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 .
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/16/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 1-17 and 19-41 are pending.
Claims 27-41 are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner best understands deglycosylated avidin to be the generic name for NeutrAvidin, as noted on Applicants’ response dated 09/16/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 12, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al (ACS Nano, 2014, vol 8, issue 5, pp. 4621-4629), in view of Voerman et al (WO 2020174041 A1), as evidenced by Echeverria et al (Gels, 2018, 4, 54, pp. 1-37).
Peng et al teach silicon nanowire arrays for delivery of gene-encapsulated nanoparticles to cells with high efficiency (abs, fig. 1). The silicon nanowire array comprises a nanoparticle attached to the surface of the silicon nanowires, wherein the nanoparticles encapsulate plasmid DNA (pg. 4622 2nd col last ¶, fig. 1, 2). Cells are immobilized on the nanowire array, and the nanoparticle payload is delivered to the cells (abs). Other nanoparticle have been used for viral gene delivery, including liposomes, etc. (pg. 4621 2nd col).
Peng et al do not teach thermoresponsive polymer brushes grafted onto the surface of the nanopillars, nor a first and second conjugatable moiety as instantly claimed.
Voerman et al teach it was known to graft polymer brushes to a surface for functionalization with biomolecules (abs). The polymer brushes are polymer chains (pg. 2 ln 8, pg. 18 ln 32-33). Biomolecules can be attached via ligand-receptor interactions such as the biotin streptavidin pair (pg. 1 ln 16-18). In embodiments, a range of different polymers have been used to synthesize polymer brushes, including poly-acrylamides, and particular working embodiments comprise polyisocyanopeptide (pg. 2 ln 18-22, pg. 12 ln 1). As evidenced by Echeverria et al, polyisocyanopeptide is a thermoresponsive polymer that exhibits low critical solution temperature (LCST) behavior (pg. 4 last ¶). Using the brushes, biomolecules can be attached that would not be compatible with the intended surface, the options for functional groups are expanded, advantageously expands the range of surface materials and biomolecules to which the nanofilaments can be attached, as well as the range of functional groups suitable to be used for each attachment (pg. 3 ln 13-20). Surfaces functionalized with biomolecules attached to nanofilaments are more potent and effective than surfaces where the biomolecules are attached directly (pg. 19 ln to pg. 20 ln 1). Having multiple biomolecules attached to a filament is beneficial as it takes advantage of the flexible nature of the nanofilament, in contrast to biomolecules bound to rigid scaffolds, where the stearic rigidity prevents multiple contact points from being formed (pg. 20 ln 34 to pg. 21 ln 2).
Regarding the limitation of a nanopillar array of claim 1, the instant specification defines nanopillars as high aspect ratio nanomaterials, therefore, where the nanowires have a high aspect ratio (i.e., having one dimension significantly longer than the other) and are nano in size, the nanowires of Peng et al read on nanopillars.
Regarding the polymer brushes of claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the nanopillar arrays of Peng et al by grafting polymer brushes to the surface, as taught by Voerman et al, where it was known that surface functionalization with polymer brushes expands the range of biomaterials that can be attached, increases biomolecule potency compared to surfaces where biomolecules are attached directly, etc.
Regarding the thermoresponsive polymer of claim 1, it would have been obvious to select from polymers taught to be suitable for the polymer brushes, such as polyisocyanopeptide, a thermoresponsive polymer with a LCST, as taught by Voerman et al.
Regarding the conjugatable moieties of claims 1, 3, and 4, it would have been obvious to attach the cargo-containing entity of Peng et al to the thermoresponsive polymer brushes made obvious above via known methods, such as biotin-streptavidin bonding, as taught by Voerman et al. Further, it would have been within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to modify the cargo containing entity of Peng et al in order to allow for the cargo to be conjugated to the thermosensitive polymer brushes via conjugatable moieties with a receptor, such as biotin-streptavidin bonding.
Regarding claim 2, where the nanopillar array made obvious above comprises the same components instantly claimed, and can be used to deliver cargo to a cell, the functional limitations are met.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, while not explicitly taught by Voerman et al, where the nanopillar array made obvious above comprises thermosensitive polymer brushes grafted to the surface with cargo containing entities attached via conjugatable moieties, meeting the limitations of the instant claims, it appears that the polymer brushes would inherently undergo hydrophobic-hydrophilic conversion and expansion to cause detachment of the cargo containing entities under thermal stimulus as instantly claimed, where the nanopillar arrays have the same components and structure. See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Regarding claim 6, the polyisocyanopeptide thermosensitive polymer brushes made obvious above is evidence above as having a lower crucial solution temperature.
Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to use other known cargo-containing entities that were known to be suitable for encapsulating genes, such as liposomes, as taught by Peng et al.
Regarding claim 12, Peng et al teach the nanopillar array comprises silicon nanopillars.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicants assert the polyisocyanopeptide of Voerman et al is used for cell activation and proliferation, not for cell delivery and there would be no reasonable motivation to modify the nanopillars of Peng et al with the polyisocyanopeptide of Voerman et al. Applicants assert the skilled artisan would have no reasonable motivation to apply the thermal responsive polymers of Voerman et al, which are not used for cell delivery, to the cell delivery technology of Peng et al. Second, Applicants assert that even if the combination were attempted, the skilled artisan would not have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving a high local concentration of cargo-containing entities between the cells and the nanosubstrates, thereby enabling cellular uptake via non-endocytic pathways.
First, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Applicants assert that the polyisocyanopeptide of Voerman et al is used for cell activation and proliferation, not for cell delivery, however, the activation of the cells is accomplished by delivering cytokines (i.e., a cargo) to the cells. So while Applicants assert Voerman et al is used for cell activation, the broader teaching is delivery of an active agent to a cell. Therefore, where both Peng et al and Voerman et al are directed to delivering a cargo to a cell, it would have been obvious to modify the nanopillar device of Peng et al to include other known polymers that were known to be suitable for the delivery of a cargo to a cell to achieve a therapeutic effect, such as the preferred polyisocyanopeptide of Voerman et al.
Second, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Peng et al is directed to silicon nanowire arrays for delivery of gene-encapsulated nanoparticles to cells with high efficiency, wherein cells are immobilized on the nanowire array, and the nanoparticle payload is delivered to the cells. Peng et al further teach the substrate-mediated delivery is preconcentrated to enable localized delivery to the immobilized cells on the substrates (see abs, pg 4621 1st col 1st ¶). As such, it appears that the combination made obvious above comprising thermoresponsive polymer brushes for localized delivery of active agent to a cell via a preconcentrated nanowire array would reasonably be expected to achieve high local concentration of cargo-containing entities between the cells and the nanosubstrates. Further, where the high local concentration appears to be expected, the mechanisms of cellular uptake via non-endocytic pathways appears to be inherent to the nanopillar array and the increased local concentration of cargo containing entities. See MPEP 2112(I), (II) and (III).
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al (ACS Nano, 2014, vol 8, issue 5, pp. 4621-4629) and Voerman et al (WO 2020174041 A1), as applied to claims 1-7, 11, and 12 above, and further in view of Tseng et al (US 20150260710 A1).
Peng et al and Voerman et al are discussed above but do not teach wherein the thermoresponsive polymer are those of claims 8-10. Claims 1-7, 11, and 12 are discussed above, and additional motivation for using biotin-streptavidin-biotin bonds are discussed below. Further, claims 5 and 7 are discussed above, and if the functional properties are not inherent to the thermosensitive polymer made obvious above, the following applies.
Tseng et al disclose devices comprising silicon nanowires grafted with a thermoresponsive polymer brushes of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) for the capture and release of cells (¶ 77, fig. 1A, 1B). The polymer brushes refer to a polymer chain (¶ 21). The nanowires include nanopillars (¶ 31). The polymer brushes were covalently linked to a biotin group through the addition of a small portion of methyl aminoethylmethacrylate (¶ 77). The temperature responsive polymer has a first monomer unit of instant formula I and a second monomer unit of instant formula II (claims 19-21). Through a biotin-streptavidin interaction, the capture agent can be introduced onto the substrates (¶ 77). At 37 deg C, the biotin groups and hydrophobic domains of these polymers are present on the surfaces of the biotin polymer grafted silicon nanowires; when temperature is reduced to 4 deg C, the poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) brushes undergo conformational changes and take on an expanded configuration, and the immobilized cells are released (¶¶ 75, 77). Poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) is a well-established biocompatible polymer, which can reversibly bind and release cells due to the thermally responsive switch of its surface properties (¶ 77). The substrates are cooled down below poly(N-isopropylacrylamide)’s lower crucial solution temperature, to induce its surface to hydrophobic-to-hydrophilic switch (¶ 77).
Regarding claims 1-7, 11, 12, biotin-streptavidin linkers are made obvious above and additional motivation of attaching the cargo to the thermosensitive polymer brushes are provided by Tseng et al, where biotin-streptavidin-biotin conjugates were known to be suitable for attaching cargo to thermosensitive polymers for thermosensitive release by functionalizing the thermosensitive polymer brushes with biotin, as taught by Tseng et al.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Peng et al and Voerman et al, by selecting from other known thermoresponsive polymers suitable for polymer brush grafted silicon nanopillars that are capable of attaching a cargo for release via biotin-streptavidin bonds, such as poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) based polymers, as taught by Tseng et al.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the inclusion of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) based polymers, it would have been obvious to include aminoethylmethacrylate monomers, which were known to be used as a site for biotin attachment, as taught by Tseng et al.
Claims 5 and 7, it would have been obvious to include poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) based polymers for the reasons discussed above by Tseng et al. Tseng et al evidences poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) polymer brushes undergo hydrophobic-hydrophilic conversion and expand causing detachment of cargo under thermal stimulus. Therefore, where the selection of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) based polymers are made obvious above, the functional limitations are met.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicants assert Tseng et al is entirely unrelated to cellular uptake technology, and it is directed to circulating tumor cell detection without any teaching or suggestion of cell delivery or uptake. Applicants assert the skilled artisan would have no reasonable motivation to apply the thermal responsive polymers of Tseng et al, which are not used for cell delivery, to the cell delivery technology of Peng et al. Second, Applicants assert the circulating tumor cells of Tseng et al cannot themselves be taken up by cells.
First, Respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Tseng et al appears to be directed to the capture and release of preselected cell types with a temperature responsive nanowire (nanopillar) array, as previously discussed, however, the broader teaching of Tseng et al is a temperature responsive nanopillar array for the capture and release of a selected cargo (i.e., cells). While Tseng et al does not specifically teach the delivery of a cargo for cellular uptake, the skilled artisan would recognize that the thermoresponsive polymers of Tseng et al would be suitable for releasing a cargo from nanopillar arrays, where they can be used for triggered release of a cargo. Therefore, when formulating the nanopillar arrays of Peng et al, it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan select from other known thermoresponsive polymers suitable for polymer brush grafted silicon nanopillars that are capable of attaching a cargo for release via biotin-streptavidin bonds, such as poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) based polymers, as taught by Tseng et al.
Second, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. While the examiner agrees with Applicants that it does not appear that the circulating tumor cells of Tseng et al are themselves taken up by cells, the captured cells of Tseng et al are not relied upon in the above rejection as the cargo that is configured to allow for uptake by cells. Instead, the cargo with the intended use of being configured to allow for uptake by cells is taught by Peng et al above.
Claims 13-17, 19-21, 25, and 26, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al (ACS Nano, 2014, vol 8, issue 5, pp. 4621-4629) and Voerman et al (WO 2020174041 A1) as applied to claims 1-7, 11, and 12 above, and further in view of Voelcker et al (WO 2020257885 A1).
Peng et al and Voerman et al are discussed above but do not teach a cellular delivery kit, thermoresponsive polymer brushes grafted onto the surface of the nanopillars, nor a first and second conjugatable moiety as instantly claimed.
Voelcker et al teach nanowire arrays for delivering molecules into cells (pg. 1 ln 5-9), wherein the devices for delivering molecules into cells can be in the form of a kit (pg. 45 ln 29-31).
Regarding the kit of claim 13, it would have been obvious to include the nanopillar array made obvious by Peng et al and Voerman et al in the form of a cellular delivery kit, where Voelcker et al teach nanowire arrays for cellular delivery were known to be included as a kit.
Regarding the limitation of a nanopillar array of claim 13, the nanowires of Peng et al read on the instant limitation of a nanopillar array for the same reasons discussed above.
Regarding the polymer brushes of claim 13, it would have been obvious to modify the nanopillar arrays of Peng et al by grafting polymer brushes to the surface, for the same reasons discussed above by Voerman et al.
Regarding the thermoresponsive polymer of claim 13, it would have been obvious to select from polymers taught to be suitable for the polymer brushes, such as polyisocyanopeptide, a thermoresponsive polymer with a LCST, as taught by Voerman et al.
Regarding the conjugatable moieties of claims 13-17, it would have been obvious to attach the cargo-containing entity of Peng et al to the thermoresponsive polymer brushes made obvious above via known methods, such as biotin-streptavidin bonding, as taught by Voerman et al. Further, it would have been within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to modify the cargo containing entity of Peng et al in order to allow for the cargo to be conjugated to the thermosensitive polymer brushes via conjugatable moieties with a receptor, such as biotin-streptavidin bonding.
Regarding the newly amended intended use limitation of claim 13, where the nanopillar array made obvious above comprises the same components instantly claimed, and can be used to deliver cargo to a cell, the intended use limitations are met.
Regarding claim 19, while not explicitly taught by Voerman et al, where the nanopillar array made obvious above comprises thermosensitive polymer brushes grafted to the surface with cargo containing entities attached via conjugatable moieties, meeting the limitations of the instant claims, it appears that the polymer brushes would inherently undergo hydrophobic-hydrophilic conversion and expansion to cause detachment of the cargo containing entities under thermal stimulus as instantly claimed, where the nanopillar arrays have the same components and structure. See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Regarding claim 20, the polyisocyanopeptide of Voerman et al exhibits a lower critical solution temperature, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 21, while not explicitly taught by Voerman et al, it appears where the nanopillar array made obvious above comprises thermosensitive polymer brushes grafted to the surface with cargo containing entities attached via conjugatable moieties, it would be expected that the polymer brushes would inherently undergo expansion, and as such, the hindering of the non-covalent associations between then nanopillar array and cargo-containing entities would naturally flow from the expansion, where it is taught by Tseng et al that the expansion releases the cargo (i.e., hindering the non-covalent associations that attach the cargo to the thermosensitive polymer brushes). See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Regarding claim 25, it would have been obvious to use other known cargo-containing entities that were known to be suitable for encapsulating genes, such as liposomes, as taught by Peng et al.
Regarding claim 26, Peng et al teach the nanopillar array comprises silicon nanopillars.
Response to Arguments
Applicants assert that since Voelcker et al do not remedy the deficiencies in obviousness, the further combination with Voelcker et al likewise fail to render obvious the subject matter of amended claims 13-26.
Respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. The examiner disagrees that Voelcker et al do not remedy the deficiencies of obviousness for the same reasons discussed above and of record. Examiner notes that Applicants have not addressed the teachings of Voelcker et al, and accordingly, the claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Claims 13-17 and 19-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al (ACS Nano, 2014, vol 8, issue 5, pp. 4621-4629), Voerman et al (WO 2020174041 A1), and Voelcker et al (WO 2020257885 A1), as applied to claims 13-21, 25, and 26 above, and further in view of Tseng et al (US 20150260710 A1).
Peng et al, Voerman et al, and Voelcker et al are discussed above but do not teach wherein the thermoresponsive polymers are those of claims 22-24. Claims 13-21, 25, and 26, are discussed above, and additional motivation for using biotin-streptavidin-biotin bonds are discussed below. Further, claims 19 and 21 are discussed above, and if the functional properties are not inherent to the thermosensitive polymer made obvious above, the following applies.
Tseng et al are discussed above.
Regarding claims 13-17, 19-21, 25, and 26, biotin-streptavidin linkers are made obvious above and additional motivation for attaching the cargo to the thermosensitive polymer brushes are provided by Tseng et al, where biotin-streptavidin-biotin conjugates were known to be suitable for attaching cargo to thermosensitive polymers for thermosensitive release by functionalizing the thermosensitive polymer brushes with biotin, as taught by Tseng et al.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Peng et al, Voerman et al, and Voelcker et al by selecting from other known thermoresponsive polymers suitable for polymer brush grafted silicon nanopillars that are capable of attaching a cargo for release via biotin-streptavidin bonds, such as poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) based polymers, as taught by Tseng et al.
Regarding claim 24, in addition to the inclusion of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) based polymers, it would have been obvious to include aminoethylmethacrylate monomers, which were known to be used as a site for biotin attachment, as taught by Tseng et al.
Regarding Claims 19 and 21, it would have been obvious to include poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) based polymers for the reasons discussed above by Tseng et al. Tseng et al evidences poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) polymer brushes undergo hydrophobic-hydrophilic conversion and expand causing detachment of cargo under thermal stimulus. Therefore, where the selection of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) based polymers are made obvious above, the functional limitations are met.
Further, where the expansion of the polymer brushes is discussed above, it appears that through the expansion and release of cargo, the hindering of the non-covalent associations between then nanopillar array and cargo-containing entities would naturally flow from the expansion, where it is taught by Tseng et al that the expansion releases the cargo (i.e., hindering the non-covalent associations that attach the cargo to the thermosensitive polymer brushes). See MPEP 2112(II) and (III).
Response to Arguments
Applicants assert Voerman et al, Voelcker et al, and Tseng et al do not remedy the deficiencies of Peng et al for the same reasons discussed above.
Respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Examiner disagrees that the combination of Voerman et al, Voelcker et al, and Tseng et al do not remedy the deficiencies of the teachings of Peng et al for the same reasons discussed above and of record.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10, 12-17, 19-24, and 26, stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,444,233 B2, hereinafter ‘233, in view of Voelcker et al (WO 2020257885 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘233 disclose a nanowire array comprising a plurality of nanowires with a temperature responsive polymer attached to the nanowires, wherein the temperature sensitive material comprises monomers of claims 9 and 10 for attaching a cell (i.e., a cargo-containing entity as discussed above) (claim 1). The nanopillars comprise biotin streptavidin conjugation (claim 6). The nanowires are configured to release the captured cells at a temperature, where the temperature responsive polymer has an expanded configuration (claim 1).
The claims of ‘233 do not disclose a cellular delivery kit.
Voelcker et al are discussed above.
Regarding nanopillars, the instant specification defines nanopillars as high aspect ratio nanomaterials, therefore, where the nanowires have a high aspect ratio (i.e., having one dimension significantly longer than the other) and are nano in size, the nanowires of ‘233 read on nanopillars.
Regarding the newly amended limitations of instant claim 2, it would have been obvious to modify the claims of ‘233 by including a cargo that is capable of cellular uptake, as taught by Voelcker et al, where both are drawn to nanopillar arrays for release of a cargo.
Regarding the kit, it would have been obvious to formulate the nanopillar array of ‘233 in the form of a kit, as taught by Voelcker et al for the same reasons discussed above.
Regarding the intended use of a cellular delivery kit, where a nanopillar array comprising conjugatable moieties and a cargo-containing entity (i.e., the cells) is disclosed by ‘233 above, meeting the structural limitations required by the instant claims, it appears that the kit made obvious above would be capable of meeting the intended use limitation of a cellular delivery kit.
Response to Arguments
Applicants assert that independent claims 1 and 13 recite inventions patentably distinct from the claims of ‘233 and requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the double patenting rejections.
Respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Newly amended claims 1 and 13 are drawn to a polymer-grafted nanopillar array with thermoresponsive polymer brushes grafted onto surfaces of nanopillars, wherein the cargo-containing entities are configured to allow for uptake by cells. The claims of ‘233 disclose the structure instantly claimed and the cargo “configured to allow for uptake by cells” is simply the intended use of the array comprising cargo containing entities, which was known from Voelcker et al.
Conclusion
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 JOSHUA A ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0877. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM + Flex.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/JOSHUA A ATKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612