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 .
The amendment filed 13 August 2025 has been received, entered and considered. The following information has been made of record in the instant amendment:
1. Claims 1-16 have been canceled. The said claims were canceled in a preliminary amendment.
2. No new Claims have been added.
3. Claims 17, 25, and 31 have been amended.
4. Remarks drawn to claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 112, 102 and 103.
The following objection(s)/rejection(s) has/have been overcome:
5. The objection to claim 25 has been overcome by amendment.
6. The rejection of Claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been overcome by amendment.
7. The rejection of Claim(s) 17-24, 26, 28-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hua et al (WO 2019/232465 A1; cited in IDS filed 10/21/2022), the rejection of Claim(s) 17-24, 26-29 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al (Microbiome, 2018, 6:43, pages 1-7; cited in IDS filed 10/21/2022), and the rejection of Claim(s) 17-24 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al (EP 3252040 A1; cited in IDS filed 10/21/2022) have been withdrawn. The cited references do not teach the concentration of the compound of formula (I) as in amended claim 17.
8. The rejection of Claim(s) 17-18, 20-33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (Microbiome, 2018, 6:43, pages 1-7; cited in IDS filed 10/21/2022) in view of Kemp et al (US 2015/0225713 A1) and further in view of Feng et al (EP 3252040 A1; cited in IDS filed 10/21/2022), and the rejection of Claim(s) 17-18, 20-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua et al (WO 2019/232465 A1; cited in IDS filed 10/21/2022) in view of Kemp et al (US 2015/0225713 A1) and further in view of Feng et al (EP 3252040 A1; cited in IDS filed 10/21/2022) have been withdrawn and is replaced by the obviousness rejections as set forth below.
Claims 17-33 are pending in the case.
The following rejections are necessitated by Applicant's amendment filed 13 August 2025 wherein the limitations in pending claims 17, 25, and 31 have been amended. Support is seen at pages 11-12 in the specification for the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hua et al (WO 2019/232465 A1; cited in IDS filed 10/21/2022; of record).
Hua teaches a kit comprising the preservative (N-octyl pyridinium bromide; compound of formula (I)), stabilizing solution (alcohol), and a buffer (para 0096; as in claim 33). Therefore, Hua et al anticipates claim 33.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant has traversed the rejection of claim 33 as it applies now under 35 USC 102 over Hua arguing that it does not teach a kit comprising a composition comprising a compound of formula (I) as defined in claim 1; a buffer solution and at least one alcohol solution.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. As set forth above Hua teaches a kit comprising all the three components.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al (Microbiome, 2018, 6:43, pages 1-7; cited in IDS filed 10/21/2022; of record).
Han teaches a kit comprising N-octylpyridinium bromide (compound of formula (I), a buffer solute, and ethanol (page 2, left col., see under Reagents and kits, and Table 1; limitation of claim 33).
Therefore, Han anticipates claim 33.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant has traversed the rejection of claim 33 as it applies now under 35 USC 102 over Han arguing that it does not teach a kit comprising a composition comprising a compound of formula (I) as defined in claim 1; a buffer solution and at least one alcohol solution.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. As set forth above Han teaches a kit comprising all the three components.
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) 17-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al (Microbiome, 2018, 6:43, pages 1-7; cited in IDS filed 10/21/2022; of record) in view of Kemp et al (US 2015/0225713 A1; of record) and further in view of Papaiconomou et al (J. Chem. Eng. Data, 2007, 52, 833-840; newly cited necessitated by amendment).
Han teaches extraction of DNA from fecal samples which were brought in contact with N-octylpyridinium bromide (page 2 left col., Methods through right col.; method of claim 17; limitation of claims 18-24). Han teaches the use of PBS buffer in the extraction/purification step (page 2, see Sample collection and treatment and DNA extraction; limitation of claims 26-27. The mixture is also contacted with ethanol (as in claims 28-29). Since the DNA is extracted from fecal samples of human subjects it should be a dsDNA having more than 50 base pairs as in claim 32. Han teaches a kit comprising N-octylpyridinium bromide, a buffer solute, and ethanol (page 2, left col., see under Reagents and kits, and Table 1; limitation of claim 33).
Han does not teach the concentration of the compound of formula (I) and use as an aqueous solution and some of the substitutions on the compound of formula (I) in claim 17, some of the substitutions in claims 18-22 and 24, chloride counter ion as in claim 23, the concentration of the compound of formula (I) as in claim 25, and the concentration of ds DNA as in claim 31.
Kemp et al, drawn to extraction of DNA, teaches the use of salts which include pyridinium salts having various substitutions (paras 0010-0025). This includes chloride as the counter ion as in claim 23.
According to Papaiconomou the pyridinium salts 2MOPYR+ and 4MOPYR+ are water soluble (page 834, Fig. 1; page 838, left col., Sub-title: Solubility in water, see the 4th and 5th paras). Since Han and Kemp teach the use of pyridinium salts for the extraction of DNA, which includes dsDNA, the artisan would use aqueous solutions of the compound of formula (I) in the process of extraction of dsDNA. The artisan can adjust the concentration of the compound of formula (I) as in claims 17 and 25 in order to look for the minimum concentration range of the compound of formula (I) that gives optimal yield of the dsDNA. Water is also readily available, is cheap and safe to use as solvent.
In view of the combined teachings of the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art will find it obvious to use the compound of formula (I) having all the claimed substitutions as in claims 17-18 and 20-24. The artisan can adjust the percentage of alcohol solution as in claim 30 for optimization of the dsDNA extraction. The artisan will also have a reasonable expectation of success in extracting dsDNA from a sample having the concentration in the range as in claim 31. The artisan would use the steps recited in claim 26 in order to ensure a high purity level of the extracted dsDNA, and would also make the kit as in claim 33 with the compound of formula (I) having all the other substitutions, a buffer, and at least one alcohol solution since such a kit would make it ready for use when nucleic acid extraction is needed.
MPEP 2141 states, "The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusatory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.'" KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) " Obvious to try " choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention."
According to the rationale discussed in KSR above, the rationale in (G) above is seen to be applicable here since based on the prior art teachings, the method of extracting ds DNA from a biological sample using the compound of instant formula (I) is known.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention over the combined teachings of the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the claimed method, which is also taught by the prior art, since the process steps and the reagents used are known and is easy to perform.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant has traversed the rejection of claims 17-18 and 20-33 under 35 USC 103 over Han in view of Kemp and further in view of Feng arguing that the present invention relates to a process for extracting dsDNA from a biological sample using a N-C5-C11 pyridinium alkyl compound of formula (I) at a low concentration of 0.1-40mM. The claimed process is highly selective and allows one to obtain pure samples of dsDNA (page 11, lines 16-25). It cannot be used for extracting RNA or ss DNA as illustrated in example 1 at item c) at page 24 of the substitute specification.
Han and Feng disclose methods for stabilizing and storing biological samples using N-octylpyridinium bromide which has nothing to do with selectively extracting DNA. In Feng the term DNA includes DNA and/or RNA (see para 0031). The DNA includes, but is not limited to, genomic DNA, cDNA, plasmid DNA, etc.; RNA includes, but is not limited to mRNA, tRNA, rRNA, siRNA, miRNA, hnRNA, etc. (para 0032). The artisan would not have considered the teachings of Han and Feng as a starting point to arrive at the present invention. Han and Feng do not teach or suggest the use of the alkyl pyridinium compound of formula (I) at concentrations between 0.1 and 40mM, reacting the biological sample with the compound of formula (I) to form an aggregate, and that the compound of formula (I) is used in an aqueous solution. Both references disclose the use of a procedure in another reference.
Kemp teaches away from the use of a compound of formula (I) since the results with decylpyridinium chloride instead of domiphen bromide are not good. In contrast comparative data in example 2 of the present application shows that N-octylpyridinium compound of formula (I), at a low concentration of 10mM, is able to selectively extract dsDNA with high yields. This result cannot be predicted from the teaching of Kemp. Hence reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is requested. (Remarks-pages 9-11).
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not found to be persuasive. In view of the amendment the rejection above under 35 USC 103 is made of record.
Han teaches extraction of DNA, which includes dsDNA, using the compound of formula (I). The biological sample is first stored in the presence of the compound of formula (I) and then the DNA is extracted. Han’s teaching is seen to include extraction of dsDNA.
According to Feng, DNA includes, but is not limited to, genomic DNA, cDNA, plasmid DNA, etc. The teaching that ‘it is not limited to’ means that ds DNA is also extractable from a biological sample. The claim is to a method of extracting ds DNA, which is what is taught by both Han and Feng. As set forth above, the concentration of the compound of formula (I) and the use of formula (I) as an aqueous solution is not taught by Han and Feng.
Papaiconomou et al teaches that pyridinium salts 2MOPYR+ and 4MOPYR+ are water soluble. Since Han and Kemp teach the use of pyridinium salts for the extraction of DNA, which includes dsDNA, the artisan would use aqueous solutions of the compound of formula (I) in the process of extraction of dsDNA. The artisan can adjust the concentration of the compound of formula (I) as in claims 17 and 25 in order to look for the minimum concentration range of the compound of formula (I) that gives optimal yield of the dsDNA. Since the compound of formula (I) is brought into contact with the biological sample it should form an aggregate. Claim 17 recites reacting the biological sample with the compound of formula (I), but does not clearly recite how and under what conditions this is done. Therefore, contacting the biological sample with the compound of formula (I) with the biological sample constitutes reacting both as in claim 17. Kemp teaches that the pyridinium salts as a class appear to efficiently provide for the recovery of nucleic acids with limited ability to select for size (at para 0140). This teaching tells the artisan that the claimed pyridinium salts can be used in the instant method. Even though Kemp uses a mineral matrix and pyridinium salt in the DNA extraction, Han teaches the use of pyridinium salt for the extraction of DNA without the use of a mineral matrix. This means that pyridinium salts such as the ones having formula (I) can be used in the instant method. Claim 17 is drawn to extraction of dsDNA by reacting a biological sample comprising dsDNA with the compound of formula (I) to form an aggregate and recovering dsDNA. No other step is recited. The prior art teaches contacting the pyridinium salt with the biological sample (reads on reacting) and then extracting DNA, which includes dsDNA. The prior art method does what is recited in claim 17 with the use of an aqueous solution of the compound of formula (I) and the concentration being adjustable being obvious in view of Papaiconomou. Applicant has not explained nor is it recited in claim 17 as to what is done differently in the claimed method that it removed degraded RNA and selectively extracted dsDNA.
Feng is not used as a reference in the rejection set forth above.
The combined teachings of the reference do render the instant claims obvious. The rejection is maintained.
Claim(s) 17-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hua et al (WO 2019/232465 A1; cited in IDS filed 10/21/2022; of record) in view of Kemp et al (US 2015/0225713 A1; of record) and further in view of Papaiconomou et al (J. Chem. Eng. Data, 2007, 52, 833-840; newly cited necessitated by amendment).
Hua et al teaches extracting dsDNA by reacting a biological sample with N-octyl pyridinium bromide (page 20, Example 1; method of claim 17; limitation of claims 18-19 for C7-C10 alkyl and octyl group for R1; limitation of claims 20-21 for R2-R6 being H; and limitation of claims 23-24 for X- being halide and bromide). The fecal sample is mixed with a stabilizing solution and the DNA is extracted (para 00112). The stabilizing solution can be pre-mixed with a buffer (para 0096). Therefore, the method of Hua should form an aggregate as in claims 17(a) and 26(a). It is quality tested for purity and then extracted again if quality was not good. This reads on the steps recited in claim 26.
The stabilizing solution can be 70% ethanol (para 0072; as in claims 28-30). Hua teaches a kit comprising the preservative (N-octyl pyridinium bromide), stabilizing solution (alcohol), and a buffer (para 0096; as in claim 33).
Hua does not teach the concentration of the compound of formula (I) and use of an aqueous solution of the compound of formula (I), and some of the substitutions on the compound of formula (I) as in claim 17, some of the substitutions as in claims 18, 20-22 and 24, chloride counter ion as in claim 23, the concentration of the compound of formula (I) as in claims 17 and 25 and that of ds DNA as in claim 31, and the limitation of claim 32.
Kemp et al, drawn to extraction of DNA, teaches the use of salts which include pyridinium salts having various substitutions (paras 0010-0025). This includes chloride as the counter ion as in claim 23.
According to Papaiconomou the pyridinium salts 2MOPYR+ and 4MOPYR+ are water soluble (page 834, Fig. 1; page 838, left col., Sub-title: Solubility in water, see the 4th and 5th paras). Since Han and Kemp teach the use of pyridinium salts for the extraction of DNA, which includes dsDNA, the artisan would use aqueous solutions of the compound of formula (I) in the process of extraction of dsDNA. The artisan can adjust the concentration of the compound of formula (I) as in claims 17 and 25 in order to look for the minimum concentration range of the compound of formula (I) that gives optimal yield of the dsDNA. Water is also readily available, is cheap and safe to use as solvent.
In view of the combined teachings of the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art will find it obvious to use the compound of formula (I) having all the claimed substitutions as in claims 17-18 and 20-24. The artisan will adjust the concentration of the compound of formula (I) as in claims 17 and 25 and the percentage of alcohol solution as in claim 30 for optimization of the dsDNA extraction. The artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in extracting dsDNA from a sample having the concentration in the range as in claim 31, and the ds DNA to have more than 50 base pairs as in claim 32. The artisan would use the steps recited in claim 26 in order to ensure a high purity level of the extracted ds DNA. The making of a kit as in claim 33 would also be obvious to the artisan in view of the teachings of the prior art.
MPEP 2141 states, "The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusatory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.'" KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) " Obvious to try " choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention."
According to the rationale discussed in KSR above, the rationale in (G) above is seen to be applicable here since based on the prior art teachings, the method of extracting ds DNA from a biological sample using the compound of instant formula (I) is known.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention over the combined teachings of the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the claimed method, which is also taught by the prior art, since the process steps and the reagents used are known in the art to be used for extraction of dsDNA, and is easy to perform.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant has traversed the rejection of claims 17-18 and 20-32 under 35 USC 103 over Hua in view of Kemp and further in view of Feng arguing that Hua and Feng disclose method for stabilizing and storing biological samples using N-octylpyridinium bromide which has nothing to do with selectively extracting DNA. The method of Hua can be implemented with any kind of nucleic acid (para 0036).
In Feng, the term nucleic acid includes DNA and/or RNA, and is not limited to genomic DNA, cDNA, etc. (para 0031-0032). A skilled person would not have considered the teachings of Hua and Feng as starting points to arrive at the presently claimed invention. Both do not teach using the pyridinium compound of formula (I) at concentrations between 0.1 and 40mM.
Moreover, both references do not teach reacting the biological sample comprising the dsDNA with the compound of formula (I) to form an aggregate, and that the compound of formula (I) is used as an aqueous solution.
Feng does not teach how the DNA is extracted and refers to another citation. Hua directly refers to Han et al and does not describe the type of stabilizing solution used to contact and dissolve the fecal samples, and Hua does not describe how DNA is extracted.
Kemp teaches away from the use of a compound of formula (I) since the results with decylpyridinium chloride instead of domiphen bromide are not good. In contrast comparative data in example 2 of the present application shows that N-octylpyridinium compound of formula (I), at a low concentration of 10mM, is able to selectively extract dsDNA with high yields. This result cannot be predicted from the teaching of Kemp. For the above reasons the pending claims are in a condition for allowance (Remarks-pages 11-14).
Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Hua teaches that the DNA was extracted after storing it in the stabilizing solution and sent to the laboratory (para 00112). Feng also teaches the same. Claim 17 is drawn to extracting dsDNA by reacting a biological sample comprising the dsDNA with the compound of formula (I) and recovering the dsDNA. The prior art teaches contacting the biological sample with a compound of formula (I), which reads on reacting the sample with the compound of formula (I). This is followed by extraction of DNA, which includes dsDNA. Claim 17 does not recite steps as to how the dsDNA is extracted. Hence, Hua’s method reads on recovering dsDNA as it teaches steps a and b as recited in claim 17. Contacting the biological sample with the compound of formula (I) as in Hua should result in the formation of aggregate. Claim 17 just recites reacting but does not recite the steps as to how it is reacted that forms the aggregate.
Kemp teaches that the pyridinium salts as a class appear to efficiently provide for the recovery of nucleic acids with limited ability to select for size (at para 0140). This teaching tells the artisan that the claimed pyridinium salts can be used in the instant method. Even though Kemp uses a mineral matrix and pyridinium salt in the DNA extraction, Hua teaches the use of pyridinium salt for the extraction of DNA without the use of a mineral matrix. This means that pyridinium salts such as the ones having formula (I) can be used in the instant method. Claim 17 is drawn to extraction of dsDNA by reacting a biological sample comprising dsDNA with the compound of formula (I) to form an aggregate and recovering dsDNA. No other step is recited. The prior art teaches contacting the pyridinium salt with the biological sample (reads on reacting) and then extracting DNA, which includes dsDNA. The prior art method does what is recited in claim 17 with the use of an aqueous solution of the compound of formula (I) and the concentration being adjustable being obvious in view of Papaiconomou. Applicant has not explained nor is it recited in claim 17 as to what is done differently in the claimed method that it removed degraded RNA and selectively extracted dsDNA.
Feng is not used as a reference in the rejection set forth above.
The combined teachings of the reference do render the instant claims obvious. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Pending claims 17-33 are rejected.
Claims 1-16 have been canceled.
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 GANAPATHY KRISHNAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0654. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30am-5pm.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/GANAPATHY KRISHNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693