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 .
Status of the Claims
Claim set received 17 October 2025 has been entered into the application.
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Priority
This Application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/060092 filed 19 April 2021.
Restriction/Species Election
The Applicant traversed the election/restriction mailed 20 August 2025 in the response filed 17 October 2025. However, the election/restriction requirement in the Office Action 20 August 2025 is withdrawn.
Therefore, claims 1-7 are pending.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 3 in the Office Action mailed 10 March 2026 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 10 June 2026.
The objection to claim 4 in the Office Action mailed 10 March 2026 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 10 June 2026.
The objection to claim 5 in the Office Action mailed 10 March 2026 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 10 June 2026.
The objection to claim 6 in the Office Action mailed 10 March 2026 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 10 June 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112(b)
The instant rejection is maintained for reason for record in the Office Action mailed 10 March 2026 and modified in view of the amendments filed 10 June 2026. It is noted the amendments received 10 June 2026 are necessitated by new ground(s) of rejection.
Antecedent Basis
The rejection claims 1-7 for antecedent basis under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the Office Action mailed 10 March 2026 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 10 June 2026.
Indefiniteness
The rejection claims 1 and 7 step (b) and claim 3 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the Office Action mailed 10 March 2026 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 10 June 2026.
The rejection claims 1 and 7 step (c) under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the Office Action mailed 10 March 2026 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 10 June 2026.
The rejection claims 1 and 7 step (d) under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) in the Office Action mailed 10 March 2026 is withdrawn in view of the amendments received 10 June 2026.
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.
Indefiniteness
Claims 7 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 7 step (f) was amended to recite “calculating a score value and classifying a patient, wherein the outcome or classification of the disease of a prostate carcinoma patient from whom said sample was derived is predicted based on said score value”. However, it is not clear how “classifying a patient, wherein the outcome or classification of the disease of a prostate carcinoma patient from whom said sample was derived is predicted based on said score value” is to limit claim 7 when the subsequent steps does not require classification of patient based on the classification or outcome for administering a therpay, and the calculated score value is not dependent on the outcome or classification, but the outcome and classification is merely based on said score value.
Additionally, it is not clear how “the outcome” is to limit the claim because it is not utilized in the subsequent steps, and it is not clear what “the outcome” is referring and/or if “the outcome” is referring to classification methods or administering therapy. Here, it is recommended to amend the claim to clarify what limitations (i.e., classification or outcome) are utilized for administering a therapy, for example. It is also recommended to amend “outcome” from the claim.
It is not clear if “outcome” is used as another term for “classification”, or if the Applicant is trying to amend “outcome” into claim 7 similar to claim 1 preamble as there is not reference to an “outcome” in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The instant rejection is maintained for reason for record in the Office Action mailed 10 March 2026 and modified in view of the amendments filed 10 June 2026. It is noted the amendments received 10 June 2026 are necessitated by new ground(s) of rejection.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step I - Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition
Claims 1-6 are drawn to a method, so a process.
Claim 7 is drawn to a method, so a process.
Step 2A Prong I - Identification of an Abstract Idea
Claim 1 recites a method for predicting the outcome or classifying prostate carcinoma in a patient while claim 7 is drawn to a method for use in the treatment of prostate. Here, claims 1 and 7 recite similar limitations and are therefore examined similarly.
Claims 1 and 7 recite:
b) analyzing the plurality of nucleic acids, thereby determining the abundancy of at least 50 different target nucleic acid sequences
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing, judging, and evaluating information (i.e., nucleic acid data) to determine an abundancy of target nucleic acids and is therefore an abstract idea.
wherein each of the at least 50 different target nucleic acid sequences is identical to the nucleic acid sequence of a corresponding specific transcript or isoform of a reference gene selected from the group of reference genes listed in claim 1 step (b).
This step describes the target nucleic acid data as a transcript or isoform of a reference gene that is identical to a reference listed in claim 1 step (b).
c) normalizing the target nucleic acid sequence abundancies against a reference dataset to obtain normalized expression values
This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing data (i.e., abundancies, dataset, standardization) to normalize sequence data and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses performing mathematical computations for normalizing sequence data abundancies with reference data to obtain normalized expression values which reads on abstract ideas. For example, normalizing sequence data encompasses the mathematical concepts of scaling, division, and log transformations to correct data (i.e., sequencing depth and compositional bias). Here, the term “normalizing” the target nucleic acid sequence abundancies to obtain normalized values is interpreted as another term for “calculating”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
d) standardizing the normalized expression values to obtain a gene expression value (gi) for each target nucleic acid sequence
This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing information (i.e., normalized expression values) to obtain gene expression value (gi) and is therefore an abstract idea. Here, standardizing data is a mathematical process for refining data/datapoints which reads on abstract idea. Here, the term “standardizing” the normalized expression values to obtain normalized values is interpreted as another term for “calculating”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
weighting the standardized gene expression value of each target nucleic acid sequence by a logHR value corresponding to said reference gene
This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing information (i.e., the standardized gene expression value) to weight the standardized gene expression value and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses performing mathematical/statistical computations for weighting the standardized gene expression value using a logHR value reads on performing calculations (i.e., ProstaTrendk equation [Spec page 18]). This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing data (i.e., the standardized gene expression value of each target nucleic acid sequence) for performing weighting methods using a logHR values and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses using mathematical variables (i.e., logHR value) for quantitatively weighting the abundancy of target nucleic acids to the logHR of the references genes which reads on abstract ideas.
f) calculating a score value
This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing data to calculate a score value and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses performing calculations to calculate a score value which reads on abstract ideas.
g) classifying the patient as having a high risk of death of disease and/or biochemical recurrence and/or if the score value is below a threshold value of 0, the patient is classified as having a low risk of death of disease and/or biochemical recurrence
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating data (i.e., the score value) to classify a patient as having a high risk of death of disease and/or biochemical recurrence if the score if below 0 and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses mathematically comparing data (i.e., scores to quantitative threshold of 0) which encompassing utilizing inequalities and equalities which reads on abstract ideas.
wherein the nucleic acid sequence of said reference gene, or of a transcript or isoform thereof, is identical to the nucleic acid sequence of one or more of said target nucleic acid sequences from said sample
This step describes the reference gene and the transcript/isoform of the reference gene as identical to the sample target nucleic acid sequences.
Claim 7 recites
b) analyzing the plurality of nucleic acids, thereby determining the abundancy of at least 50 different target nucleic acid sequences
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing, judging, and evaluating information (i.e., nucleic acid data) to determine an abundancy of target nucleic acids and is therefore an abstract idea.
wherein each of the at least 50 different target nucleic acid sequences is identical to the nucleic acid sequence of a corresponding specific transcript or isoform of a reference gene selected from the group of reference genes listed in claim 1 step (b).
This step describes the target nucleic acid data as a transcript or isoform of a reference gene that is identical to a reference listed in claim 1 step (b).
c) normalizing the target nucleic acid sequence abundancies against a reference dataset to obtain normalized expression values
This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing data (i.e., abundancies, dataset, standardization) to normalize sequence data and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses performing mathematical computations for normalizing sequence data abundancies with reference data to obtain normalized expression values which reads on abstract ideas. For example, normalizing sequence data encompasses the mathematical concepts of scaling, division, and log transformations to correct data (i.e., sequencing depth and compositional bias). Here, the term “normalizing” the target nucleic acid sequence abundancies to obtain normalized values is interpreted as another term for “calculating”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
d) standardizing the normalized expression values to obtain a gene expression value (gi) for each target nucleic acid sequence
This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing information (i.e., normalized expression values) to obtain gene expression value (gi) and is therefore an abstract idea. Here, standardizing data is a mathematical process for refining data/datapoints which reads on abstract idea. Here, the term “standardizing” the normalized expression values to obtain normalized values is interpreted as another term for “calculating”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
weighting the standardized gene expression value of each target nucleic acid sequence by a logHR value corresponding to said reference gene
This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing information (i.e., the standardized gene expression value) to weight the standardized gene expression value and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses performing mathematical/statistical computations for weighting the standardized gene expression value using a logHR value reads on performing calculations (i.e., ProstaTrendk equation [Spec page 18]). This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing data (i.e., the standardized gene expression value of each target nucleic acid sequence) for performing weighting methods using a logHR values and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses using mathematical variables (i.e., logHR value) for quantitatively weighting the abundancy of target nucleic acids to the logHR of the references genes which reads on abstract ideas.
wherein the nucleic acid sequence of said reference gene, or of a transcript or isoform thereof, is identical to the nucleic acid sequence of one or more of said target nucleic acid sequences from said sample
This step describes the reference gene and the transcript/isoform of the reference gene as identical to the sample target nucleic acid sequences.
f) calculating a score value
This step can be performed in the human mind by organizing data to calculate a score value and is therefore an abstract idea. This step encompasses performing calculations to calculate a score value which reads on abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
classifying the patient, wherein the outcome or classification of the disease of a prostate carcinoma patient from whom said sample was derived is predicted based on said score value
This step can be performed in the human mind by observing and evaluating information (i.e., said score value) for predicting the classification or outcome and is therefore an abstract idea. This step reads on mathematically separating/classifying data into categories which encompasses using equalities and inequalities which reads on abstract ideas.
wherein the nucleic acid sequence of said reference gene, or of a transcript or isoform thereof, is identical to the nucleic acid sequence of one or more of said target nucleic acid sequences from said sample
This step describes the reference gene and the transcript/isoform of the reference gene as identical to the sample target nucleic acid sequences.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are further drawn to limitations that describe the abstract ideas of claim 1 and are therefore also abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two - Consideration of Practical Application
Claims 1 and 7 do not contain any additional elements which integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Here, in the instant case, the claim 1 merely sets forth a method of nucleic acid sequence data analysis for calculating a score value for classifying a patient as having a high risk of death of a disease and/or biochemical recurrence of the disease. Such a result only produces information (i.e., classified data) and does not provide for a practical application in the physical-realm of physical things and acts, i.e., the claims do not utilize the data generated by the judicial exception to affect any type of change. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A)(iv).
Claim 7 was amended to recite “g) administering an adjuvant therapy or performing a radical prostatectomy, or focal therapy if the calculated score value is above a threshold value of 0, thereby treating the prostate cancer.”
However, the particular treatments (i.e., adjuvant therapy or performing a radical prostatectomy, or focal therapy) of claim 7 are not integrated into a practical application because the limitation of claim 7 step (g) is conditional. The claim recites administering only “if” the calculated score value is above a threshold value of 0 prostate cancer is treated. See MPEP 2111.04 Contingent Limitations. The clam does not recite concretely determining prostate cancer (i.e., score or classification) and then administering a treatment. The claim currently does not encompass an embodiment where prostate cancer is determined which would result in no treatment being administered.
Furthermore, claim 7 was amended to recite “classifying a patient, wherein the outcome or classification of the disease of a prostate carcinoma patient from whom said sample was derived is predicted based on said score value.” Here, the amended limitation “classifying a patient” is not utilized for calculating the value score, even though the outcome and classification is predicted based on the score value. Thus, the amended limitations are disjointed/disconnected from the rest of the claimed steps. As such, because the classifying a patient step is disjointed from the rest of the analysis steps and provides no classification limitation for positively classifying a patient with prostate carcinoma for administering an adjuvant or focal therapy, claim 7 is further integrated into a practical application.
Therefore, this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See MPEP 2106.05(f).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not meet any of the following criteria:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B - Consideration of Additional Elements and Significantly More
The claimed method also recites "additional elements" that are not limitations drawn to an abstract idea.
The recited additional element of the obtaining nucleic acids of claims 1 and 7 step (a) does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because obtaining nucleic acids sources using gene panels as a source of nucleic acids is deemed a well-known and conventional extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i-iii, v, vii) and 2106.05(g).
To provide evidence of conventionality of using gene panels for sequencing and obtaining nucleic acid data, Illumina DNA Analysis teaches researchers have the flexibility to use panels of 300,000 to nearly 1,200,000 markers per sample, depending on their study goals [page 1]. (Illumina® DNA Analysis Genome-Wide DNA Analysis Bead Chips (2009)).
The recited additional element of using different nucleic acid sequencing methods of claim 4 does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because using sequencing methods to obtain sequencing data that is subsequently evaluated by the abstract ideas is deemed a well-known and conventional extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i-iii, v, vii) and 2106.05(g). It is noted the specification [page 15 last paragraph] states the sequencing technologies/methods of claim 4 are known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
The recited additional element of samples of claim 6 does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because using samples as source nucleic acid data that is subsequently evaluated by the abstract ideas is deemed a well-known and conventional. To provide evidence of conventionality of using “organ-on-chip“, Wu et al. (Wu) review different organ-on-chips such as liver tumor on a chip [page 5 fig 1], lung on a chip [page 6 fig 2], heart on a chip [9 fig 4], combining multi-organs plates [page 12 fig 6], and reviews using 2D and 3D cell cultures [13 fig 7]. (Biomedical engineering online, 2020-02, Vol.19 (1), p.9-19, Article 9). To provide evidence of conventionality of using xenograft samples, Rossello et al. (Rossello) teaches next-generation sequencing analysis of cancer xenograft models [title]. Rossello teaches using next generation sequencing of exome and whole-genome sequencing for sequencing small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Rossello also teaches using RNA-seq on the xenograft samples [page 2 left col materials and methods and right col RNA-Seq] (PloS one, 2013-09, Vol.8 (9), p.e74432).
The recited additional element of administering/performing therapy (i.e., adjuvant therapy or performing a radical prostatectomy, or focal therapy) of claim 7 step (g) does not add significantly more than the recited judicial exception because using therapies (i.e., a radical prostatectomy, or focal therapy) for treating prostate cancer is deemed a well-known and conventional. To provide evidence of conventionality, Bozzini et al. (Bozzini) reviews focal therapy for prostate [title]. Bozzini review focal therapy methods focal HIFU [page 157 section 3], focal photodynamic therapy (PDT) [page 158 section 4], and other focal methods [page 161 section 6]. Bozzini teaches using radical prostatectomy method secondary to focal method PDT [page 161 table 5]. Bozzini teaches radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen analysis results [page 160 table 4] (Urologic oncology, 2013-02, Vol.31 (2), p.155-167)
In conclusion and when viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea recited in the instantly presented claims into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states the specification provides evidence the claim method constitutes an improvement to existing technologies for prostate cancer risk stratification [remarks, page 14-15 Claim 1]. The Applicant states the specification states the disclosed method for calculating and applying a prognostic multi-gene expression score based on transcriptome-wide gene expression analysis (ProstaTrend), allows improved molecular risk stratification, improved prediction of long-term prognosis and counselling of prostate cancer patients after surgery. The Applicant points to the specification [089] for guidance [remarks, page 15]. The Applicant submits that the claimed method has comprehensive biological pathway coverage that existing tools lack. The Applicant points to the specification [099] for guidance [remarks, page 15]. The Applicant states the claimed invention is drawn to a specific computational pipeline involves normalization, standardization, logHR weighting, and median aggregation and it was shown to be a more robust and accurate pipeline than alternative approaches. The Applicant states the particular ordered combination of steps with the particular trained parameters improves the technical accuracy of prostate cancer prognosis. The Applicant points to the specification [089] for guidance [remarks, page 16].
In response, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application/improvement to technology because, as noted in Step 2A Prong II of the 101 analyses above, claim 1 does not contain any additional element that integrate the judicial exception and is drawn to abstract ideas/abstract data analysis steps. It is noted the specification does not contain paragraph numbering or paragraphs [089 or 099] Here, the claim is entirely drawn to nucleic acid data analysis that can be performed by the human mind or math, or with the aid of a generic computer merely for programming efficiency. As such, a more robust and accurate pipelines/improved abstract idea steps (i.e., data analysis pipeline) alone are not deemed to be an improvement to technology. Thus, because the judicial exception alone is not eligible subject matter (if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception), the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(a).
As noted above, the steps of claim 1 are not applied to any additional elements so as to result in a practical application or an improvement to technology. Here, the additional elements for obtaining data using a sequencing panel are data gathering elements. As such, claim 1 is drawn to gathering and analyzing information (i.e., nucleic acid data) using conventional techniques (i.e., sequencing) and displaying the results (i.e., disease classification). Thus, because the lack of additional elements integrated into a practical application/improvement and the claim is drawn to data analysis, the claim remains patent ineligible. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II).
The Applicant points to Vanda regrading claim 7. The Applicant states claim 7 requires a specific, affirmative treatment action - the administration of adjuvant therapy or performing radical prostatectomy, or focal therapy- when the diagnostic score exceeds the threshold [remarks, page 16]. The Applicant points to table 1 [page 17] for guidance. The Applicant states claim 7 is thus analogous to a method of treatment claim that applies a natural relationship within a specific therapeutic context that was found patentable in Vanda [remarks, page 17].
In response, regarding the limitations of claim 7, and, as noted in Step 2A Prong II of the 101 analyses above, claim 7 step (g) is not integrated because the administering step is drawn to conditional limitations, and the data analysis steps are disjointed while some limitations (i.e., classifying a patient, outcome), for example, also are not integrated so that to construct a practical application and/or provide an improvement to technology.
It is noted that in the Applicant’s table [remarks, page 17] the Applicant compares the score values to the patient is a poor metabolizer of Vanda. However, it is noted the claims do not utilize claimed elements that determine whether the subject is a poor metabolizer of an adjuvant therapy or performing a radical prostatectomy, or focal therapy but the biomarker gene expression values are utilized to merely provide a score value for determining a weighting of standardized gene expression values using a logHR value which is to classify subjects. The instant claims do not process prostate biomarkers to determine if a patient is a poor metabolizer of a radical prostatectomy, or focal therapy but to determine a score value related to gene expression abundancy.
The Applicant submits the gene panel is not conventional and thus amounts to significantly more than the exception. Claims l and 7 as amended now explicitly enumerates the specific reference genes (MYBL2, PLK4, REEP4, KNTCI, FANCA, TAF6, RBLI, IRF7, ... through MRGBP). This is not a generic gene panel or a previously known signature [remarks, page 18]. The Applicant states the prior art tools (Prolaris, Oncotype, Decipher) use fundamentally different and more limited gene sets. There is no evidence in the record that analyzing this specific combination of 1,396 genes was routine or conventional. The Applicant states claims 1 and 7 recite a specific ordered combination that was not previously known or practiced [remarks, page 18].
In response, regarding the limitations of claims 1 and 7, the ordered steps, in light of the specification, do not provide an ordered combination outside of utilizing conventional data gathering elements for providing nucleic acid data that is subsequently analyzed by the abstract ideas. Moreover, regarding the Applicant’s assertion there is no evidence in the record that analyzing this specific combination of 1,396 genes was routine or conventional, the argument is not persuasive because using gene panels (e.g., panels containing tens, thousands, or millions of specific genes (i.e., single-stranded DNA fragments known as "primers")) to gather quantitative nucleic acid data for analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants (i.e., bioinformatics analysis) is routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Additionally, utilizing said gene panels containing tens to millions of genes (i.e., additional element) for gathering gene expression data that is subsequently used for determining quantitative data (i.e., abundancy levels score values) reads on abstract ideas because the information from the gene panel(s) is being analyzed for determining quantitative data (i.e., abundancy, weighting, a score value). Here, the claims are not drawn to a physical panel, but are drawn to data analysis of the at least 50 targeted gene sequences from said panel for determining a gene abundancy that is further utilized for calculating a score which reads on abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g)(i).
The claims are drawn to mere detecting biomarkers levels in blood or other samples for detecting DNA or enzymes in a sample to obtain nucleic data for inputting into an equation to classify patients which is insufficient to provide an unconventional method for classifying patient and treating the subject. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i-iii, v, vii-viii). Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under Step 2B of the 101 analyses.
It is noted that using assays with tens, thousands, or millions of specific genes do not preclude the claims from being patent ineligible because it is routine and conventional to utilize nucleic acid panels to obtain nucleic acid data from varying sources. As noted in Step 2B of the 101 analyses above, Illumina Data analysis teaches using gene panels with gene panels containing thousands to millions of individual gene biomarkers. Also, as noted above, claims 1 and 7 only require at least 50 of the recited targeted sequences.
Conclusion
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Finality
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C PULLIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8696. The examiner can normally be reached 0730-1700 M-F.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/J.C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Anna Skibinsky/
Primary Examiner, AU 1635
Prosecution Insights