DETAILED ACTION
This action is made FINAL in response to the amendments filed on 8/18/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.]
Claims 1 – 7, 8 – 19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claims 1, 7, 18, and 22,
Step 2A, Prong One
The claim recites in part:
determining, by the computing device, for each sample of the plurality of samples, a first normalized coverage for each segment in the sample, wherein the determining the first normalized coverage for each segment in the sample comprises determining a segment statistical coverage ratio for the segment in the sample based on the statistical coverage for the segment and the global statistical coverage for all segments in the sample;
determining, by the computing device, for each sample of the plurality of samples, a second normalized coverage for each segment in the sample, wherein the determining the second normalized coverage for each segment in the sample comprises determining a copy number for the segment in the sample based on the first normalized coverage for the segment in the sample and a measure of central tendency of the first normalized coverage for the segment in all of the plurality of samples;
comparing, by the computing device, the copy number for each segment in a target set in the target sample to a predetermined interval, wherein the target set comprises one or more segments from all of the segments in the target sample;
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
obtaining, by a computing device, the sequencing data for the plurality of samples
which amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim further recites:
sequencing, by a massively parallel sequencer, nucleic acids from a plurality of samples as a batch run to generate sequencing data for the plurality of samples, wherein the plurality of samples includes the target sample, and wherein one or more of the plurality of samples are from different subjects,
generating modified sequencing data for the plurality of samples by applying one or more mapping rules to the sequencing data, wherein the modified sequencing data comprises, for each sample of the plurality of samples: (i) a statistical coverage for each segment in the sample, and (ii) a global statistical coverage for all segments in the sample;
outputting, by the computing device, a classification for the presence or absence of the copy number variation for each segment in the target set in the target sample according to the comparing.
these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim further recites a computing device and massively parallel sequencer which are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In addition, the recitation of sequencing data, samples, normalized coverage, segment statistical coverage ratio, statistical coverage, measure of central tendency, copy number, and classification amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As such, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
obtaining, by a computing device, the sequencing data for the plurality of samples
are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. The limitations:
sequencing, by a massively parallel sequencer, nucleic acids from a plurality of samples as a batch run to generate sequencing data for the plurality of samples, wherein the plurality of samples includes the target sample, and wherein one or more of the plurality of samples are from different subjects,
generating modified sequencing data for the plurality of samples by applying one or more mapping rules to the sequencing data, wherein the modified sequencing data comprises, for each sample of the plurality of samples: (i) a statistical coverage for each segment in the sample, and (ii) a global statistical coverage for all segments in the sample;
outputting, by the computing device, a classification for the presence or absence of the copy number variation for each segment in the target set in the target sample according to the comparing.
are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. These limitations also amount to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have similarly found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
The computing device and massively parallel sequencer is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recitation of sequencing data, samples, normalized coverage, segment statistical coverage ratio, statistical coverage, measure of central tendency, copy number, and classification amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As to claim 2, the limitations
wherein the generating the modified sequencing data for the plurality of samples comprises
mapping the sequence reads in the sequencing data to a reference genome;
counting the sequence reads mapped to genomic portions of the reference genome, wherein the counting generates a quantification of the sequence reads mapped to the genomic portions of the reference genome for each sample;
determining a base coverage for each reference base within each segment of each sample based on the quantification of the sequence reads mapped to each reference base within each segment;
determining the statistical coverage for each segment in each sample; and
determining the global statistical coverage for all segments in each sample.
are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 3, the limitations “wherein the sequencing of the nucleic acids generates hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions of sequence reads for each sample” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As to claim 4, the limitations “wherein the statistical coverage for each segment in a sample is a median coverage for each segment in the sample, the global statistical coverage for all segments in the sample is a global median coverage for all segments in the sample, the measure of central tendency of the first normalized coverage for the segment in all of the plurality of samples is a mean of the first normalized coverage for the segment in all of the plurality samples, and the determining the segment statistical coverage ratio for the segment in the sample comprises dividing the median coverage for the segment by the global median coverage for all segments in the sample” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As to claim 5, the limitations “wherein the determining the second normalized coverage for each segment in each of the samples further comprises removing outliers from the statistical coverage for the segment in each sample of the plurality of samples before determining the segment statistical coverage ratio for the segment in each sample of the plurality of samples, and calculating a mean of the segment statistical coverage ratio for the segment in remaining samples of the plurality of samples” are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 6, the limitations “further comprising (1) removing one or more statistical coverage for one or more segments on a sex chromosome in one or more samples from the obtained sequencing data, (11) removing one or more statistical coverage for one or more segments on Chromosome X in one or more samples associated with male subjects from the obtained sequencing data, (ii1) doubling one or more statistical coverage for one or more segments on Chromosome X in one or more samples associated with male subjects in the obtained sequencing data, or (iv) any combination thereof” are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 9, the limitations “wherein the determining the second normalized coverage for the element further comprises removing outliers from the element statistical coverage ratio for the element in all of the plurality of samples before determining the measure of central tendency of the first normalized coverage for the element in all of the plurality of samples, and calculating a mean of the element statistical coverage ratio for the element in remaining samples of the plurality samples” are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 10, the limitations “wherein the removing the outliers comprises: calculating an interquartile range based on the element statistical coverage ratio for the element in all of the plurality of samples; determining an upper limit and a lower limit relating to the interquartile range; and removing any element statistical coverage ratio for the element where a value of the element statistical coverage ratio is greater than the upper limit or less than the lower limit” are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 11, the limitations “further comprising determining, by the computing device, whether the copy number for each segment in the target set in the target sample is within or outside of the predetermined interval based on the comparing, wherein the outputting comprises reporting each segment in the target set in the target sample that has a copy number outside the predetermined interval as having the copy number variation, and reporting each segment in the target set in the target sample that has a copy number within the predetermined interval as being normal or not having the copy number variation.” are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 12, the limitations “further comprising determining, by the computing device, whether the copy number for the element in the target sample is within or outside of the predetermined interval based on the comparing, wherein the outputting comprises reporting the element as having the copy number variation when the element in the target sample has a copy number outside the predetermined interval, or reporting the element as being normal or not having the copy number variation when the element in the target sample has a copy number within the predetermined interval” are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 13, the limitations:
calculating a statistical measure for each segment in the target set and/or the element, wherein the calculation of the statistical measure is based on a normal profile comprising the copy number for each segment in the target set and/or the element in all samples; and
comparing the statistical measure with a predetermined upper-threshold or with a predetermined lower-threshold set for segments and/or the element,
wherein each segment in the target in the target sample that has a copy number within the predetermined interval is only reported as having the copy number variation when the statistical measure of the segment in the target set is greater than the predetermined upper-threshold or less than the predetermined lower-threshold based on the comparing; and/or
wherein the element in the target sample that has a copy number within the predetermined interval is only reported as having the copy number variation when the statistical measure of the element is greater than the predetermined upper-threshold or less than the predetermined lower-threshold based on the comparing
are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 14, the limitations “wherein the statistical measure comprises (i) a z-Score, (ii) a p-value, or (iii) a coefficient of variation” amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As to claims 15 and 19, the limitations:
inputting, by the computing device, the copy number for each segment in the target set in the target sample and the normal profile into a machine learning model; and
classifying, using the machine learning model, the copy number for each segment in the target set in the target sample as indicative of a presence or absence of the copy number variation,
wherein the outputting the classification for the presence or absence of the copy number variation for each segment in the target set in the target sample is performed according to the comparing, the classifying by the machine learning model, or a combination thereof
are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 16, the limitations “further comprising determining a diagnosis of a subject associated with the target sample, wherein the diagnosis is determined based on the classification for the presence or absence of the copy number variation for each segment in the target set in the target sample” are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 17, the limitations “further comprising administering a treatment to the subject based on (1) the classification for the presence or absence of the copy number variation for each segment in the target set in the target sample and/or the element in the target sample, and/or (ii) the diagnosis of the subject” are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
As to claim 21, the limitations “inputting, by the computing device, the copy number for each segment in the target set in the target sample into a machine learning model; and classifying, using the machine learning model, the copy number for each segment in the target set in the target sample as indicative of the presence or absence of the copy number variation, wherein the outputting the classification for the presence or absence of the copy number variation for each segment in the target set in the target sample is performed according to the comparing, the classifying by the machine learning model, or a combination thereof” are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The 101 Rejection still has not been overcome. The claims are abstract and the steps in the claims can be completed with a mental process and/or generic computer components. Additionally, the steps in the claims do not describe an improvement of technology in any way.
The applicant argues:
Representative Claim 1 is directly analogous to the claim in Example 39, both in structure and in substance. First, both claims recite specific technical steps for improving computer-based biological-related information detection. In Example 39, the claim is directed to a computer-implemented method for training a neural network to more robustly detect human faces in digital images, particularly in the presence of distortions and variations. The claim achieves this by employing a series of defined data transformations, iterative training steps, and the use of a neural network. Similarly, Representative Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method for detecting the presence or absence of copy number variation (CNV) in a target biological sample. The claim sets forth a detailed and specific sequence of technological steps to derive biological information from sequencing data to achieve improved CNV detection, including reducing the impact of sequencing errors and the specificity of different capture probes.
Second, neither claim recites any judicial exception. As shown in the table above, the claim in Example 39 recites a sequence of steps including collecting, applying, creating, and training, and the 2019 PEG states that none of the limitations recite a judicial exception. Similarly, Representative Claim 1 recites a sequence of steps including sequencing, obtaining, generating, determining, comparing, and outputting, analogous to the sequence of steps in the claim in Example 39.
For example, the sequencing and obtaining steps in Representative Claim 1 are analogous to the collecting step in Example 39: both are concrete, physical actions concerning the acquisition of input data using a specific machine or tool (sequencer or database). These steps do not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations, nor do they describe mental processes or methods of organizing human activity.
Similarly, the generating step in present Claim 1 is analogous to the applying step in Example 39: both recite the transformation of input data via specified, concrete operations. While these may involve mathematical operations at an implementation level, the limitations do not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. Rather, the steps are concrete computational transformations that cannot be performed in the human mind.
The first determining step of present Claim 1 is analogous to the creating and training steps of Example 39 in rows (4) and (5), both requiring the computer to derive processed features from the input data. Similarly, the second determining step of present Claim 1 is analogous to the creating and training steps of Example 39 in rows (6) and (7), both requiring the computer to generate outputable objects based on the processed features. Based on the same reasoning and conclusion provided by the 2019 PEG, at least the recited limitations of present Claim 1 in rows (1)-(7) do not recite a judicial exception.
For completeness of argument, Applicant submits that the limitations in rows (8)-(9) do not recite any judicial exception either, as they are concrete, computer-implemented operations. Specifically, the comparing step instructs the computing device to compare computed copy numbers to a predetermined interval, which is a specific computational comparison using the results of the preceding data processing steps and integrated to the claim as a whole. The outputting step instructs the computing device to output a classification for the presence or absence of CNV, which is a tangible, technical action performed by the computing device to produce a concrete output result. Accordingly, representative Claim 1 does not recite any judicial exception and should be found eligible under the similar reasoning as in Example 39 of the 2019 PEG.
The examiner disagrees. Example 39 clearly describes how a first training set is used to train a neural network, and how a second training set -created by filtering out certain data is then used to further train the neural network. The current applicant fails to mention any type of training and/or learning and only mention abstract human reasoning or just mathematical concepts. To overcome the 101 Rejection the applicant should add the machine learning model of claim 21 and claims the steps of how said machine learning model is trained (and retrained) by the normalized coverages and/or the copy numbers to output an improved classification.
As currently claims the claim simply invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for detecting or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental reasoning or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
The applicant argues:
Representative Claim 1 provides a concrete technological solution to longstanding problems in the field of genomic CNV detection, specifically addressing issues such as probe bias, batch variability, and the traditional requirement for external reference samples. As disclosed in the specification (see e.g., paragraphs [0076]-[0077] of the as-published application), conventional CNV detection methods have suffered from significant limitations: probe capture efficiency varies across genomic regions, introducing bias into sequencing results; batch-to-batch variability further complicates analysis and undermines reproducibility; and many approaches rely on external reference samples, which are often difficult to source and may introduce further errors or artifacts into the results.
Claim 1 overcomes these challenges through a series of specific, technical steps that collectively improve the accuracy, reliability, and scalability of CNV detection. The method includes a batch sequencing process and a double-normalization process (a first within-sample normalization ([0149]-[0154]) and a second across-sample normalization ([0155]-[0160])), which together systematically correct for region-specific biases. By normalizing coverage data first within each sample and then across all samples in a batch, the method also eliminates the need for external reference samples and robustly addresses variability inherent in probe design and sequencing procedures.
Additionally, the method is designed for automated and scalable computation. By enabling high-throughput analysis of large numbers of samples, the claimed process improves reproducibility and scalability relative to manual or semi-automated legacy approaches. The defined algorithmic operations (statistical coverage ratios, measures of central tendency) recited in Claim | transform raw sequencing data into clinically actionable CNV classifications. These steps are implemented algorithmically in a computing device, supporting automated and high- throughput analysis of large datasets. The exclusion of outlier data points, as recited in Claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 and detailed in the disclosure, additionally reduces false positives and negatives, improving sensitivity and specificity and ensuring that results are both reliable and reproducible.
The examiner disagrees as the limitations are simply directed to data analysis and mathematical manipulation of information which constitutes an abstract idea. The alleged benefits such as reducing false positives and negatives which is known normalization techniques to sequencing data which is considered a mental process or mathematical operations performed on data.
Claiming the improved efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The applicant argues:
In addition to technological improvements, Claim 1 further integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by the use of particular machines (i.e., the massively parallel sequencer) that are integral to the claimed process. The first step of Claim 1 recites “sequencing, by a massively parallel sequencer, nucleic acids from a plurality of samples as a batch run to generate sequencing data.” This step relies on a specialized sequencing instrument capable of producing large-scale, high-resolution genetic data in a batch necessary for subsequent analysis.
Beyond sequencing data generation, the claim recites that subsequent steps including obtaining sequencing data, generating modified data via mapping rules, performing normalization calculations, and outputting classifications are all performed “by a computing device,” which is not employed in a generic or conventional manner. Instead, it executes a well- defined, non-conventional sequence of operations to processed the batched sequencing data that are essential to achieving the technical improvements described above. The computing device needs to be specifically programmed to carry out these specific steps, which should also be treated as a particular machine that is integral to the functioning of the claimed method.
The examiner disagrees. The massively parallel sequencer and computing device are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The newly added limitations overcome the 103 Rejection and the 103 Rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 BRANDON S COLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5075. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30pm - 5pm EST (Alternate Friday's Off).
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, Omar Fernandez can be reached at 571-272-2589. 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.
/BRANDON S COLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128