails to describe the common attributes or structural characteristics that identify the members of this genus and because the genus of sequences is highly variable (i.e. each sequence has a unique structure; see MPEP 2434), the characteristics of the ability to encode a poorly described partial structure (i.e. a enzymatic sequence with any less than 100% similarity), is insufficient to describe the genus. Thus, the specification does not provide substantive evidence for possession of this large and variable genus, encompassing a massive number of partial structures claimed only by a functional characteristic because, without an art-recognized structure-function correlation, the capability to recognize or understand the structure from the mere recitation of function and minimal structure is highly unlikely. Thus, disclosure of function alone is little more than a wish for possession and it does not satisfy the written description requirement; See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (written description requirement not satisfied by merely providing "a result that one might achieve if one made that invention"); In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming a rejection for lack of written description because the specification does "little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate").
Further, MPEP §2163 states that if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic (as in the instant case), without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence (as in the instant case), it is not sufficient for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequences. MPEP §2163 does state that for a generic claim the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. If the genus has a substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. Although the MPEP does not define what constitutes a sufficient number of representative species, the courts have indicated what does not constitute a representative number to adequately describe a broad genus. For example, the courts determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus (e.g. see In re Gostelli, 872, F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618). Furthermore, the disclosure of only one or two species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure "indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us]. "See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615; Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Fed. Cir. 2004) "[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated."). "A patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient to constitute the genus by virtue of having disclosed a single species when ... the evidence indicates ordinary artisans could not predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed." In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1358, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In the instant case, the specification provides complete structural information for SEQ ID NO: 1 and SEQ ID NOs: 107, 130, 126, 141, 112, 131, 122, 129, 138, 114, 113, 132, 125, 109, 139, 115, 135, 119, 128, 127, 133 ,123 ,120, 111, 110, 116, 118, 121, 136, 148, 150, 146, 145, 147, and 142 (i.e. see sequence listing). However, the claims, as written, also encompass the use of partial structures of each of these sequences, mixed and matched, to form a cleaning composition. More specifically, for example, instant SEQ ID NO: 1 consists of 182 amino acids. Therefore, a sequence variant having at least 80% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 would require 146 of the 182 amino acids to be maintained, leaving as little as 1, but up to 36, amino acids to be substituted (i.e. 146/182*100 = 80%; 182-146 = 36). However, there are an unfathomable number of ways in which 1 to 36 amino acids (i.e. the sum of results for 1 change, 2 changes, 3 changes, … 36 changes) can be selected from the 182 residues because, without any other limitations in the independent claim, each particular residue can be substituted with any one of the other 19 naturally occurring amino acids and still meet the limitation. For example, for just 1 change (i.e. only one amino acid difference from SEQ ID NO: 1), there would be 182 unique sequences, but because the change at each residue can be substituted with any one of the other 19 naturally occurring amino acids, then the actual number of unique sequences encompassed is 3,458 (i.e. a sequence having an additional substitution at, for example, residue 33 with a cysteine, would be structurally distinct from a sequence having a substitution at residue 33 with a tryptophan; and 182 * 19 = 3,458). Yet, the claims allow for up to 36 unrestricted substitutions, anywhere along the length of SEQ ID NO:1, so with order of selection not important and repetition not allowed, the equation is X = 19 * [n!/(r!(n-r)!)], which - for 36 changes, results in a number having more than 35 zeros (i.e. a trillion only has 12 zeros). Consequently, the claim encompasses an essentially infinite number of polypeptide sequences. Thus, it is the Office’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude Applicant was in possession of the full genus.
In order to satisfy the written description requirement for such a broad scope of the claim, a skilled artisan would have to envisage all the variants retaining enzymatic activity sufficient to function in a cleaning composition; however, based on the almost limitless number and variations encompassed, it is the Office’s position that even a skilled artisan would not be able to do so. Consequently, the specification does not provide sufficient written description to support the genus encompassed by the claims. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, makes clear that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed." (See page 1117.) The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed." (See Vas-Cath at page 1116.). Given the above analysis of the factors as a whole, which the courts have determined are critical in determining whether Applicant is in possession of the claimed invention, Applicant has not satisfied the requirements as set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
15. No claims are allowed at this time.
16. 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).
17. 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.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY MAILLE LYONS whose telephone number is (571)272-2966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am to 5 pm 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, Dan Kolker can be reached on (571)-272-3181. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
19. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARY MAILLE LYONS/Examiner, Art Unit 1645
March 26, 2026