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 .
Applicant’s amendments and arguments of December 23, 2025, are entered.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, and 18 have been canceled.
Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 19 are withdrawn.
Claim 1, 10, 12, and 13 are being newly objected to for the following reasons:
Claim 1 recites “stem cells are autologous, endometrial mesenchymal stem cells” should read as “autologous [[,]] endometrial mesenchymal stem cells”.
Claim 10 recites “comprising autologous, endometrial, mesenchymal stem cells, comprising” should read as “comprising autologous [[,]] endometrial [[,]] mesenchymal stem cells [[,]] comprising”.
Claim 10 step e) recites “an autologous endometrial, mesenchymal stem cell fraction” should read as “an autologous endometrial [[,]] mesenchymal stem cell fraction”.
Claim 12 recites “comprising the autologous, endometrial mesenchymal stem cells” should read as “comprising the autologous [[,]] endometrial mesenchymal stem cells”.
Claim 13 recites “comprising the autologous, endometrial mesenchymal stem cells” should read as “comprising the autologous [[,]] endometrial mesenchymal stem cells”.
Examiner’s note: The use of commas, for example “autologous, endometrial, mesenchymal stem cells” as stated in claim 10, suggests the contemplation of three different and distinct categories of cells, e.g. autologous stem cells, endometrial stem cells, and mesenchymal stem cells, rather than a single and clearly defined cell population, i.e. autologous endometrial mesenchymal stem cells.
Double Patenting
The double patent objections to claims 2, 6, 9, and 18 are withdrawn.
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 19 is newly objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 19 recites the exact same limitations as claim 4 where both are dependent from claim 1. Thus, these claims have the same scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In light of the amendments, the rejections of claims 4, 5, 10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or 35 U.S.C. §112(pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description rejection requirement where the claims contained subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention, is withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 4 removes the issue with the canceling of claim 5.
The canceling of claim 5 removes the rejection.
For claims 10 and 14, examiner finds Applicant’s argument persuasive thereby overcoming the §112(a) written description rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In light of the amendment, the rejection for claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 20 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, and 20 overcome the rejections.
Claim 14 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is being maintained.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "multipotency property" in Step i., Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14, step i, recites "Characterizing the autologous endometrial mesenchymal stem cells through multipotency property". It is not clear if a test must be performed, or if it must simply be believed to be endometrial cells.
Regarding Claim 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Response to Argument
Examiner notes that Applicant’s response to the Non-Final Office Action on December 23, 2025, did not address any of the maintained rejections with Claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 is dependent on claim 8 which has been canceled. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-9, 15-18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a physical phenomenon without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a composition comprising endometrial stem cells for use in a method for treating diminished ovarian reserve and that the endometrial stem cells are derived from an endometrial tissue sample. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no transformation of the realization. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than a judicial exception because the additional elements are simply preparation activities to prepare to realize the effect, or not, is being maintained.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? Yes, the claims are drawn to a composition, as seen in claim 1.
Step 2A: Prong 1: Are the claims directed to a Judicial Exception? Yes, the claims are drawn to a physical phenomenon, i.e., “endometrial stem cells for use in a method for the treatment of diminished ovarian reserve, wherein said endometrial stem cells are derived from an endometrial tissue sample”. The endometrial stem cells derived from the endometrial tissue sample are naturally occurring cells.
Step 2A: Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim recites endometrial stem cells as part of a composition (solution) that is intended as a treatment for diminished ovarian reserve. These elements do not impart any structural or functional changes to the naturally occurring stem cells. Additionally, Claim 2 recites that the endometrial stem cells are autologous. Claim 3 recites the endometrial stem cells are in fact endometrial mesenchymal stem cells, and claims 4 and 5 describe what markers are present or absent for determining if the cell is in fact an endometrial mesenchymal stem cell, e.g. positive for CD90, CD146, etc. and negative for CD34 and CD31. Claim 6 describes the location of where the composition is to be administered. Claim 7 describes the solutions to be used to maintain the viability of the endometrial stem cells. Claims 8 describe the endometrial stem cell concentration relative to the solution, and Claim 9 describes the number of doses at a certain dosage range. None of these limitations provide a practical application of the judicial exception of Claim 1.
As the claims are directed to a judicial exception (endometrial stem cells derived from endometrial tissue samples for use in treating diminished ovarian reserve), and lack a transformation of the judicial exception into a practical application of it, the claims are properly rejected for being directed to a judicial exception.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument is that claim 1 is directed to a composition of matter that comprises the “specifically defined endometrial stem cells in a physiologically relevant solution at a defined concentration” and that no such composition exists in nature given that the defined endometrial stem cells at the defined concentration in a physiologically relevant solution is not found in nature.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Under the markedly different characteristics analysis found in MPEP 2106.04(c), the claimed composition does not exhibit structural or functional characteristics that are markedly different from those on the naturally occurring endometrial mesenchymal stem cells. There is no recited structural difference that would distinguish Applicant’s endometrial mesenchymal stem cells from naturally occurring endometrial mesenchymal stem cells. Additionally, the recited physiologically relevant solution and pH range merely maintain cell viability and do not alter the endometrial mesenchymal stem cells natural properties. With respect to cell concentration, this is merely a representation of a quantitative adjustment that has no affect in altering cell identity, structure, or function and is a routine parameter in cell therapy formulations. In whole, the composition is merely a natural product with a known conventional carrier or culture medium where the components function as expected and do not produce any new or unexpected characteristics. Because of this, the §101 rejection for claims 1, 4, 7, 15, 19, 20 is maintained. Claims 21 and 22 are further rejected under §101 as being dependent to claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 12-17, 19, 20, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Zuo et al. [The clinical applications of endometrial mesenchymal stem cells, Biopreserv Biobank, 2018], in view of Grady et al. [Effect of intra-ovarian injection of mesenchymal stem cells in aged mares, Reproductive Physiology and Disease, 2018], in view of Michl et al. [Evidence-based guidelines from controlling pH in mammalian live-cell culture systems, Communications Biology, 2019], in view of Liu et al. [Biological characteristics of human menstrual blood derived endometrial stem cells, Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, 2017], in view of Zhang et al. [A protocol for isolation and culture of mesenchymal stem cells from human gingival tissue, Am J Clin Exp Immunol, 2019], is being maintained.
With respect to Claim 1, Zuo et al., discussing the clinical applications of endometrial mesenchymal stem cells, teaches the use of endometrial mesenchymal stem cells in the possible treatment of premature ovarian syndrome [Abstract, Application of enMSCs in the immune system ¶ 2]. Although premature ovarian syndrome is characterized by a severe reduction or loss of ovarian function leading to infertility, diminished ovarian syndrome similarly involves reduced ovarian reserve and impaired infertility, but is typically less severe condition. Because of this, there is a reasonable expectation of success that a person skilled in the art would recognize the teachings of Zuo et al. could be applied diminished ovarian syndrome considering both conditions involve ovarian function with premature ovarian syndrome representing the more severe dysfunction. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill could reasonably expect that a therapy that capable of being utilized for a more severe condition with overlapping etiology could reasonably be applied to a less severe condition.
For claim 4 where the endometrial mesenchymal stem cells are positive for certain cell surface markers and negative for other cell surface markers, Zuo et al. discloses the endometrial mesenchymal stem cells used in this art reference were positive for CD90, CD105, and CD146 [Introduction ¶ 2, Biobanking of enMSCs ¶ 2], and negative for both CD34 and CD31 [Biobanking of enMSCs ¶ 2].
For Claim 7 where the composition comprises a physiologically relevant solution or culture medium maintained at 7.2-7.4 pH, Michl et al., discussing methods for controlling pH in mammalian live-cell culture systems, discloses that the pH should be around 7.4 being that this is near optimal growth for pH [Fig. 2].
For Claim 10 where a method for making the composition comprising endometrial mesenchymal stem cells, Zhang et al., utilizing a protocol for isolating and culturing mesenchymal stem cells from human gingival tissue, teaches soaking the tissue in a balanced salt solution, washing the tissue with PBS, mincing the gingival tissue, digesting the minced tissue, filtering and centrifuging the digested tissue, followed by culturing the gingival tissue [Procedure]. For parts (g) and (i), Zuo et al. teaches the presence of cell surface markers such as the presence of CD90, CD146, and CD105, marked by the absence of other cell surface markers such as CD 34 and CD31 [Introduction ¶ 2, Biobanking of enMSCs ¶ 2]. This is followed by characterization of endometrial stem cells through multipotency, e.g. differentiation into osteocytes and adipocyte cells [Introduction ¶ 4].
Here, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to modify the systems and methods of Zhang et al. that describes a method for isolating and culturing mesenchymal stem cells from gingival tissue with the teachings of Zuo et al. that discloses the presence or absence of certain cell surface markers associated with stemness. Because of the this, there is a reasonable expectation of success that an Artisan would be able to combine the teachings of Zhang et al. with the additional teachings of Zuo et al. that would allow the Artisan to derive endometrial mesenchymal stem cells from an endometrium tissue sample using the protocol as stated in Zhang et al., and then confirming the presence of endometrial mesenchymal stem cells based on the presence of absence of certain stem cell surface markers that would indicate the stem cell’s ability to differentiate into such things as osteocytes or adipocytes.
For claim 12 where the method of claim 11 includes maintaining the cultured stem cells at specific ranges for temperature, CO2 concentration, and humidity, Zhang et al. discloses maintaining the culture medium and culture at 37˚C, humidified, at 5% CO2 for up to two weeks [Procedure, Anticipated Results 2.].
For Claim 13 where the cells are exchanged every 3 days, Zhang et al. teaches that after being cultured, the non-adherent cells are removed and fresh complete culture medium will be added every 48 hours to 72 hours [Procedure Part 7.].
For Claim 14 where the method is similar to Claim 10 accept the addition of Hanks fluid for step a), Zhang et al teaches the use of MEM Alpha medium [Procedure 2.]. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Hank’s fluid could be substituted as a form of short-term maintenance prior to washing. Additionally, Zhang et al., utilizing a protocol for isolating and culturing mesenchymal stem cells from human gingival tissue, teaches soaking the tissue in a balanced salt solution, washing the tissue with PBS, mincing the gingival tissue, digesting the minced tissue, filtering and centrifuging the digested tissue, followed by culturing the gingival tissue [Procedure]. For parts (g) and (i), Zuo et al. teaches the presence of cell surface markers such as the presence of CD90, CD146, and CD105, marked by the absence of other cell surface markers such as CD 34 and CD31 [Introduction ¶ 2, Biobanking of enMSCs ¶ 2]. This is followed by characterization of endometrial stem cells through multipotency, e.g. differentiation into osteocytes and adipocyte cells [Introduction ¶ 4]. Lastly for step g., Zhang et al. discloses maintaining the culture medium and culture at 37˚C, humidified, at 5% CO2 for up to two weeks [Procedure, Anticipated Results 2.].
Again, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to modify the systems and methods of Zhang et al. that describes a method for isolating and culturing mesenchymal stem cells from gingival tissue with the teachings of Zuo et al. that discloses the presence or absence of certain cell surface markers associated with stemness. Because of the this, there is a reasonable expectation of success that an Artisan would be able to combine the teachings of Zhang et al. with the additional teachings of Zuo et al. that would allow the Artisan to derive endometrial mesenchymal stem cells from an endometrium tissue sample using the protocol as stated in Zhang et al., and then confirming the presence of endometrial mesenchymal stem cells based on the presence of absence of certain stem cell surface markers that would indicate the stem cell’s ability to differentiate into such things as osteocytes or adipocytes.
For claim 15 where a method for treating diminished ovarian syndrome using containing the endometrial mesenchymal stem cells is used, Zuo et al. teaches the use of endometrial mesenchymal stem cells in the possible treatment of premature ovarian syndrome [Abstract, Application of enMSCs in the immune system ¶ 2]. Although premature ovarian syndrome is characterized by a severe reduction or loss of ovarian function leading to infertility, diminished ovarian syndrome similarly involves reduced ovarian reserve and impaired infertility, but is typically less severe condition. Because of this, there is a reasonable expectation of success that a person skilled in the art would recognize the teachings of Zuo et al. could be applied diminished ovarian syndrome considering both conditions involve ovarian function with premature ovarian syndrome representing the more severe dysfunction. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill could reasonably expect that a therapy that capable of being utilized for a more severe condition with overlapping etiology could reasonably be applied to a less severe condition. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill could reasonably expect that a therapy that capable of being utilized for a more severe condition with overlapping etiology could reasonably be applied to a less severe condition.
For Claim 16 and Claim 17 where the cell concentration is about 0.95-8 million cells/mL and 1.5-6.5 million cells number/mL respectively, Liu et al. discloses mesenchymal stem cells that were analyzed at a concentration of 5 x 106 cells/ml. This converts to 10,000,000 cells per mL [Cell labelling and imaging ¶ 1]. This range falls with the range provide in the Liu et al. reference.
For Claim 19 where the endometrial mesenchymal stem cells are positive for certain cell surface markers and negative for other cell surface markers and the endometrial mesenchymal stem cells are express OCT-4, CD146, and STRO-1, Zuo et al. discloses the endometrial mesenchymal stem cells used in this art reference were positive for CD90, CD105, and CD146 [Introduction ¶ 2, Biobanking of enMSCs ¶ 2], and negative for both CD34 and CD31 [Biobanking of enMSCs ¶ 2]. Zuo et al. discloses the expression of OCT-4 and CD146 [Introduction ¶ 2, Biobanking of enMSCs ¶ 2]. Here, there is a reasonable expectation of success that a person ordinary skill would recognize the additional teachings of Zuo et al. that indicates the presence and absence of certain cell surface markers as a way of identifying the presence of endometrial mesenchymal stem cells. Because of this, it is prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention to modify the systems and methods of Zuo et al. in furtherance the additional teachings instructing on what cell surface markers are expressed along with several other cell expression markers allowing a person of ordinary skill to determine the presence of endometrial mesenchymal stem cells.
For Claim 20 where the composition comprises a physiologically relevant solution or culture medium maintained at 7.2-7.4 pH and the cell composition of endometrial stem cells has a concentration of about 0.5-10 million cell number/mL, Michl et al., discussing methods for controlling pH in mammalian live-cell culture systems, discloses that the pH should be around 7.4 being that this is near optimal growth for pH [Fig. 2]. Liu et al. discloses mesenchymal stem cells that were analyzed at a concentration of 5 x 106 cells/ml. This converts to 10,000,000 cells per mL [Cell labelling and imaging ¶ 1]. Grady et al. further discloses the use of multiple injections [Experimental design-aged mares]. Here, there is a reasonable expectation of success given an Artisan would recognize that endometrial mesenchymal stem cells would need to be maintained in a physiologically relevant solution further maintained at a pH level that closely resembles the cell type’s natural environment would allow for cell concentration levels to reach between 0.5-10 million cell number/mL to include multiple injections as taught by Michl et al. with the additional teachings of Liu et al. and Grady et al. Because of this, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the methods and systems of Michl et al. where it was discussed on how best to control pH in mammalian live-cell cultures with the additional teachings of Liu et al. where researchers explored the possibility of menstrual blood endometrial stem cells with the further teachings of Grady et al. that taught the administration of multiple doses by intra-ovarian injections in adult mares.
For claim 21 where the composition according to claim 15 is administered intra-ovarian injection or to at least one ovary, Grady et al. specifically teaches the method of administering mesenchymal stem cells intra-ovarian [Methods ¶ 1].
For claim 22 where the cell composition of endometrial stem cells has a concentration of about 0.5-10 million cell number/mL and is administered 1-5 times at a given concentration range, Liu et al. discloses mesenchymal stem cells that were analyzed at a concentration of 5 x 106 cells/ml. This converts to 10,000,000 cells per mL [Cell labelling and imaging ¶ 1]. Additionally, cell concentration is a routine parameter where selecting the appropriate cell concentration to ensure viability, safety, and therapeutic efficacy is a matter of ordinary optimization routinely performed by a person of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to being administered over multiple doses, Grady et al. teaches the use of multiple doses administered by means of intra-ovarian injection to adult mares [Experimental design-aged mares], with the additional teachings of Liu et al. where the researchers disclose mesenchymal stem cells that were analyzed at a concentration of 5 x 106 cells/ml. This converts to 10,000,000 cells per mL [Cell labelling and imaging ¶ 1]. Based on this, there is a reasonable expectation of success that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of both Liu et al. and Grady et al allowing the person of ordinary skill to determine the claimed composition concentration as well as recognizing the potential need for multiple doses.
Response to Argument
Applicant argues that premature ovarian syndrome is distinct from diminished ovarian reserve due to one being pathological in nature and the other disorder being physiological in nature and that the underlying causes for fertility problems is different.
The examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Both diminished ovarian reserve and premature ovarian syndrome involve a reduction in ovarian follicle quantity and/or quality relative to chronological age. Both conditions are characterized by impaired folliculogenesis, diminished granulosa cell function, reduced AMH levels, elevated follicle-stimulating hormone levels, and decreased fertility potential. The primary difference in ovarian dysfunction relates to degree and not difference in underlying biological mechanisms with premature ovarian syndrome being related things such as gene disorders, autoimmune causes, or such things as chemotherapy and/or pelvic radiation therapy. Additionally, mesenchymal stem cells are known in the art to exhibit therapeutic effects through such things as immunomodulation, anti-apoptotic activity, and enhancement of tissue microenvironments. Because of this, a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that such mechanisms would be at least as effective, if not more effective, in diminished ovarian reserve given that ovarian tissue remains partially functional.
With respect to Applicant’s argument directed to Grady et al., Grady et al. is directed to showing that general knowledge of intra-ovarian injections for delivering endometrial stem cells was known in the art.
Applicant’s argument for claim 8 has not been found persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s claim 8 argument that Lui et al. where it was shown that a cell concentration within Applicant’s claimed range was known in the art, Lui et al. was used form precisely that. Applicant’s argument that cells derived from 40+ year old donors do not proliferate is not relevant to purpose of citing Lui et al. Additionally, Applicant’s claims are not directed to derived endometrial mesenchymal stem cells from 40+ year old donors.
With respect to claim 10, Applicant raises an objection to the rejection for claim 10. However, there is no argument put forward why Zhang et al. would not be applicable to isolating and culturing endometrial mesenchymal stem cells given that Zhang et al. directly addresses isolating and culturing mesenchymal stem cells from human derived tissue. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that deriving mesenchymal stem cells from various soft tissues, that included gingival tissue, endometrial tissue, or another soft tissue would have a similar protocol for isolating and culturing.
Additionally, claims 21 and 22 are newly rejected based on their limitations being similar to canceled claims 3, 8, and 9, where claim 21 is directed to administering the composition of claim 15 via intra-ovarian injection to at least one ovary, and claim 22 being similar to both claims 8 and 9 where the composition is administered in 1-5 doses at a reduced amount that falls within the range limitation listed in claim 1.
For these reasons, the §103 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
No claims 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 JOHN DAVID MOORE whose telephone number is (703)756-1887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Tracy Vivlemore can be reached at 571-272-2914. 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.
/JOHN DAVID MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 1638
/Tracy Vivlemore/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1638