DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is responsive to papers filed 01/30/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 22, 26 and 29 have been amended. Claims 11-13 and 30-31 have been newly canceled and no claims have been newly added.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 14, 17-18, and 22-29 are currently pending and have been examined on their merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 has the status of “currently amended”, but there are no changes to the claim amending it.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 is drawn to the method of claim 1 and refers to “the cellular fraction before centrifugation”. However, claim 1 does not include a cellular fraction prior to centrifugation as the only cellular fraction in claim 1 is one created by the act of centrifuging. Therefore, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the cellular fraction before centrifugation” in claim 1 which renders the scope of claim 6 unclear and thus indefinite.
For examination purposes claim 6 is interpreted as referring to the cells prior to centrifugation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteron (WO 2013/111130-from IDS filed 09/30/2022, hereinafter “Esteron ‘130”).
Referring to claim 1, Esteron ‘130 discloses a method for obtaining blood plasma enriched in bioactive molecules (p.4,lines 1-9), comprising providing a cell suspension collection tube containing a gel separator (gel3); providing a blood sample or cellular suspension in the cell suspension collection tube; (p.4,lines1-9) centrifuging the cell suspension collection tube to obtain three fractions in the tube, including a first fraction containing cells and adapted to be discarded (first high density fraction 6); a second fraction comprising the gel (gel layer 3, see fig.1); and a third fraction containing cells and adapted to be recovered (third 7 and fourth 8 fractions); and extracting a cellular fraction containing blood plasma from the third fraction (p.6, lines 4-16), wherein said extracting step includes manipulation with additives that will induce a release of bioactive molecules in the cellular fraction (p.9, lines 20-29). Carrying out manipulation of the cell fraction using thrombin and CaCl2 is also disclosed (page 9 lines 20-29, page 17, lines 26-28).
Regarding claims 2, Esteron ‘130 discloses incubating cells (storing cells) in the collection tube after centrifuging (page 12, 5th paragraph) and these cells are adapted to release anti-inflammatory growth factors and cytokines (paragraph bridging pages 13-14). In addition, the contacting of the cell fraction with thrombin and/or CaCl2 manipulates the cells to release bioactive molecules as described above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Esteron ‘130 discloses wherein the blood sample provided in the tube is autologous blood and thus provides autologous fractions (page 12, second paragraph).
The specific combination of features claimed is disclosed within the broad genera of cell types, additives and cell treatments taught by Esteron ‘130, but such “picking and choosing” within several variables does not necessarily give rise to anticipation. Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec., 868 F.2d 1251, 1262 (Fed. Circ. 1989). Where, as here, the reference does not provide any specific teaching to select this specific combination of variables, anticipation cannot be found.
That being said, however, it must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742.
Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected various combinations of cell types, additives and cell treatments from within the disclosure of Esteron ‘130 to arrive at methods and compositions “yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement”.
The motivation and reasonable expectation of success in making these combinations comes from the fact that Esteron ‘130 suggests that all these cited variables are suitable for inclusion in their method/composition.
Therefore, the teaching of Esteron ‘130 renders obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteron (WO 2013/111130-from IDS filed 09/30/2022) as applied to claims 1-2 and 7 above, and further in view of Gooris et al (WO 2018/091713-from IDS filed 09/30/2022).
Regarding claims 8-10, Esteron ‘130 renders obvious the claimed method as described above, but does not explicitly disclose filtering and stressing the cellular fraction to remove viral contaminants or lyophilizing the cellular suspension.
Gooris describe a method for preparing growth factors from a blood fraction, specifically platelets (Title and abstract). Gooris disclose that these growth factors can be used as a therapeutic agent and are beneficially filtered and exposed to mechanical/physical stress to remove viral contaminants (page 6 lines 25-30, page 9 line 11 to page 10 line 14). Lyophilization is described as a suitable and beneficial technique for storing the cellular product and prolong shelf-life (page 10 lines 22-28, page 11 lines 21-24, page 16 lines 3-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize filtering and stressing techniques to remove viral contaminants from the cellular suspension and to lyophilize the cellular suspension in the method of Esteron ‘130 because Gooris teach and suggest that these are beneficial to the production of a growth factoring containing product intended for therapeutic use. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Esteron ‘130 and Goris are both drawn methods of making therapeutic products from blood fractions such as platelets.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Esteron ‘130 and Gooris et al render obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteron (WO 2013/111130-from IDS filed 09/30/2022) as applied to claims 1-2 and 7 above, and further in view of Esteron (US 2015/0025223-hereinafter “Esteron ‘223”) and Beer, Lucian (https://thoraxchirurgie.meduniwien.ac.at/fileadmin/content/OE/thoraxchirurgie/bilder/applied-immunology/akad_arbeiten/diplom/lucian_beer_diploma_thesis.pdf, 2012).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Esteron ‘130 renders obvious the claimed method as described above to collect a blood fraction with secreted trophic, paracrine and growth factors (page 13), but does not explicitly disclose incubating the collection tube for 30 minutes to 24 hours prior to centrifuging the cell suspension.
Esteron ‘223 discloses that a method of using a blood collection vessel for producing blood fractions that are enriched with cytokines secreted from the cells for use as a therapeutic product (pages 3-4, para 72).
Beer discloses that blood tubes that had been stored for up to 24 hours with activating agents such as autologous serum, autologous plasma or fibrin prior to centrifugation contained increased concentrations of cytokines (page 5 abstract, page 50 Discussion, page 54 conclusion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incubate the blood collection tube and blood sample for up to 24 hours prior to centrifugation in the method of Esteron ‘130 because Esteron ‘223 teach and suggest that fractions of blood will secrete beneficial cytokines that have therapeutic use and Beer teach that incubating a blood product for up to 24 hours prior to centrifugation will increase the concentration of cytokines secreted by the blood cells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because in the Esteron ‘130 method the blood cells will be in contact with autologous serum and autologous plasma prior to centrifugation and this will activate the cells to produce the beneficial cytokines as evidenced by Beer.
Regarding claims 22-23, Esteron ‘130 discloses wherein their fractions are formulated with activating additives (and thus enriched) using a syringe (formulated for injection) (pages 17-18). This syringe can be adapted to be delivered at the point of care.
Regarding claim 24, Esteron ‘130 discloses that their platelet concentrate fraction may be frozen and stored for even longer periods (page 12). It is well known that frozen and lyophilized platelets can be stored at least up to 6 months from cell collection.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Esteron ‘130, Esteron ‘223 and Beer render obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 17-18, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteron (WO 2013/111130-from IDS filed 09/30/2022) in view of Esteron (US 2015/0025223-hereinafter “Esteron ‘223”) and Beer, Lucian (https://thoraxchirurgie.meduniwien.ac.at/fileadmin/content/OE/thoraxchirurgie/bilder/applied-immunology/akad_arbeiten/diplom/lucian_beer_diploma_thesis.pdf, 2012) as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, 14, and 22-24 above, and further in view of Gooris et al (WO 2018/091713-from IDS filed 09/30/2022).
Regarding claims 17-18, Esteron ‘130 in view of Esteron ‘223 and Beer render obvious the claimed method as described above, but do not explicitly disclose filtering and stressing the cellular fraction to remove viral contaminants, formulating for injection to be delivered at the point of care or lyophilizing the cellular suspension such that it can be delivered up to 6 months from cell collection
Gooris describe a method for preparing growth factors from a blood fraction, specifically platelets (Title and abstract). Gooris disclose that these growth factors can be used as a therapeutic agent and are beneficially filtered and exposed to mechanical/physical stress to remove viral contaminants (page 6 lines 25-30, page 9 line 11 to page 10 line 14). Lyophilization is described as a suitable and beneficial technique for storing the cellular product and prolong shelf-life (page 10 lines 22-28, page 11 lines 21-24, page 16 lines 3-19). Formulation of the cellular product for injection at a point of care is also disclosed (pages 8 and 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize filtering and stressing techniques to remove viral contaminants from the cellular suspension, lyophilizing the cellular suspension such that it can be stored for up to 6 months prior to delivery and formulation as an injection to be adapted to be delivered at a point of care in the method of Esteron ‘130 because Gooris teach and suggest that these are beneficial to the production of a growth factoring containing product intended for therapeutic use. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Esteron ‘130 and Gooris are both drawn methods of making therapeutic products from blood fractions such as platelets.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Esteron ‘130, Esteron ‘223, Beer and Gooris et al render obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 25-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteron (US 10,167,310, hereinafter “Esteron ‘310”) in view of Landrigan et al (US 9,878,011).
Regarding claims 25-27 and 29, Esteron ‘310 disclose a method for obtaining a blood fraction enriched with high levels of autologous IL-1RA cytokine by providing a cell suspension collection tube with a gel separator and glass beads, providing a blood sample, centrifuging to obtain three fractions in the tube, a first fraction containing cells and beads adapted to be discarded, a second fraction comprising the gel and a third fraction containing cells and plasma enriched with biomolecules such as the IL-1RA cytokine, as well as incubation and extraction of plasma from the third fraction to increase the concentration of the biomolecules, such as the cytokines (abstract, column 4 line 65- column 7).
The specific combination of features claimed is disclosed within the broad genera of cell types, additives and cell treatments taught by Esteron ‘310, but such “picking and choosing” within several variables does not necessarily give rise to anticipation. Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec., 868 F.2d 1251, 1262 (Fed. Circ. 1989). Where, as here, the reference does not provide any specific teaching to select this specific combination of variables, anticipation cannot be found.
That being said, however, it must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742.
Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected various combinations of cell types, additives and cell treatments from within the disclosure of Esteron ‘310 to arrive at methods and compositions “yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement”.
The motivation and reasonable expectation of success in making these combinations comes from the fact that Esteron ‘310 suggests that all these cited variables are suitable for inclusion in their method/composition.
Esteron ‘310 does not explicitly disclose incubating and then centrifuging the blood sample with glass beads.
Landrigan disclose methods of preparing therapeutic compositions from blood fractions and include wherein peripheral blood is conditioned by incubation in the presence of glass or plastic beads for 24 hours prior to centrifugation to stimulate the production of cytokines prior to fractionation of the bead/blood suspension (pages 6-7 para 107).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incubate the blood sample with glass beads for 24 hours prior to centrifugation in the method of Esteron ‘310 because Landrigan suggest that this conditions the blood to produce cytokines beneficial for therapeutic use. This stimulation would have provided an increased concentration of the cytokines (those inherently stimulated and secreted by the cells such as interleukins IL-10, IL-4, IL-11 and IL-13) in the extracted blood plasma compared to the cellular suspension in the collection tube. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Esteron ‘310 and Landrigan are preparing interleukin-containing fractions from a blood sample using glass beads, centrifugation and incubation.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Esteron ‘310 and Landrigan et al render obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esteron (US 10,167,310, hereinafter “Esteron ‘310”) in view of Landrigan et al (US 9,878,011) as applied to claims 25-27 and 29 above, and further in view of Kutushov (US 6,616,623).
Regarding claim 28, Esteron ‘310 in view of Landrigan render obvious the claimed method as described above and include the use of filters to concentrate the desired blood fractions, but do not explicitly disclose further filtering the cellular fraction containing blood plasma to remove water and increase a concentration of bioactive molecules.
Kutushov disclose a system and method for correction of a biological fluid (abstract). Kutushov disclose that it is also suitable and beneficial to include a filtering means for removing water from blood using a water adsorbent material (column 4 lines 26-40). This water removal will remove undesirable elements as well as increasing the concentration of the remaining solids and proteins.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further include filtering the cellular fraction containing blood plasma to remove water and increase concentration of bioactive molecules in the method of Esteron ‘310 because Kutushov teach and suggest that it is beneficial and desirable to do so when correcting a biological fluid such as patient blood. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Esteron ‘310 was already suggesting the benefit of filtering their bioactive molecule containing fraction as well.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Esteron ‘310, Landrigan et al and Kutushov render obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that WO ‘130 (Esteron ‘130) does not teach inducing the bioactive molecules collected in the cell fraction and does not teach incubating the cell fraction. Applicant asserts that providing thrombin or CaCl2 to the collected cellular fraction as described by WO ‘130 activates platelet rich plasma to form a fibrin clot or gel and that this does not induce release of bioactivated molecules concentrated in the fraction.
This is not found persuasive. First, claim 1 indicates that the manipulation pf the cellular fraction by contacting the cells with CaCl2 or thrombin is sufficient to cause the release of bioactive molecules in the cellular fraction. Second, it is well known that contacting PRP with CaCl2 and/or thrombin, as taught by WO ‘130 (Esteron ‘130), will induce the expression of anti-inflammatory growth factors such as PDGF and TGF-beta as evidenced by Cavallo et al (Biomed Research International 2016, abstract and page 4 Figure 2). Third, WO ‘130 (Esteron ‘130) discloses incubating cells (storing cells) in the collection tube after centrifuging (page 12, 5th paragraph) and these cells are adapted to release anti-inflammatory growth factors and cytokines (paragraph bridging pages 13-14).
Applicant argues that WO ‘130 (Esteron ‘130) does mention “incubation” at all. It appears that Applicant means that WO ‘130 does not mention incubation. Applicant then asserts that storage is the opposite of incubation as there is no direct teaching in WO ‘130 of increasing the concentration of bioactive molecules in the retained fraction by incubating cells. Applicant asserts that WO ‘130 does not teach all the limitations of the claims.
This is not found persuasive. Applicant has not defined the term “incubating” or set any parameters with regard to the specific conditions required for a contacting step to be considered “incubating”. Therefore, as long as the cells are in contact for some amount of time with a condition that allows for the release of bioactive molecules from the cells then the condition of incubating is deemed to have occurred. The contacting of PRP specifically with CaCl2 and/or thrombin is taught by WO ‘130 (page 17) will inherently cause the cells to release bioactive molecules as evidenced by Cavallo et al (Biomed Research International 2016, abstract and page 4 Figure 2).
Applicant argues that the combined disclosures of Gooris and WO ‘130 (Esteron ‘130) fail to motivate concentrating, inducing, incubating and further processing of anti-inflammatory growth factors because both references are primarily directed to PRP samples.
This is not found persuasive. WO ‘130 (Esteron ‘130) discloses the steps of claim 1 as described above and Gooris provides the suggestion and motivation to further include filtering, stressing the cellular fraction to remove viral contaminants and lyophilizing the cellular suspension as described above. The disclosures regarding PRP are not excluded from the claimed invention and thus PRP meets the limitations for a cellular fraction as described above.
Applicant argues that the combination of WO ‘130 (Esteron ‘130), US Patent ‘223 and Beer do not provide a reasonable expectation of success of depleting contaminants as recited in claim 14, administrable by injection or inhalation or shelf-stable for six months as claimed in claim 22-24. Applicant asserts that the rationale is pure hindsight starting from what is claimed and then finding the elements in Applicant’s own prior work and that this is the opposite of a reasonable expectation of success.
This is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the current case, the reasonable expectation of success in carrying out the WO ‘130 (Esteron ‘130) method to include the depletion of contaminants comes from the carrying out the claimed method steps which are also taught by Esteron ‘130, such as centrifugation of the cells and the discarding of the undesirable fractions as described above. Esteron ‘130 includes the limitations of claims 22-24 as described above as well. The fact that the teaching and suggestion comes from Applicant’s own prior art reference does not negate that fact that the cited references were published more than a year prior to the effective filing date of the current Application and are thus properly available as prior art.
Applicant argues that the combination of obtaining blood plasma enriched in bioactive molecules with a centrifuge tube containing separation gel and incubation beads as required by claims 25-29 is not found in the prior art and thus the rejections of these claims is based on hindsight. Applicant asserts that it could not have been predicted what would be obtained by centrifuging a sample in a tube with gel and beads because the combination is not in the prior art.
This is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In the current case, Esteron ‘310 disclose providing a cell suspension collection tube with a gel separator and glass beads as described above. In addition, Landrigan disclose methods of preparing therapeutic compositions from blood fractions and include wherein peripheral blood is conditioned by incubation in the presence of glass or plastic beads for 24 hours prior to centrifugation to stimulate the production of cytokines prior to fractionation of the bead/blood suspension (pages 6-7 para 107).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Esteron ‘310 and Landrigan are preparing interleukin-containing fractions from a blood sample using glass beads, centrifugation and incubation.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cavallo et al., “Platelet-Rich Plasma: The Choice of Activation Method Affects the Release of Bioactive Molecules”, BioMed Research International, 2016, Volume 2016, Article ID 6591717, pages 1-7.
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 LAURA J SCHUBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-3347. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
LAURA J. SCHUBERG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1631
/LAURA SCHUBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1631