DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed on 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 6 were amended in the claim set filed on 12/09/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, drawn to a method of predicting a response of a prostate cancer subject to radiotherapy and the group of the first 8 listed genes: CD2, CD247, CD28, CD3E, CD3G, CD4, CSK, and EZR, in the reply filed on 08/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, claims 11-15, drawn to an apparatus, and Group III, claims 16-17, drawn to a method of receiving a biological sample and use of a kit, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/21/2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim 3 is canceled in the claim set filed on 12/09/2025.
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 in the claim set filed on 12/09/2025 are currently under examination.
Response to the Arguments
Objections to the Specification in the previously mailed non-final have been withdrawn in light of applicants Specification amendment.
Objections to the Claims 1, 3 and 6 in the previously mailed non-final have been withdrawn in light of applicants claim amendments and cancellation.
Objection to the Claim 2 in the previously mailed non-final remains as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. “determining a gene expression profile” is an implicit method of “receiving the result of a determination of a gene expression profile”, thus without a more detailed difference in the limitations, claim 2 remains a substantial duplicate of claim 1.
Applicants’ arguments regarding previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections documented in the previously mailed non-final have been withdrawn in light of applicants claim amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections documented in the previously mailed non-final have been maintained and revised in light of applicants claim amendments and arguments on Pg. 10-17.
Applicant’s arguments regarding previous provisional rejections of claim 1 under nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections documented in the previously mailed non-final remain.
The rejections for claims 1-2 and 4-10 are documented below in this Final Office Action are necessitated by claim amendments filed on 12/09/2025.
Priority
This application is the U.S. National Phase application under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/EP2021/055450, filed on March 4, 2021, which claims the benefit of European Application 20161181.1, filed March 5, 2020.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of EP20161181.1 has been submitted of the record on Aug. 31, 2022. Accordingly, the priority date of instant claims is determined to be March 5, 2020, the filing date of EP20161181.1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davicioni et al. (“Davicioni”; Patent App. Pub. WO 2019028285 A2, Feb. 07, 2019, Filed on Aug. 02, 2018, as cited in IDS) in view of Garraway et al. (“Garraway”; Patent App. Pub. US 20180100201 A1, April 12, 2018).
Davicioni discloses “Methods, systems, and kits for the diagnosis, prognosis and the determination of cancer progression of prostate cancer in a subject are disclosed. In particular, the disclosure relates to the use of immune cell-specific gene expression in determining prognosis and identifying individuals in need of treatment for prostate cancer who will be responsive to radiation therapy.” (Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Davicioni teaches a method wherein “a) obtaining a biological sample comprising cancer cells from the patient; b) measuring levels of immune cell-specific gene expression in the biological sample; c) calculating levels of one or more immune cell types in the biological sample based on the levels of immune cell-specific gene expression; d) determining the prognosis of the patient based on the levels of the one or more immune cell types in the biological sample; and e) administering a treatment to the subject based on the prognosis. In some embodiments, the cancer is prostate cancer” (Para. 10). Davicioni teaches use of immune cell-specific gene expression in determining prognosis and identifying individuals in need of treatment for prostate cancer who will be responsive to radiation therapy” (Para. 9). Davicioni teaches “the immune cell-specific gene is one or more genes selected from Table 2. In some embodiments, the immune cell-specific gene comprises or consists of at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225, or 250 genes selected from Table 2” (Para. 10). Davicioni teaches Table 2 comprising CD2, CD3E, and CD3G (Table 2) and suggests expression CD4 as “CD4+ T-cells” is taught (Para. 205). Moreover, Davicioni teaches a method comprising “Human Exon 1.0 ST microarray (Thermo-Fisher, Carlsbad, CA)” (Para. 192). “Human Exon 1.0 ST microarray” reads on any gene in the human genome. Thus, Davicioni teaches a method comprising determining a gene expression profile for each of eight or more, T-Cell receptor signaling genes selected from the group consisting of:CD2, …CD3E, CD3G, CD4 said gene expression profiles being determined in a biological sample obtained from the subject, determining, the prediction of the radiotherapy response based on the gene expression profiles for the eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes, and optionally, providing the prediction or a therapy recommendation based on the prediction to a medical caregiver or the subject.
Davicioni does not explicitly teach a method comprising T-Cell receptor signaling genes CD247, CD28, CSK or EZR.
Garraway discloses “This invention relates generally to compositions and methods for identifying genes and gene networks that respond to, modulate, control or otherwise influence tumors and tissues, including cells and cell types of the tumors and tissues, and malignant, microenvironmental, or immunologic states of the tumor cells and tissues. The invention also relates to methods of diagnosing, prognosing and/or staging of tumors, tissues and cells, and provides compositions and methods of modulating expression of genes and gene networks of tumors, tissues and cells, as well as methods of identifying, designing and selecting appropriate treatment regimens. The invention also relates to the modulation of complement activity to shift cellular immunity and obtain an effective therapeutic response.” (Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Garraway teaches a method comprising “EZR” (Para. 58), “‘CD2’ … ‘CD3E’ …‘CD3G’ … ‘CD247’ …‘CD28’” (Table 3), “CSK” (Para. 498) and “CD4,” (Para. 568). Thus, Davicioni and Garraway teach a method comprising determining a gene expression profile for each of eight or more, T-Cell receptor signaling genes selected from the group consisting of: CD2, CD247, CD28, CD3E, CD3G, CD4, CSK, EZR, FYN, LAT, LCK, PAG1, PDE4D, PRKACA, PRKACB, PTPRC, and ZAP70 said gene expression profiles being determined in a biological sample obtained from the subject, determining, the prediction of the radiotherapy response based on the gene expression profiles for the eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes, and optionally, providing the prediction or a therapy recommendation based on the prediction to a medical caregiver or the subject.
Davicioni and Garraway are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gene expression related to cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic response. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method comprising: determining a gene expression profile for each of eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes selected from the group comprising :CD2, CD3E, CD3G and CD4; determining a prediction of the radiotherapy response based on the gene expression profiles for the eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes, and optionally, providing the prediction or a therapy recommendation based on the prediction to a medical caregiver or the subject as taught by Davicioni to incorporate the method comprising the expression profile of T-Cell receptor signaling genes comprising CD247, CD28, CSK, and EZR as taught by Garraway and provide a method of predicting a response of a prostate cancer subject to radiotherapy comprising: determining a gene expression profile for each of eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes, comprising: CD2, CD247, CD28, CD3E, CD3G, CD4, CSK, EZR. Doing so would increase the number of immune cell-specific genes monitored and evaluated for the prediction of radiotherapy response.
The teachings of Davicioni and Garraway are documented above in the rejection of claim1 under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 4-10 depend on claim 1.
Regarding claims 4-6, Davicioni teaches “the immune cell-specific gene is one or more genes selected from Table 2. In some embodiments, the immune cell-specific gene comprises or consists of at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225, or 250 genes” (Para. 10). , Davicioni teaches “obtaining an expression level of one or more immune cell-specific genes in a sample” (Para. 36). Thus, Davicioni and Garraway teach a method wherein the eight or more T- Cell receptor signaling genes comprise nine or more of the T-Cell receptor signaling genes; wherein the eight or more T- Cell receptor signaling genes comprise twelve or more of the T-Cell receptor signaling genes; and wherein eight or more T- Cell receptor signaling genes comprise fifteen or more, preferably, all of the T-Cell receptor signaling genes.
Regarding claim 7, Davicioni teaches a method wherein “Feature selection can be performed by regularized logistic regression” (Para. 81) and “assaying the expression level for a plurality of targets may comprise the use of a machine learning algorithm. The machine learning algorithm may comprise a supervised learning algorithm…regression… Supervised learning may comprise ordinal classification such as regression analysis” (Para. 135). Thus, Davicioni and Garraway teach a method wherein the determining of the prediction of the radiotherapy response comprises combining the gene expression profiles for eight or more, for example, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 or all, of the T-Cell receptor signaling genes with a regression function that had been derived from a population of prostate cancer subjects.
Regarding claim 8, Davicioni teaches a method wherein treatment in step e is carried out after sample collection in step (a) and prognosis in step (d) “a) obtaining a biological sample comprising prostate cancer cells from the patient; … d) determining the prognosis of the patient based on the levels of the one or more immune cell types in the biological sample; and e) administering a treatment to the subject based on the prognosis, wherein the treatment is selected from the group consisting of.., radiation therapy” (Para. 11). Davicioni teaches a method wherein “the method is performed before treatment of the patient with radiation therapy” (Para. 27). Thus, Davicioni and Garraway teach a method wherein the biological sample is obtained from the subject before the start of the radiotherapy.
Regarding claim 9, Davicioni teaches a method wherein “For patients with intermediate test scores consistent with biochemical recurrence only (BCR-only or elevated PSA that does not rapidly become manifested as systemic disease only localized adjuvant therapy (e.g., radiation therapy of the prostate bed)” (Para.183; Para.188). Thus, Davicioni and Garraway teach a method wherein the radiotherapy is radical radiotherapy or salvage radiotherapy.
Regarding claim 10, Davicioni teaches a method wherein “The significance of the levels of immune cell-specific gene expression may be evaluated using, for example … positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV),” (Para. 30). Davicioni teaches “In addition, diagnosing, predicting, or monitoring a status or outcome of a cancer may comprise identifying or predicting responders or non-responders to an anticancer therapy (e.g., radiation therapy). In some instances, diagnosing, predicting, or monitoring may comprise determining a therapeutic regimen. Determining a therapeutic regimen may comprise administering an anti-cancer therapy. In some embodiments, determining a therapeutic regimen may comprise modifying, recommending, continuing or discontinuing an anti-cancer regimen… In some instances, if the sample expression patterns are consistent with the expression pattern for a known disease or disease outcome, the expression patterns can be used to designate one or more treatment modalities (e.g., therapeutic regimens, anti-cancer regimen). An anti-cancer regimen may comprise one or more anti -cancer therapies. Examples of anticancer therapies include surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, immunotherapy/biological therapy, and photodynamic therapy” (Para. 139). Davicioni also teaches a method wherein “For patients with high test scores consistent with systemic disease outcome after prostatectomy, additional treatment modalities such as adjuvant chemotherapy (e.g., docetaxel, mitoxantrone and prednisone), systemic radiation therapy (e.g., samarium or strontium) and/or anti-androgen therapy (e.g., surgical castration, finasteride, dutasteride) can be designated.” (Para. 182). “determining a therapeutic regimen” and “modifying …regimen” read on radiotherapy provided earlier than is standard and increased radiation dosage. Thus, Davicioni and Garraway teach a method wherein the prediction of the radiotherapy response is negative or positive for the effectiveness of the radiotherapy, wherein a therapy is recommended based on the prediction and, if the prediction is negative, the recommended therapy comprises one or more of: (i) radiotherapy provided earlier than is the standard; (ii) radiotherapy with an increased radiation dose; (iii) an adjuvant therapy, such as androgen deprivation therapy; and iv) an alternative therapy that is not a radiation therapy.
Claim 2 remains/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davicioni et al. (“Davicioni”; Patent App. Pub. WO 2019028285 A2, Feb. 07, 2019, Filed on Aug. 02, 2018, as cited in IDS) in view of Garraway et al. (“Garraway”; Patent App. Pub. US 20180100201 A1, April 12, 2018).
Davicioni discloses “Methods, systems, and kits for the diagnosis, prognosis and the determination of cancer progression of prostate cancer in a subject are disclosed. In particular, the disclosure relates to the use of immune cell-specific gene expression in determining prognosis and identifying individuals in need of treatment for prostate cancer who will be responsive to radiation therapy.” (Abstract).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Davicioni teaches a method wherein “a) obtaining a biological sample comprising cancer cells from the patient; b) measuring levels of immune cell-specific gene expression in the biological sample; c) calculating levels of one or more immune cell types in the biological sample based on the levels of immune cell-specific gene expression; d) determining the prognosis of the patient based on the levels of the one or more immune cell types in the biological sample; and e) administering a treatment to the subject based on the prognosis. In some embodiments, the cancer is prostate cancer” (Para. 10). Davicioni teaches use of immune cell-specific gene expression in determining prognosis and identifying individuals in need of treatment for prostate cancer who will be responsive to radiation therapy” (Para. 9). Davicioni teaches “the immune cell-specific gene is one or more genes selected from Table 2. In some embodiments, the immune cell-specific gene comprises or consists of at least 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225, or 250 genes selected from Table 2” (Para. 10). Davicioni teaches Table 2 comprising CD2, CD3E, and CD3G (Table 2) and suggests expression CD4 as “CD4+ T-cells” is taught (Para. 205). Moreover, Davicioni teaches a method comprising “Human Exon 1.0 ST microarray (Thermo-Fisher, Carlsbad, CA)” (Para. 192). Davicioni teaches “The models and/or algorithms can be provided in machine readable format and may be used to correlate expression levels or an expression profile with a disease state, and/or to designate a treatment modality for a patient or class of patients. Array data can be managed, classified, and analyzed using techniques known in the art.” (Para. 133-134) and “machine learning algorithm may comprise Data Pre-processing” (Para. 137). “Human Exon 1.0 ST microarray” reads on any gene in the human genome. “machine readable format” reads on being read by a processor. Thus, Davicioni teaches a method comprising determining a gene expression profile for each of eight or more, T-Cell receptor signaling genes selected from the group consisting of:CD2, …CD3E, CD3G, CD4 said gene expression profiles being determined in a biological sample obtained from the subject, determining, the prediction of the radiotherapy response based on the gene expression profiles for the eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes, and optionally, providing the prediction or a therapy recommendation based on the prediction to a medical caregiver or the subject.
Davicioni does not explicitly teach a method comprising T-Cell receptor signaling genes CD247, CD28, CSK or EZR.
Garraway discloses “This invention relates generally to compositions and methods for identifying genes and gene networks that respond to, modulate, control or otherwise influence tumors and tissues, including cells and cell types of the tumors and tissues, and malignant, microenvironmental, or immunologic states of the tumor cells and tissues. The invention also relates to methods of diagnosing, prognosing and/or staging of tumors, tissues and cells, and provides compositions and methods of modulating expression of genes and gene networks of tumors, tissues and cells, as well as methods of identifying, designing and selecting appropriate treatment regimens. The invention also relates to the modulation of complement activity to shift cellular immunity and obtain an effective therapeutic response.” (Abstract).
Regarding claims 2, Garraway teaches a method comprising “EZR” (Para. 58, “‘CD2’ … ‘CD3E’ …‘CD3G’ … ‘CD247’ …‘CD28’” (Table 3), “CSK” (Para. 498) and “CD4,”(Para. 568). Thus, Davicioni and Garraway teach a method comprising receiving the result of a determination of a gene expression profile for each of eight or more, T-Cell receptor signaling genes selected from the group consisting of. CD2, CD247, CD28, CD3E, CD3G, CD4, CSK, EZR, FYN, LAT, LCK, PAGl, PDE4D, PRKACA, PRKACB, PTPRC, and ZAP70, said gene expression profiles being determined in a biological sample obtained from the subject, determining, by a processor, the prediction of the radiotherapy response based on the gene expression profiles for the eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes, and optionally, providing the prediction or a therapy recommendation based on the prediction to a medical caregiver or the subject.
Davicioni and Garraway are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gene expression related to cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic response. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method comprising: determining a gene expression profile for each of eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes selected from the group comprising :CD2, CD3E, CD3G and CD4; determining a prediction of the radiotherapy response based on the gene expression profiles for the eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes, and optionally, providing the prediction or a therapy recommendation based on the prediction to a medical caregiver or the subject as taught by Davicioni to incorporate the method comprising the expression profile of T-Cell receptor signaling genes comprising CD247, CD28, CSK, and EZR as taught by Garraway and provide a method of predicting a response of a prostate cancer subject to radiotherapy comprising: determining a gene expression profile for each of eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes, comprising: CD2, CD247, CD28, CD3E, CD3G, CD4, CSK, EZR, FYN, LAT, LCK, PAGl, PDE4D, PRKACA, PRKACB, PTPRC, and ZAP70. Doing so would increase the number of immune cell-specific genes monitored and evaluated for the prediction of radiotherapy response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 (Pg. 10-17) with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-10 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. To clarify some instances argued in the response filed 12/09/2025 see responses to each argument made by Applicant below:
Applicants’ argument: “Davicioni in view of Garraway fails to suggest or render obvious, for example, a method for predicting a response of a prostate cancer subject to radiotherapy, comprising: determining a gene expression profile for each of eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes selected from the group consisting of: CD2, CD247, CD28, CD3E, CD3G, CD4, CSK, EZR, FYN, LAT, LCK, PAGl, PDE4D, PRKACA, PRKACB, PTPRC, and ZAP70, said gene expression profiles being determined in a biological sample obtained from the subject; determining the prediction of the radiotherapy response based on the gene expression profiles for the eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes; and optionally providing the prediction or a therapy recommendation based on the prediction to a medical caregiver or the subject.” (Pg. 10-11)
Response: In response to applicants’ argument above, Davicioni in view of Garraway do suggest or render obvious the method according to the limitations of claim 1, as recited in the non-final office action on Pg. 5-8. Furthermore, each of the 8 genes selected in the specie election are genes that are probed for expression using a Human Exon 1.0 ST microarray (as evidenced by the attached PDF documents verifying probes to the genes (CD2, CD247, CD28, CD3E, CD3G, CD4, CSK and EZR) are available on the AFFY HuEx-1_0 microarray. While some of the T-Cell receptor signaling genes are clearly obvious as stated Davicioni and Garraway, the expression level of each of CD2, CD247, CD28, CD3E, CD3G, CD4, CSK and EZR is determined when using the Human Exon 1.0 ST microarray. Furthermore, Davicioni does suggest that “While some embodiments of the disclosure have been illustrated and described, it will be appreciated that various changes can be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosure.” (Para. 210). Therefore, the method according to the limitations of claim 1 is rendered obvious to the ordinary artisan over Davicioni in view of Garraway.
Applicants’ argument: “Motivation to Combine Not only is there no evidence that one of skill in the art would have arrived at a method for predicting a response of a prostate cancer subject to radiotherapy comprising determining a gene expression profile for each of eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes selected from the group consisting of: CD2, CD247, CD28, CD3E, CD3G, CD4, CSK, EZR, FYN, LAT, LCK, PAGl, PDE4D, PRKACA, PRKACB, PTPRC, and ZAP70, one of skill in the art would not have looked to Garraway to modify Davicioni.” (Pg. 14)
Response: In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Davicioni and Garraway are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of gene expression related to cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic response. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method comprising: determining a gene expression profile for each of eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes selected from the group comprising :CD2, CD3E, CD3G and CD4; determining a prediction of the radiotherapy response based on the gene expression profiles for the eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes, and optionally, providing the prediction or a therapy recommendation based on the prediction to a medical caregiver or the subject as taught by Davicioni to incorporate the method comprising the expression profile of T-Cell receptor signaling genes comprising CD247, CD28, CSK, and EZR as taught by Garraway and provide a method of predicting a response of a prostate cancer subject to radiotherapy comprising: determining a gene expression profile for each of eight or more T-Cell receptor signaling genes, comprising: CD2, CD247, CD28, CD3E, CD3G, CD4, CSK, EZR. Doing so would increase the number of immune cell-specific genes monitored and evaluated for the prediction of radiotherapy response.” Furthermore, Davicioni does suggest that “While some embodiments of the disclosure have been illustrated and described, it will be appreciated that various changes can be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosure.” (Para. 210). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Davicioni and Garraway to render the claim that would have yielded the predictable outcome according to the limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion of Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments, revised rejections and the above responses to arguments are documented in this Final Office Action. No claims are in condition for allowance.
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 KENDRA R VANN-OJUEKAIYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7529. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM.
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, Winston Shen can be reached at (571)272-3157. 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.
/KENDRA R VANN-OJUEKAIYE/Examiner, Art Unit 1682
/WU CHENG W SHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1682