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 1-18, 35, and 39 are pending. Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 18, 35, and 39 are amended. Claims 19-34, 36-38, and 40-42 are canceled. Claims 1-18, 35, and 39 are under examination.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/5/25 has been entered. Claims 1-18, 35, and 39 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to claims 5-6 and 8-9 have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/22/25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 11/5/25, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-18, 35, and 39 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are found unpersuasive, and the 103 rejections documented in the Non-Final mailed 8/22/25 have been revised to address claim amendments filed 11/5/25 in this Final Office Action. More detailed responses to Applicant’s arguments are provided at the end of each maintained rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, 15-18, 35, and 39 remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman et al. (2018; WO 2018/026855 A1; FOR citation 3 in IDS filed on 12/7/22).
This rejection is revised/updated in response to claim amendments filed 11/5/25.
Relevant to claim 1, Merriman et al. Figures 2 (associated description on pages 20-21), 5A (associated description on page 21), and 5B (associated description on page 22) teach the limitations of the claimed composition.
Specifically relevant to claim 1, the Merriman et al. teaching of “The electrodes 201 and 202 are separated by a nanogap of about 10 nm… Other gap distances may be required to accommodate other lengths of biomolecular bridges. In this example, the bridge molecule 203 comprises a double-stranded DNA molecule… The probe molecule in this case comprises polymerase 210… In operation, the sensor 200 further comprises a DNA strand 220 being processed by the polymerase 210” (page 20, line 27 continued to page 21, line 3).
These teachings read on claim 1 A composition, comprising: first and second electrodes separated from one another by a space; a bridge spanning the space between the first and second electrodes, the bridge comprising first and second polymer chains hybridized to one another; first and second polynucleotides;… a polymerase to add nucleotides of the plurality of nucleotides to the first polynucleotide using at least a sequence of the second polynucleotide.
Further relevant to claim 1, Merriman et al. teaches “FIG. 5A illustrates a schematic of a sensor in operation with a variety of standard dNTPs in solution around the polymerase of the sensor. The illustration at the right of FIG. 5A shows the same sensor but with modified dNTPs in solution around the polymerase. At left in FIG. 5A, an embodiment of a molecular electronic DNA sequence sensor comprises a polymerase mounted on a bridge molecule to complete an electrical circuit, wherein the processing of a template by incorporating dNTPs in solution produces spikes that indicate incorporation events and the identity of the incorporated base” (page 21, lines 27-33).
Further relevant to claim 1, Merriman et al. teaches “FIG. 5B illustrates improved signaling possible by using modified dNTPs instead of standard dNTPs. At the left of FIG. 5B is a plot of current versus time recorded during molecular incorporation events involving only native dNTPs. Such current spikes as shown may be difficult to discern from noise, and from each other. At the right of FIG. 5B is a plot 5 of current versus time during molecular incorporation events that include modified dNTPs. The plot at the right of FIG. 5B illustrates that modified nucleotides can enhance signaling to provide clearer signals for distinct incorporation events, and provide signals that discriminate the different bases being incorporated, thereby sensing the sequence” (page 22, lines 1-8).
Further relevant to claim 1, Merriman et al. page 22 lines 10-22 disclose “modifications to dNTPs” that “may comprise chemical moieties that provide a formal charge… These, and other, chemical moieties can interact with native features on the polymerase enzyme, with engineered features on the polymerase, with the bridge molecule, or with a molecule bonded between the polymerase and bridge molecule. In various aspects, modifications to dNTPs may extend the polyphosphate charge from -3 (in native dNTPs) to -4, -5, -6, -7, -8 or -9, for example, depending on the total number of phosphate groups.”
These teachings read on claim 1 a plurality of nucleotides, each nucleotide coupled to a corresponding label… wherein when the polymerase respectively acts upon each nucleotide of the plurality of nucleotides, such action maintains the label corresponding to that nucleotide at a location that is sufficiently close to the bridge for a sufficient amount of time to alter an electrical characteristic of at least one of the first and second polymer chains; and detection circuitry to detect a sequence in which the polymerase adds the nucleotides to the first polynucleotide using at least changes in an electrical signal through the bridge, the changes being responsive to alteration of the electrical characteristic using the labels corresponding to those nucleotides.
Relevant to claim 2, Merriman et al. “the bridge molecule 203 comprises a double-stranded DNA molecule” (page 20, lines 29-30) reads on the instant claim 2 wherein the first and second polymer chains respectively comprise first and second polynucleotides hybridized to one another.
Relevant to claims 3-4, Merriman et al. teaches “Further embodiments of the present disclosure comprise the use of an affinity group in a modified dNTP with a corresponding affinity complement positioned on the sensor so as to further enhance the influence of the signaling group on the current through the molecular sensor. In various embodiments, an affinity group is provided between the polyphosphate chain and the signaling group, closer to the signaling group end of the tether. The purpose of this is arrangement is to promote the most impactful positioning of the signaling group relative to the molecular complex of the sensor, and to increase the duration of the interaction of the dNTP with the conducting bridge molecule of the sensor. An affinity complement present on the complex promotes the positioning and residence of a charge group on the modified dNTP to have larger impact on current through the bridge” (page 44, lines 4-13).
This teaching reads on claim 3 wherein the labels comprise respective oligonucleotides that alter the hybridization between the first and second polynucleotides; and claim 4 wherein the oligonucleotides alter the hybridization in different locations than one another.
Relevant to claim 5, Merriman et al. teaches "In various embodiments, DNA oligos in the 3-mer to 30-mer range suffice as selectable, specific affinity groups for modified dNTPs, as do oligos that use modified forms of DNA, or DNA analogs that hybridize to DNA” (page 44, line 33 – page 45, line 2).
This teaching reads on claim 5 wherein the oligonucleotides alter the hybridization in regions of different length.
Relevant to claim 6, Merriman et al. teaches "The extent to which natural dNTPs can be chemically modified yet still be recognized and incorporated by a polymerase enzyme during polymerase chain reaction (PCR) remains largely unknown. In general, modifications to the 5' carbon/a-phosphate or 3' OH group are very limited, since these sites engage in critical coupling reactions in forming the chain. All other sites on the dNTP typically allow some degree of chemical modification. This may or may not result in native form DNA being produced, depending on whether the modifications reside on the B- and/or y-phosphate groups released from the dNTP by the polymerase during incorporation, or elsewhere on the base, deoxyribose group or the a-phosphate that are retained in the growing strand" (page 18, line 30 – page 19, line 4).
This teaching reads on claim 6 wherein the polynucleotides of the first and second polymer chains and the oligonucleotides of the labels comprise non-naturally occurring DNA.
Relevant to claims 8-9, Merriman et al. page 18, line 30 – page 19, line 28 and page 44, line 4 – page 45, line 2 teach one or more oligonucleotide analogues, including “broad classes of dNTP modifications.”
Relevant to claim 10, Merriman et al. teaches "For example, such oligos may comprise RNA, PNA (peptide nucleic acid) or LNA (locked nucleic acid) in place of native DNA…" (page 44, lines 20-22).
This teaching reads on claim 10 wherein the oligonucleotides comprise nucleic acid analogs selected from the group consisting of PNA and LNA.
Relevant to claim 11, Merriman et al. teaches "Other affinity groups could use material binding peptides, cognate to a material bound to the bridge, or interacting proteins such as two components of a protein complex…" (page 44, lines 26-27).
This teaching reads on claim 11 wherein the first and second polynucleotides comprise DNA, and wherein the labels comprise proteins that interact with the DNA.
Relevant to claim 15, Merriman et al. teaches "Other affinity groups could use material binding peptides, cognate to a material bound to the bridge, or interacting proteins such as two components of a protein complex, or a small molecule or peptide antigen and a cognate antibody of Fab antibody binding domain conjugated to the bridge, or aptamers" (page 44, lines 26-29).
This teaching reads on claim 15 wherein the labels comprise intertwining alpha helices.
Relevant to claim 16, Merriman et al. teaches "The sensor also comprises a conducting bridge molecule (also referred to as a 'molecular wire')" (page 17, lines 32-33) and "Such a molecular wire may comprise a DNA oligonucleotide ("oligo"), protein alpha helix bridge, or other biomolecule that connects source and drain electrodes" (page 18, lines 2-4).
These teachings read on claim 16 wherein the first and second polymer chains respectively comprise first and second polypeptides hybridized to one another.
Relevant to claim 17, Merriman et al. teaches "Further embodiments of the present disclosure comprise the use of an affinity group in a modified dNTP with a corresponding affinity complement positioned on the sensor so as to further enhance the influence of the signaling group on the current through the molecular sensor. In various embodiments, an affinity group is provided between the polyphosphate chain and the signaling group, closer to the signaling group end of the tether. The purpose of this is arrangement is to promote the most impactful positioning of the signaling group relative to the molecular complex of the sensor, and to increase the duration of the interaction of the dNTP with the conducting bridge molecule of the sensor. An affinity complement present on the complex promotes the positioning and residence of a charge group on the modified dNTP to have larger impact on current through the bridge" (page 44, lines 4-13).
This teaching reads on claim 17 wherein each of the labels comprises a protein, peptide, or intercalator that alters an electrical characteristic of at least one of the first and second polypeptides.
Independent claims 18, 35, and 39 contain limitations present within above rejected claims. Merriman et al. discloses methods of using claim 1 composition, and would therefore read upon claim 18 method. The claim 1 composition is similar to claim 35 composition; however, claim 35 differs from claim 1 first and second polymer chains hybridized to one another in that claim 35 bridge is a polymer chain. Merriman et al. teaches “Similarly, modified dNTPs for signal enhancement can potentially provide for additional enhancement through the use of such modified polymerases, modified buffers, or modified bridges. An additional benefit of the present disclosure is that additional signal enhancement is possible by optimization of these other major system parameters, relative to various embodiments of modified dNTPs” (page 28, lines 10-14). This teaching allows for modification of the Merriman et al. bridge, and thus reads on claim 35 composition and claim 39 method.
Merriman et al. does not teach a specific embodiment having all the claimed elements. That being said, however, it must be remembered that "[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. AG. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). "[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious," the relevant question is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR at 1741. The Court emphasized that "[a] person of ordinary skill is... a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. At 1742.
Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been prima facie obvious to have selected various combinations of various disclosed elements — including polynucleotides, bridges, labels, and polynucleotides — for compositions and methods for electrical signaling mediated sequencing, to arrive at compositions "yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement."
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that “In rejecting the prior version of claim 1, the Examiner does not identify any feature in Merriman as even corresponding to the claimed ‘labels,’ let alone identify any teaching in Merriman as corresponding to such labels respectively altering an electrical characteristic of a polymer chain… Merriman is silent on the dNTPs in solution respectively being coupled to corresponding labels. While the Office Action points to Merriman’s disclosure that ‘modified nucleotides can enhance signaling,’ the Examiner does not explain why it would have been obvious to modify either Merriman’s dNTPs or Merriman’s modified nucleotides to be ‘coupled to a corresponding label’ as recited in both the prior and instant version of claim 1…” (Remarks 11/5/25; last paragraph of page 7 continued to first paragraph of page 8).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that “the Examiner does not identify any feature in Merriman as even corresponding to the claimed ‘labels’. The Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/22/25 included the below excerpt relevant to the 103 rejection of claim 1:
Further relevant to claim 1, Merriman et al. teaches “FIG. 5B illustrates improved signaling possible by using modified dNTPs instead of standard dNTPs. At the left of FIG. 5B is a plot of current versus time recorded during molecular incorporation events involving only native dNTPs. Such current spikes as shown may be difficult to discern from noise, and from each other. At the right of FIG. 5B is a plot 5 of current versus time during molecular incorporation events that include modified dNTPs. The plot at the right of FIG. 5B illustrates that modified nucleotides can enhance signaling to provide clearer signals for distinct incorporation events, and provide signals that discriminate the different bases being incorporated, thereby sensing the sequence” (page 22, lines 1-8).
These teachings read on claim 1 a plurality of nucleotides, each nucleotide coupled to a corresponding label… detection circuitry to detect a sequence in which the polymerase adds the nucleotides to the first polynucleotide using at least changes in an electrical signal through the bridge, the changes being responsive to alteration of the electrical characteristic using the labels corresponding to those nucleotides.
The Examiner equates the Merriman et al. modified dNTPs that “provide signals that discriminate the different bases being incorporated” with the claimed ‘labels’. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that the cited prior art reference must be read in its entirety, not
merely selective portions. As set forth in MPEP 2141.02:
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue requires
interpreting the claim language, and considering both the invention and the prior art references
as a whole… A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention… However, ‘the prior art’s
mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any
of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage
the solution claimed….’ In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (emphasis added)
To that end, Merriman et al. page 22 lines 10-22 disclose “modifications to dNTPs” that “may comprise chemical moieties that provide a formal charge… These, and other, chemical moieties can interact with native features on the polymerase enzyme, with engineered features on the polymerase, with the bridge molecule, or with a molecule bonded between the polymerase and bridge molecule. In various aspects, modifications to dNTPs may extend the polyphosphate charge from -3 (in native dNTPs) to -4, -5, -6, -7, -8 or -9, for example, depending on the total number of phosphate groups.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that “the Examiner does not explain why it would have been obvious to modify either Merriman’s dNTPs or Merriman’s modified nucleotides to be ‘coupled to a corresponding label’. The Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/22/25 included the obviousness rationale on the last paragraph of page 9 continued to the first two paragraphs of page 10 (reproduced below; emphasis added):
Merriman et al. does not teach a specific embodiment having all the claimed elements. That being said, however, it must be remembered that "[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. AG. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). "[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious," the relevant question is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR at 1741. The Court emphasized that "[a] person of ordinary skill is... a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. At 1742.
Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been prima facie obvious to have selected various combinations of various disclosed elements — including polynucleotides, bridges, labels, and polynucleotides — for compositions and methods for electrical signaling mediated sequencing, to arrive at compositions "yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement."
The Merriman et al. teachings read on the instantly claimed combinations of previously disclosed elements and would thus be considered obvious to the skilled artisan.
Claims 7, 12, and 14 remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman et al. (2018; WO 2018/026855 A1; FOR citation 3 in IDS filed on 12/7/22) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, 15-18, 35, and 39 above, and further in view of Woo et al. (2006; US 7,074,569 B2; USPat citation A in PTO-892 filed 8/22/25).
The teachings of Merriman et al. are applied to instantly rejected claims 7, 12, and 14 as they were previously applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, 15-18, 35, and 39 as rendering obvious compositions and methods for electrical signaling mediated sequencing.
Merriman et al. is silent to specifics regarding enantiomeric DNA (relevant to claim 7), DNA intercalators (claim 12), and peptide intercalators (claim 14). However, these limitations were known in the prior art and taught by Woo et al.
Woo et al. teaches “The present invention relates generally to nucleobase polymer functionalizing reagents, to mobility-modified sequence-specific nucleobase polymers, to compositions comprising a plurality of mobility-modified sequence-specific nucleobase polymers, and to the use of such polymers and compositions in a variety of assays, such as, for example, for the detection of a plurality of selected nucleotide sequences within one or more target nucleic acids” (Abstract).
Relevant to claim 7, Woo et al. teaches "Moreover, many of the compounds may include chiral centers or exist in different tautomeric or geometric isomeric forms. As any structural drawings may represent only a single ionizable, tautomeric, enantiomeric or geometric isomeric forms, it will be understood that the structural drawings are not intended to be limiting, and any non-illustrated ionizable, tautomeric, enantiomeric or geometric isomeric forms of the compounds are intended to be within the scope of the present invention" (column 27, lines 59-67).
This teaching reads on claim 7 wherein the non-naturally occurring DNA comprises enantiomeric DNA.
Relevant to claims 12 and 14, Woo et al. teaches "In other instances, the polymerase chain reaction product may be labeled by intercalation with an intercalating dye or by other noncovalent association with a detectable indicator molecule" (column 8, lines 35-38).
This teaching reads on claim 12 wherein the labels comprise DNA intercalators; and claim 14 wherein the labels comprise peptide intercalators.
Although Merriman et al. does not explicitly teach the Woo et al. enantiomeric DNA, DNA intercalators, and peptide intercalators, it would have been prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan. Merriman et al. and Woo et al. are analogous disclosures within the instant nucleotide detection assay field.
The skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the analogous art. Woo et al. teaches “The mobility-modified nucleobase polymers of the present invention provide one or more advantages over currently available modified oligonucleotides, as follows. For example, synthesis of the mobility-modified nucleobase polymers of the present invention is compatible with reagents and methods employed in conventional automated instruments for DNA synthesis. Furthermore, when the mobility-modified nucleobase polymers include only uncharged phosphate triester linkages, such as nucleobase polymers according to structural formulae (II) and (III), substantially greater alterations of electrophoretic mobilities can be achieved as compared with the charged PEO modifiers in current use. As illustrated in the working examples provided infra, there is a large difference in the electrophoretic mobilities between mobility-modified nucleobase polymers of the invention which differ by only a single mobility-modifying monomeric unit. As a consequence, the invention permits for greater mobility modifications than can be achieved using conventional PEO modifiers. Significantly, electrophoretic mobility retardations of greater than 100 nucleotides can be readily achieved using standard DNA and RNA chemistries” (column 12, lines 25-46).
Thus, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to include the Woo et al. enantiomeric DNA, DNA intercalators, and peptide intercalators within the compositions and methodologies rendered obvious by Merriman et al. in order to achieve electrophoretic mobility advantages to the modified oligonucleotides.
The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success based on the disclosures of Merriman et al., and further in view of Woo et al., as disclosed in the preceding paragraphs.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that “Woo and Hedgepeth do not cure Merriman’s deficiencies… But again, the Examiner does not explain why it would have been obvious to modify either Merriman’s dNTPs or Merriman’s modified nucleotides to be ‘coupled to a corresponding label’” (Remarks 11/5/25; second paragraph of page 8).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion. As discussed in the above Response to Applicant’s Arguments relevant to claims 1-6, 8-11, 15-18, 35, and 39, Merriman et al. renders obvious the instant invention. Thus, the only independent claims are obvious, and as such, all of the claims are obvious.
Claim 13 remains/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merriman et al. (2018; WO 2018/026855 A1; FOR citation 3 in IDS filed on 12/7/22) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, 15-18, 35, and 39 above, and further in view of Hedgpeth et al. (2009; US 7,556,923 B1; USPat citation B in PTO-892 filed 8/22/25).
The teachings of Merriman et al. are applied to instantly rejected claim 13 as they were previously applied to claims 1-6, 8-11, 15-18, 35, and 39 as rendering obvious compositions and methods for electrical signaling mediated sequencing.
Merriman et al. is silent to specifics regarding minor groove binders relevant to claim 13. However, these limitations were known in the prior art and taught by Hedgpeth et al.
Hedgpeth et al. Abstract teaches "Conjugates between a minor groove binding molecule … and an oligonucleotide form unusually stable hybrids with complementary target sequences... These conjugates can be used as probes and primers. Due to their unusually high binding affinity, conjugates as short as 8-mers can be used as amplification primers with high specificity and efficiency. MGB [minor groove binder] conjugation also increases the discriminatory power of short oligonucleotides, providing enhanced detection of nucleotide sequence mismatches by short oligonucleotides. The MGB-conjugated probes and primers described herein facilitate various analytic and diagnostic procedures, such as amplification reactions, PCR, detection of single-nucleotide polymorphisms, gene hunting, differential display, fluorescence energy transfer, hydrolyzable probe assays and others; by allowing the use of shorter oligonucleotides, which have higher specificity and better discriminatory power."
This teaching reads on claim 13 wherein the labels comprise minor groove binders.
Although Merriman et al. does not explicitly teach the Hedgpeth et al. minor groove binders, it would have been prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan. Merriman et al. and Hedgpeth et al. are analogous disclosures within the instant nucleotide detection assay field.
The skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the analogous art. Hedgpeth et al. teaches that “MGB [minor groove binder] conjugation also increases the discriminatory power of short oligonucleotides, providing enhanced detection of nucleotide sequence mismatches… The MGB-conjugated probes and primers described herein facilitate various analytic and diagnostic procedures, such as amplification reactions, PCR…” (Abstract). Thus, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to include the Hedgpeth et al. minor groove binders within the compositions and methodologies rendered obvious by Merriman et al. in order to achieve improved discriminatory and detection abilities.
The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success based on the disclosures of Merriman et al., and further in view of Hedgpeth et al., as disclosed in the preceding paragraphs.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues that “Woo and Hedgepeth do not cure Merriman’s deficiencies… But again, the Examiner does not explain why it would have been obvious to modify either Merriman’s dNTPs or Merriman’s modified nucleotides to be ‘coupled to a corresponding label’” (Remarks 11/5/25; second paragraph of page 8).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion. As discussed in the above Response to Applicant’s Arguments relevant to claims 1-6, 8-11, 15-18, 35, and 39, Merriman et al. renders obvious the instant invention. Thus, the only independent claims are obvious, and as such, all of the claims are obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Sarah J Kennedy whose telephone number is (571)272-1816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8a - 5p.
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, Winston Shen can be reached at 571-272-3157. 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.
/SARAH JANE KENNEDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1682
/WU CHENG W SHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1682