Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-20, 33, 34, 39) in the reply filed on 09/10/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
The present application is a 35 U.S.C. 371 national stage filing of International Application No. PCT/US2021/023318, filed 03/19/2021.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed parent provisional application 62992400, filed on 03/20/2020 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Thus, the earliest possible priority for the instant application is 03/20/2020.
Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/12/2026 is non-compliant. Claims 7-10 are omitted from the amended claim set filed 2/12/2026. Claims 16-19 are recited twice in the amended claims set. It appears that the amended claims 16-19 were numbered incorrectly and they should have been numbered as claims 7-10. The amended claims 16-20 are re-numbered to claims 7-10 in this OA (see claim objection below).
Applicant should submit a correct amendment in the response to this OA according to the manner of making amendments in application under 37CFR1.121 (see MPEP714).
Claims Status
Claims 21-32 and 35-38 have been withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected subject matter and the claim status does not reflect the withdrawn status of the claims.
Claims 2-6, 11-15 are canceled, claims 21-32 and 35-38 have been withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected subject matter. Claims 1, 7-10, 16-20, 33-34 and 39 have been considered on the merits. All arguments have been considered.
Withdrawn Objections & Rejections
Applicant's response filed 02/12/2026 has been considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office action mailed 11/18/2025 are hereby withdrawn.
The objections and rejections presented herein represent the full set of objections and rejections currently pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims are mislabeled. Amending the first recitation of claims 16-19 with the numbers 7-10 would overcome this objection. Appropriate correction is required.
For purposes of compact prosecution the first recitation of claims 16-19 in the instant claims set are considered claims 7-10 and referred to as 7-10.
The second recitation of claims 16-19 are considered withdrawn and are objected to because the status identifier does not reflect the withdrawn status of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (New)
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petris (2020) et al (WO 2020/012335 A1; as cited in the IDS filed 09/20/2033 and referred to herein as Petris (2020)), as evidenced by Vargas et al (Journal of Transl. Med (2016)14:288;1-15) and in view of Abed et al (PLOS One (2019)14:4;1-18; as cited in the IDS filed 09/20/2033), Welsch et al (FEBS Letters (2007) 2089-2097) and Suzuki et al (Nature (2018) 8:15036p1-9) and as further evidenced by Addgene_42230 (pX220-U6-Chimeric_BB-CBh-hSpCas9 [online]. Addgene [retrieved on 10/29/2025]. Retrieved from the Internet: https://www.addgene.org/42230/).
The rejection is essentially identical to the rejection from the previous action, however has been changed to reflect the amendments to the claims.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 10 and 16-17: The claim recites “effectors”. The instant specification defines an effector as “a polynucleotide that encodes for a molecule that selectively binds to a protein or nucleic acid and regulates its biological activity” (p11 [0065]).
The claim recites “cargo”. The instant specification is silent on an explicit definition of this term. Vargas teach retroviral vectors are an attractive system for use as cargo for foreign gene expression in mammalian cells (p2 col2 ¶4). Thus cargo, as relates to a viral vector, is interpreted as foreign gene material/foreign gene expression material- e.g. nucleic acids that encode nucleic acids/genes for expression in a mammalian cell. The claims are examined with this interpretation.
The claim recites “packaging elements”. The instant specification defines packaging elements as “genes/proteins that are involved in viral packaging of a cargo, such as a cargo polynucleotide” (p21 [0073]).
The claim recites “vesicle elements”. The instant specification defines vesicle elements as “genes/proteins that are capable of generating a viral particle (or vesicle) and include envelope, capsid, and other structural gene/proteins that form the structural viral particle or vesicle that encapsulates a cargo” (p21 [0073]).
Claims 1 and 10 recites “generating vesicles 1-50 fold or more compared to a system lacking the polynucleotides encoding one or more effectors”. Because a 1 fold change is no change, and a change of 50 or more fold encompasses any number greater than 1, this limitation is considered met by any system that generates by any system that generates any number of lentiviral vesicles.
The claims are examined with the interpretations as discussed supra.
Petris(2020) teach transfecting a cell with at least a first expression cassette that comprises a first nucleotide sequence to transcribe the at least one guide RNA molecule (cargo), a second expression cassette that comprises a second nucleotide sequence encoding at least one membrane-associated protein (vesicle element) and a third expression cassette comprising a third nucleotide sequence encoding the at least one RNA-guided nuclease (effector) (p24 ln 1-15).
Petris(2020) further teach producing the vesicle from the cells.
Petris(2020) further teach at least one membrane-associated protein for stimulating vesicle formation, wherein the protein is the Gag-Pol lentiviral protein (p24/25 ln34-35/1-15). This reads on a vesicle element.
Petris(2020) do not teach the effector gene is Paternally Expressed Gene 10 (PEG10) or that the system is capable of generating 1 to 50 or more fold lentiviral vesicles as compared to a system lacking the one or more polynucleotides of (a).
Abed teach the Peg10 Gag domain promotes vesicle budding similar to the HIV p24 Gag protein (abstract). Figure 2d teaches the Peg10 Gag domain generates virus-like particles (p9).
Welsch teach expression of Gag alone leads to the formation of enveloped, morphologically normal virus-like particles (p2091 col1 ¶2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to substitute the Gag protein in the vesicle generation system taught by Petris(2020) with the Peg10 protein as taught by Abed because both vesicle generation systems are drawn to the generation of vesicles using a protein derived from Gag, and Welsch teach the expression of the Gag protein alone leads to the formation of enveloped, morphologically normal virus-like particles.
There would have been a reasonable expectation that the Peg10 of Abed would work equivalently to the Gag protein taught by Petris(2020) because both proteins are Gag proteins, and the results would have been predictable.
Substitution of one element for another known in the field, wherein the result of the substitution would have been predictable, is considered to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US 2007) at page 1395.
The teachings of Petris are discussed supra. Petris is silent as to the vesicle output of the vesicle generation system.
Suzuki teach the increase of the production of lentiviral vector from producer cells (abstract). Suzuki further teach the retroviral delivery vesicle generation system comprises the co-expression of a small amount of human T-ly7mphotropic virus type 1 Tax protein which increases the release of lentiviral vector particles (abstract). Suzuki further teach co-expression of Tax in lentiviral vector producer cells achieve up to 12-fold increase in lentiviral vector production (p2 ¶5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the methods of Petris(2020) drawn to a viral vesicle generation system by including expression of the effector protein Tax as taught by Suzuki. Suzuki teaches that co-expression of Tax improves viral particle production.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the vesicle generation system as taught by Petris(2020) for the purposes of increasing the production of viral vector because Suzuki teach large scale production of lentiviral vector is a major obstacle because of high cost for vector preparation using large quantities of plasmids and cell culture materials, as well as equipment for concentration and purification, and that improving the production of lentiviral vectors is a pressing issue for high-titer lentiviral vector preparation, as required for in vivo experiments and transduction of non-dividing cells (p1 ¶1).
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions disclose the production of lentiviral particles from mammalian cells.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 18-19: It is noted that claim 8 comprises optional components and thus these components are not required by the claim limitations.
Petris(2020) teach plasmids encoding the gRNA expression cassette (cargo) are modified to favor cytosolic transcription (p31 ln5-15). This reads on a vector comprising a cargo and one or more regulatory element.
Petris (2020) also teach cells are transfected with a plasmid encoding spCas9-Gag (effector and packaging elements) (Fig10 ln10-20). The GagpSpCas9 construct is modified from the pX-SpCas9 plasmid (p61 ln10-20). As evidenced by Petris(2017), the pX-SpCas9 is derived from the plasmid Addgene #42230. As evidenced by Addgene_42230, the vector comprises the chicken β-actin promoter, a regulatory element (Addgene). This reads on a vector comprising the effector and packaging elements comprising one or more regulatory element.
Regarding claim 20: As stated supra, “cargo” is interpreted as nucleic acids that encode nucleic acids/genes for expression in a mammalian cell.
Petris (2020) teach lentiviral-based viral-like particles (vesicles) comprising SpCas9 fused to the HIV Gag domain which is used to produce vesicles (p56 ln14-25). This reads on a cargo comprising a packaging element per the claim interpretations as discussed in claim 1.
Claims 33-34 and 39 are rejected over Petris (2020), as evidenced by Vargas and in view of Abed, Welsch and Suzuki, and as further evidenced by Addgene_42230 as applied to claims 1, 7-10 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Lener et al (Journal of Extracellular Vesicles (2015) 4:30087; p1-31).
The rejection is essentially identical to the rejection from the previous action, however has been changed to reflect the amendments to the claims.
Regarding claim 33: The teachings of Petris(2020) are discussed supra. Petris(2020) do not teach a pharmaceutical formulation comprising the engineered vesicle delivery system.
Lener teach multiple clinical trials based on extracellular vesicle based therapeutics have been conducted, and that extracellular vesicles have been administered to humans for treatment of cancer (p4 Table 1; p21 col2 ¶3). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that to use an extracellular vesicle based generation system for therapeutics in humans, one would require a pharmaceutical formulation comprising the engineered vesicle delivery system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the methods of Petris(2020) drawn to a vesicle delivery system by using a vesicle delivery system to deliver therapeutics in a pharmaceutical formulation as taught by Lener.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the vesicle delivery system as taught by Petris(2020) to for the purposes of delivery of a therapeutic in a pharmacological composition because Lener teach vesicles have been used in pharmaceutical compositions to delivery cancer therapies to humans (p4 Table 1 of Lener).
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Lener discloses therapeutic use of vesicles during the early 2000s (p21 col2 para3).
Regarding claims 34 and 39: The teachings of Petris(2020) are discussed supra. Petris(2020) do not teach a kit comprising the engineered vesicle delivery system or a kit comprising a pharmaceutical formulation of the engineered vesicle delivery system.
While Petris (2020) do not explicitly teach a kit, they do describe all the limitations in the kit claims in combination and thus read on the kit product as claimed. It is well-known in the art to separately package ingredients to be combined together for the known advantage of improved storage and prevention of premature reaction.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7-10, 16-20 33-34 and 39 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 17 of copending Application No. 17/761,641 (reference application) in view of Petris (2020) et al (WO 2020/012335 A1; as cited in the IDS filed 09/20/2033, Suzuki et al (Nature (2018) 8:15036; p1-9) and Lener et al (Journal of Extracellular Vesicles (2015) 4:30087; p1-31).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons discussed below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 10, 16-17 and 20: Copending claim 1 of the reference application is drawn to an engineered delivery system comprising one or more polynucleotides encoding one or more retroviral elements for forming a delivery vesicle. This reads on an engineered retroviral delivery vesicle generation system as recited in the instant claims.
Copending claim 1 of the reference application further teaches a polynucleotide encoding one or more polynucleotides comprising one or more capture moieties for packaging a cargo within the delivery vesicle. This reads on one or more polynucleotides encoding one or more effector, as required by the instant claims.
Copending claim 1 of the reference application also teaches the delivery vesicle comprises capture moieties for packaging a cargo. Copending claim 17 of the reference application teaches the cargo comprises nucleic acids. A cargo that comprises nucleic acids is a polynucleotide and reads on “one or more polynucleotides encoding a cargo” of the instant claims.
Copending claim 1 of the reference application also teaches the one or more retroviral element is the retroviral gag. This reads on one or more polynucleotides encoding a vesicle element of the instant claims.
Copending claim 7 of the reference application teaches the retroviral gag protein is PEG10 or RTL1.
The copending application is silent on the ability of the system to generate 1 to 50 fold more lentiviral vesicles as compared to a system lacking the one or more polynucleotides.
Suzuki teach the increase of the production of lentiviral vector from producer cells (abstract). Suzuki further teach the retroviral delivery vesicle generation system comprises the co-expression of a small amount of human T-ly7mphotropic virus type 1 Tax protein which increases the release of lentiviral vector particles (abstract). Suzuki further teach co-expression of Tax in lentiviral vector producer cells achieve up to 12-fold increase in lentiviral vector production (p2 ¶5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the methods of the copending application, drawn to a viral vesicle generation system by including expression of the effector protein Tax as taught by Suzuki. Suzuki teaches that co-expression of Tax improves viral particle production.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the vesicle generation system as taught by the copending application for the purposes of increasing the production of viral vector because Suzuki teach large scale production of lentiviral vector is a major obstacle because of high cost for vector preparation using large quantities of plasmids and cell culture materials, as well as equipment for concentration and purification, and that improving the production of lentiviral vectors is a pressing issue for high-titer lentiviral vector preparation, as required for in vivo experiments and transduction of non-dividing cells (p1 ¶1).
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions disclose the production of lentiviral particles from mammalian cells.
Regarding claims 8-9 and 18-19: It is noted that claim 8 comprises optional components and thus these components are not required by the claim limitations.
The Copending Application does not teach the system is included in one or more vectors comprising one or more regulatory element.
Petris(2020) teach plasmids encoding the gRNA expression cassette (cargo) are modified to favor cytosolic transcription (p31 ln5-15). This reads on a vector comprising a cargo and one or more regulatory element.
Petris (2020) also teach cells are transfected with a plasmid encoding spCas9-Gag (effector and packaging elements) (Fig10 ln10-20). The GagpSpCas9 construct is modified from the pX-SpCas9 plasmid (p61 ln10-20). As evidenced by Petris(2017), the pX-SpCas9 is derived from the plasmid Addgene #42230. As evidenced by Addgene_42230, the vector comprises the chicken β-actin promoter, a regulatory element (Addgene). This reads on a vector comprising the effector and packaging elements comprising one or more regulatory element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system taught by the copending application with the teachings of Petris, to include the system in one or more vector comprising regulatory elements.
One would have been motivated to modify the copending application with the teachings of Petris because Petris teach recombinant viral vectors are widely used gene delivery tools and lentiviral vectors have potential for integration and long-term expression of a therapeutic gene (p1 [0005]). Petris further teach third-generation lentiviral vectors have increased safety over first- and second-generation systems and comprise upstream regulatory sequences to drive expression of the features on the vector (p108 [0324]).
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both systems are drawn to engineered delivery system comprising polynucleotides encoding retroviral elements for forming vesicles.
Regarding claims 33-34 and 39: The teachings of the copending claims are discussed supra. The copending claims do not teach a kit comprising a pharmaceutical formulation a pharmaceutical formulation of the retroviral delivery system.
Lener teach multiple clinical trials based on extracellular vesicle based therapeutics have been conducted, and that extracellular vesicles have been administered to humans for treatment of cancer (p4 Table 1; p21 col2 ¶3). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that to use an extracellular vesicle based generation system for therapeutics in humans, one would require a pharmaceutical formulation comprising the engineered vesicle delivery system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the methods of the copending claims drawn to a vesicle delivery system by using a vesicle delivery system to deliver therapeutics in a pharmaceutical formulation as taught by Lener.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the vesicle delivery system as taught by the copending claims to for the purposes of delivery of a therapeutic in a pharmacological composition because Lener teach vesicles have been used in pharmaceutical compositions to delivery cancer therapies to humans (p4 Table 1 of Lener).
One would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Lener discloses therapeutic use of vesicles during the early 2000s (p21 col2 para3).
While Lener do not explicitly teach a kit, they do describe all the limitations in the kit claims in combination and thus read on the kit product as claimed. It is well-known in the art to separately package ingredients to be combined together for the known advantage of improved storage and prevention of premature reaction.
Response to Arguments
The responses are directed to the Arguments filed 02/12/2026, all arguments are considered.
Regarding Arguments directed to Objections:
Amendments to the claims overcome the objections as written and they are withdrawn.
Regarding Arguments directed to 35 USC § 112(a):
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejections as written and they are withdrawn.
Regarding Arguments directed to 35 USC § 112(b):
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejections as written and they are withdrawn.
Regarding Arguments directed to 35 USC § 102:
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejections as written and they are withdrawn.
In regards to arguments that are relevant to the instant rejection:
Applicant argues that an “effector” as recited in the instant claims are molecules that "enhance the packaging efficiency of lentiviral particles and in some embodiments increase the yield of viral particles produced by the system" (Specification, paragraph [0065])”
This is not persuasive because MPEP 2111.01 reads “’Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.’ Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004)”.
MPEP 2111.01 further states “Where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999)”.
The phrase in the instant specification “In this context herein, "effector" refers to a polynucleotide that encodes for a molecule that selectively binds to a protein or nucleic acid and regulates its biological activity” (p11 [0065] ln2-4) is considered an explicit definition for the term “effector” and is used as such to interpret the claims.
The phrase “enhances the packaging efficiency of lentiviral particles and in some embodiments increases the yield of viral particles produced by the system as previously described” is not considered an explicit definition for the term effector because it is drawn to “some embodiments”. Furthermore, the language is not consistent with an explicit definition which would be identified in a specification; the language does not identify the specific term defined (“effector”) followed by how the term is defined “refers to a polynucleotide”.
The interpretation for “effector” as stated in the previous action is maintained, however the instant claim 1 has been amended to require an effector gene selected from PEG10 and/or RTL1 and the instant rejection over claim 1 addresses the additional limitation to the effector genes as discussed supra.
Regarding Arguments directed to 35 USC § 103:
Amendments to the claims overcome the rejections as written and they are withdrawn.
In regards to arguments that are relevant to the instant rejection:
Applicant argues that “Neither Abed nor Welsch teaches or suggests element (a)-production-enhancing effectors added to existing lentiviral systems to boost packaging efficiency”. Applicant also argues the system relied upon for the rejection would not read on a complete lentiviral system enhanced by the addition of retrotransposon-derived effectors PEG10, RTL1 or both.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., production-enhancing effectors added to existing lentiviral systems, a complete lentiviral system enhanced by the addition of effectors, transfer vectors and plasmids encoding PEG10, RTL1 or a combination thereof transfected along with lentiviral envelope and packaging constructs) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, a system which comprises the structural limitations of the claimed system is considered to produce the expected result of the claimed system.
Regarding Arguments directed to Double Patenting:
The claim amendments overcome the double patenting rejection as written. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant does not present specific arguments in regards to the traversal of the double patenting rejection.
A new rejection is entered to address the amendments to the claims in regards to double patenting.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA LYNNE MORRIS SPENCER whose telephone number is (571)272-3328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James (Doug) Schultz can be reached at 571-272-0763. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREA LYNNE MORRIS SPENCER/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
/TAEYOON KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Prosecution Insights