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 .
Claims status
Applicant’s response filed 8/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 15, 17, 20, 27, 32, 48, 56, 149-158 is/are currently pending and is/are under examination.
Withdrawn Objections
The objections presented herein represent the full set of objections currently pending in this application. Any objections not specifically reiterated are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Withdrawn
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.
Rejection of Claims 7, 15, 17, 30, 27 and 157 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the inventions is withdrawn in light of claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) - Withdrawn
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Rejection of Claim 158 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn in light of claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 - Withdrawn
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.
Rejection of Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 15, 32, 149-153, 156-158 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma et al (Nature Plants, June 29, 2020, 6(7): 773-779; IDS 7/7/2023) is withdrawn because Ma does not teach the newly added limitation to these claims which is that the claims are now directed to a recombinant lyssavirus genome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – New, necessitated by claim amendments
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.
Rejection of Claim(s) 7, 17, 20, 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Yang et al (US 2016/0264981 A1, Sep. 15, 2016) is withdrawn due to withdrawal of rejection of claims 1 and 15 that instant rejection relied upon.
Rejection of Claim(s) 48, 56, 154 and 155 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma as applied to claims 1 and 32 above, and further in view of Li et al (WO 2021129895 A2; 2021-07-01; IDS 7/7/2023; Machine translation provided in PTO-892; Citations below are in reference to Machine translation) and Chatterjee et al (Nat Neurosci, April 2018, 21(4): 638-646) is withdrawn due to withdrawal of rejection of claims 1 and 15 that instant rejection relied upon.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 15, 32, 48, 56, 149-158 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al (Nature Plants, June 29, 2020, 6(7): 773-779; ref of record) and Chatterjee et al (Nat Neurosci, April 2018, 21(4): 638-646; ref of record) in view of Li et al (WO 2021129895 A2; 2021-07-01; Machine translation ref of record; Citations below are in reference to Machine translation) as evidenced by Wickersham et al (Retrograde neuronal tracing with a deletion mutant rabies virus. Nat. Methods, Vol. 4, No. 1, Jan 2007) and Osakada et al (New Rabies Virus Variants for Monitoring and Manipulating Activity and Gene Expression in Defined Neural Circuits. Neuron 71, 617–631, August 25, 2011).
Regarding claim 1, Ma teaches a negative-strand RNA virus vector that comprises negative-strand RNA virus vector genome in which heterologous nucleic acid sequences are inserted between native viral genes (Figure 1a). Ma teaches that the inserted heterologous nucleic acid sequences encode gRNAs (one or more) that comprise 5’ and 3’ ends which are flanked by tRNAs (one or more) (Figure 1a, Extended Fig. 2c, Supplementary Figure 1a, 2a; Supplementary Methods: Construction of SYNV vectors for expression of tgtRNA and Cas9 (pSYNV-tgtRNA-Cas9)).
Regarding claim 2, Ma teaches that the vector comprises sequences that encode at least two tRNA (=claimed first and second tRNA) wherein the sequence that encodes the first tRNA is positioned at the 3’end and the sequence that encodes the second tRNA is positioned at the 5’ end of the gRNA-encoding sequence, the sequences that encode the first and second tRNA are identical and specify the same amino acid (Supplementary Figure 1a; Supplementary Methods: Construction of SYNV vectors for expression of tgtRNA and Cas9 (pSYNV-tgtRNA-Cas9).
Regarding claim 7, Ma teaches at least two nucleic acid sequences that encode two separate tRNAs one at each end of the gRNA-encoding sequence (Supplementary Figure 1a).
Regarding claim 15, Ma teaches first and second tRNA as tRNA-Glycine (Supplementary Methods: Construction of SYNV vectors for expression of tgtRNA and Cas9 (pSYNV-tgtRNA-Cas9).
Regarding claim 32, Ma teaches the gRNA expression cassette comprises from 3’ to 5’: a duplicated N/P gene junction sequence which is a negative-strand RNA virus transcription initiation signal, a nucleic acid encoding the first tRNA, a nucleic acid encoding the first gRNA, a nucleic acid encoding the second tRNA, a nucleic acid encoding the second gRNA, a nucleic acid encoding the third tRNA and a transcription termination polyadenylation signal (=claimed options a-d). See description on page 1, col. 2, para 1 that discuses insertion of Cas9 and gRNA under the control of duplicated N/P gene junction sequences necessary for cis-elements to direct viral L polymerase-mediated messenger RNA transcription (=claimed negative-strand RNA virus transcription initiation signal) and produces polyadenylated viral mRNAs transcription (=claimed transcription termination signal). See also description in Supplementary Methods: Construction of SYNV vectors for expression of tgtRNA and Cas9 (pSYNV-tgtRNA-Cas9) regarding two gRNAs flanked by tRNAs on each end resulting in first and second gRNAs, and first, second and third tRNAs as claimed.
Regarding claim 56, Ma teaches that negative-strand RNA virus genome transcribe into a positive strand antigenome such that the transcribed sequence comprises a gRNA flanked by two tRNAs at the 5’ and 3’ ends (Supplementary Figure 2).
Regarding claim 149-151, Ma teaches that their vector genome comprises nucleic acid sequence that encodes a Cas9 enzyme, which is a gene editing protein (as recited in claim 150) of CRISPR gene editing system (as recited in claim 151) and a therapeutic polypeptide encoded by the therapeutic transgene (as recited in claim 149).
Regarding claim 149, 152, 153, 156, 157, Ma teaches that their vector genome comprises nucleic acid sequence that encodes a Cas9 enzyme, which is a secreted gene editing protein (as recited in claim 153, 156) of CRISPR gene editing system (as recited in claim 157) and a therapeutic polypeptide (as recited in claim 152, 158) encoded by the therapeutic transgene (as recited in claim 149).
Regarding claim 154, Ma teaches a negative-strand RNA virus genome that comprises a gRNA expression cassette comprising from 3’ to 5’: a duplicated N/P gene junction sequence which is a negative-strand RNA virus transcription initiation signal, a nucleic acid encoding the first tRNA, a nucleic acid encoding the first gRNA, a nucleic acid encoding the second tRNA, a nucleic acid encoding the second gRNA, a nucleic acid encoding the third tRNA and a transcription termination polyadenylation signal (=claimed options a-d). See description on page 1, col. 2, para 1 that discuses insertion of Cas9 and gRNA under the control of duplicated N/P gene junction sequences necessary for cis-elements to direct viral L polymerase-mediated messenger RNA transcription (=claimed negative-strand RNA virus transcription initiation signal) and produces polyadenylated viral mRNAs transcription (=claimed transcription termination signal). See also description in Supplementary Methods: Construction of SYNV vectors for expression of tgtRNA and Cas9 (pSYNV-tgtRNA-Cas9) regarding two gRNAs flanked by tRNAs on each end resulting in first and second gRNAs, and first, second and third tRNAs as claimed.
Regarding claim 155 and 158, Ma teaches a negative-strand RNA virus genome comprising nucleic acid sequences that encode gRNAs (one or more) that comprise 5’ and 3’ ends which are flanked by tRNAs (one or more) and a Cas9-encoding sequence, a therapeutic transgene that encodes the therapeutic polypeptide (Figure 1a, Extended Fig. 2c, Supplementary Figure 1a, 2a; Supplementary Methods: Construction of SYNV vectors for expression of tgtRNA and Cas9 (pSYNV-tgtRNA-Cas9)).
Ma derives the negative-strand RNA virus genome from a type of rhabdovirus called Sonchus yellow net rhabdovirus (SYNV) (page 1, col.1-2 bridging para). SYNV is a plant negative strand virus and Ma teaches that mammalian negative strand viruses have “long been recognized as attractive vector candidates” (Introduction, para 2).
Ma does not teach a negative-strand RNA virus genome derived from a lyssavirus, as required by claims 1, 2, 7, 15, 32, 149-153, 156, 157. Similarly, Ma does not teach deriving the negative-strand RNA virus genome from rabies virus, a specific lyssavirus required by claims 48, 56, 154, 155, 158.
The rabies virus genome has been used in the art to make rabies viral vectors to deliver a variety of transgenes.
Li provides teachings regarding various rhabdoviruses that include rhabdoviruses that infect animals, such as rabies virus which is a lyssavirus (as required by claims 1, 2, 7, 15, 32, 149-153, 156, 157 and 48, 56, 154, 155, 158), and rhabdoviruses that infect plants, such as SYNV, as taught by Ma (page 7, para 1). Li also teaches that the genomic structure of rhabdoviruses is conserved with same core genes that encode the same structural proteins (N, P, M, G and L) and mechanism of transcription also the same such that heterologous sequences could be included in the vector genome (page 7, para 2; page 7-8, bridging para). Li also teach rhabdovirus vectors that comprise Cas9, tRNA flanked, gRNAs (page 12, para 3 and 4).
Chatterjee teaches two rabies viral vectors comprising rabies virus genomes that encode heterologous genes and methods to produce such vectors (as required by claims 1, 2, 7, 15, 32, 149-153, 156, 157 and 48, 56, 154, 155, 158; Figure 1; Methods: Rabies viral vector production and titration).
Chatterjee teaches the first-generation rabies viral vector that was well known in the art which has the G-gene deleted and replaced by EGFP (Figure 1a). See use of this vector evidenced by Wickersham in 2007 to express EGFP (Figure 1) and Osakada to express a variety of transgenes (Summary, Figure 1, Table 1). Chatterjee also teaches the second-generation rabies viral vector with additional L-gene deleted (Figure 1a). Chatterjee uses both of these rabies viral vectors to express various heterologous sequences, such as EGFP and Cre (Figure 1), wherein, same as Ma, the heterologous sequences are under the control of a native transcription start signal and followed by polyadenylation signal (see Figure 1 in Wickersham as evidence and Methods: Cloning in Chatterjee).
Both of these rabies viral vectors are particularly useful, specifically for monosynaptic tracing in neurons, with the first-generation resulting in higher transgene expression and useful for “rapid and high-level expression of transgenes, which can be extremely useful for such applications as imaging fine cellular processes or optogenetically manipulating neuronal activity” and the second generation resulting in lower transgene expression valuable when no cytotoxicity is desired such as for long term studies (Introduction, para 1, 2 and 6; Figure 1).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the SYNV vector genome of Ma with the rabies viral vector genome of Chatterjee to generate a recombinant rabies virus vector that comprises rabies virus genome and heterologous sequences encoding the CRISPR system of Ma (tRNA flanked gRNAs). An ordinary artisan would be motivated to make such a substitution because of Li’s teachings regarding rabies virus’s ability to infect animal cells vs SYNV’s ability to infect plant cells. Teachings from Chatterjee regarding rabies viral vectors utility is neuroscience is also motivating. An ordinary artisan motivated to use Ma’s CRISPR system to target animals cells or neuronal manipulation would perform the said substitution. Based on the teachings in Li regarding the conserved sequences and transcriptional mechanisms across rhabdoviruses, such as rabies and SYNV, an ordinary artisan reasonably expects to substitute the SYNV vector genome of Ma with the rabies viral vector genome of Chatterjee such that the CRISPR system is included with native transcription initiation signal, as taught by both Ma and Chatterjee. Furthermore, since rabies viral vectors comprising genes from rabies virus genome have already been used to express various heterologous sequences, as evidenced by Wickersham and Osakada, and also taught by Chatterjee, an ordinary artisan reasonably expects that a rabies viral vector comprising rabies virus genome and another heterologous sequence, such as of Ma, would encode the inserted heterologous sequence of Ma.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the effective time of filing of the invention, especially in the absence of evidence to the
contrary.
Claim(s) 17, 20, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma and Chatterjee in view of Li as evidenced by Wickersham and Osakada as applied to claims 1, 7 and 15 above, and further in view of Yang et al (US 2016/0264981 A1, Sep. 15, 2016; ref of record).
The teachings from Ma, Chatterjee, Li, Wickersham and Osakada as detailed in the U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 7, and 15 above are pertinent to and relied upon for the instant rejection.
Regarding claims 17, 20, Ma and Chatterjee in view of Li teach the recombinant lyssavirus genome of claim 1.
Regarding claim 27, Chatterjee teaches the recombinant lyssavirus genome comprises nucleic acids that encode at least N, P and M negative-strand RNA virus genes (Figure 1)
Ma and Chatterjee do not teach nucleic acids that encode t-RNA like structures such as tRNA variants, as required by claims 17, 20 and 27.
Yang also teaches expression cassette encoding CRISPR gene editing system comprising gRNAs flanked by tRNAs wherein splicing at tRNA cleavage sites results in release of gRNA from the transcript (Figure 1C). Regarding tRNAs that can be used to flank gRNAs, Yang teaches tRNA variants and tRNA cleavage sequences (i.e. fragments of tRNA; claims 8, 9; [0079, 0094, 0095]) (as required by claims 17, 20, 27).
The combination of prior art cited above under 35 U.S.C. 103 satisfies the factual inquiries as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966). Once this has been accomplished the holdings in KSR can be applied (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007): Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness are from MPEP 2143.
In the present situation, rationale B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is applicable. MPEP 2143 guides that for rationale B “Office personnel must articulate the following: (1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components; (2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness”.
(1) The prior art of Ma and Chatterjee teaches the base product which differs from the claimed product by the substitution of the following components: substituting Ma’s tRNAs with claimed tRNA fragments and variants.
(2) The substituted components were known in the art as taught by Yang, teaching fragments and variants of tRNAs to be used to flank gRNAs in CRISPR cassettes.
(3) Since both Ma and Yang are directed to a similar CRISPR based system wherein gRNAs are flanked by tRNAs, an ordinary artisan could substitute Ma’s tRNAs with Yang’s tRNA fragments and variants to achieve a predictable result wherein the gRNA is flanked by tRNA variants/fragments that are cleaved by tRNA splicing endonucleases to release the gRNA.
Therefore, the teachings of the cited prior art in the obviousness rejection above provide the requisite teachings with a clear, reasonable expectation. The cited prior art meets the criteria set forth in both Graham and KSR. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute tRNAs taught by Ma with fragments and variants of tRNA taught by Yang in Ma and Chatterjee’s recombinant lyssavirus genome.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 8/5/2026, with respect to U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 15, 32, 149-153, and 156-158 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 15, 32, 149-153, and 156-158 has been withdrawn. New grounds of rejection necessitated by claim amendments are presented above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim(s) 48, 56, 154 and 155 have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection necessitated by claim amendments.
Arguments pertinent to instant rejection are addressed below.
Applicant argue no reasonable expectation of success when combining Ma with Chatterjee (page 13, last para). In support, Applicant point to Ma not teaching or suggesting adaptation of SYNV system for a mammalian lyssavirus (page 13, para 1) and allege that “Ma, Li, and Chatterjee inherently contradicts itself and destroys the respective principles of operation of the cited art.” (page 14, para 1). To show the alleged contradiction, Applicant allege that “Ma's system expressly relies on "abundant gRNA and Cas9 expression" driven by virus replication in the plant system” (page 14, para 2) while Chatterjee’s system is limited to the double-deletion mutation with restricted expression (page 14, para 3). Applicant also allege without evidence that “A POSITA would recognize that inserting Ma's large CRISPR-Cas9 cassette into Chatterjee's trace-expression ΔGL rabies vector would fail to produce functional gene editing.” and “Modifying Chatterjee's vector to restore polymerase activity in order to support Ma's expression requirements would reintroduce the severe cytotoxicity that Chatterjee's vectors were specifically designed to overcome” (page 14, para 4). Applicant argue that “Li does not cure the deficiencies of Ma” and allege without evidence that the conserved transcription mechanism across rhabdoviruses “is driven entirely by the viral polymerase (L gene).” (page 14, last para).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, or suggestion to combine the references in Ma, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In the instant case, both Ma and Chatterjee teach detailed methods of making their respective vectors using standard molecular biology methods (See Supplementary Methods: Construction of SYNV vector for expression of Cas9 (pSYNV-Cas9), Construction of SYNV vector for expression of gRNA and Cas9 (pSYNV-gRNA-Cas9), Construction of SYNV vectors for expression of tgtRNA and Cas9 (pSYNV-tgtRNA-Cas9) in Ma and Methods: cloning in Chatterjee). Each comprised plasmids encoding the viral genes and insertion of the desired transgenes using standard PCR amplification and ligation methods. Furthermore, Wickersham and Okasada evidence the long history of use of rabies viral vectors to express a variety of transgenes, including large transgenes (see Table 1 in Okasada). Applicant’s provide no evidence that an ordinary artisan in this field would be unable to combine the teachings of Ma and Chatterjee or would not reasonably expect to combine the teachings of these prior arts.
Regarding Applicant’s allegation that abundant gRNA and Cas9 expression are required by Ma’s system, there is no evidence that this is a required feature. Ma merely identifies that their system results in this feature, not that this feature is required. Furthermore, Chatterjee teaches that the first-generation rabies viral vector also results in high transgene expression. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s allegation, Chatterjee’s system is not limited to the double-deletion mutation with restricted expression. Furthermore, there is no evidence that inserting Ma's large CRISPR-Cas9 cassette into any of Chatterjee's first- or second-generation rabies vector would fail to produce functional gene editing. On the contrary, limited expression of CRISPR reagents in cells would be beneficial in some applications where off-target effects due to continued Cas9 or excessive gRNA expression are undesirable. Finally, there is no requirement to restore polymerase activity in Chatterjee’s vectors; the first-generation vector has the L-gene and, as is evident from Chatterjee, transgenes successfully transcribe even without L-gene due to “activity of the few starter copies of the polymerase that are packaged in each viral particle” (Chatterjee, page 638, col. 2, last para). Thus, Li’s teachings remain relevant regarding conserved transcription mechanism across rhabdoviruses, as acknowledged by the Applicant.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim(s) 7, 17, 20, 27 have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection necessitated by claim amendments.
Arguments pertinent to instant rejection are addressed below.
Applicant’s argue that “Ma provides no teaching or suggestion to adapt its SYNV system for a mammalian lyssavirus” and “Yang does not cure the deficiencies of Ma” (page 13, para 1, 2).
In response, in the new grounds of rejection Chatterjee and Li provide teaching regarding mammalian lyssavirus. Applicant’s argument regarding Ma not teaching or suggesting adapting its SYNV system for a mammalian lyssavirus, this is addressed above.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATASHA DHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm (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, Peter Paras Jr. can be reached at (571)272-4517. 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.
/MATASHA DHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1632
/ANOOP K SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1632
Prosecution Insights