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 .
Detailed Action
Summary
This is the Final Office Action based on application 18/011082 response filed 01/28/2026.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-14, & 19-21 are pending and have been fully examined.
Claims 2, 9, 12, & 15-18 are cancelled.
Claims 20-21 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention of claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-14, & 19-21 are directed to a natural correlation without significantly more.
Through 101, inquiry analysis:
Is the claim directed to a statutory category of invention?
Yes, the claims depending form independent Claims 1 & 19 are drawn towards a statutory category of a method.
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify if there is a law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
For independent Claims 1 & 19, they recite the relationship/natural correlation of the claimed biomarkers (biomarker in relation to albumin and the biomarker in relation to a control, in claim 1 wherein the biomarker is glycoprotein acetyls) with a disease or condition or a risk of disease or condition. Natural correlations are the law of nature judicial exception.
Also, for Claims 1 & 19, the claimed, “comparing,” to a control, is a mental process, which is an abstract idea judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong Two: Has the law of nature been integrated into a particular practical application?
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in independent claims 1 or 19.
Claim 1 & 19 most closely follow USPTO eligibility Example 29, Claim 2. Though the word “diagnosis,” is not used, so thought the diagnosis natural correlation is not explicitly there it is still implicitly in the claims. “Determining,” as claimed if a subject has a “disease or condition,” based on an “increase or a decrease in the quantitative values of at least one biomarker, when compared to the control sample or to the control value, is/are indicative of the subject having the disease or condition or having an increased risk of developing the disease or condition,” is still implicitly diagnosis and a natural correlation which is the amount of biomarker= disease or no disease, even though the word “diagnosis,” itself is not used. Natural correlations are judicial exceptions. Therefore, none of this integrates the claim into a practical application as it is part of the judicial exception itself.
In addition to the judicial exceptions above, Claims 1 & 19 require that detecting is done using “nuclear resonance mass spectrometry,” and that the sample is a dry blood sample or similar.
The examiner notes that when recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular machine or a transformation of a particular article, in this step that distinguishes it from conventional data gathering activity. In this instance the nuclear mass spectrometry is used to gather data to perform the judicial exception.
Note that data gathering to be used in an abstract idea or with the claimed natural correlation, is insignificant extra-solution activity, and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). This is the case, no matter how many signals are obtained (it is noted that applicant now claims obtaining, “one or more,” signals “derived from NMR.”)
In addition, nothing further is done with the data gathered after the detection other than an abstract Idea by “comparing,” the data, and then indicating disease condition or risk. As noted above, the claimed “comparing,” is also a judicial exception of an abstract idea, so this does not practically apply the claimed natural correlation judicial exception. Therefore, the judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as nothing is done after the detection other than indicating and comparing which are abstract ideas or the actual diagnosis which is a natural correlation.
The dry blood sample—even if a “dry,” sample is still a natural sample, so part of the claimed natural correlation itself.
Further- there is not anything additional such as a particular and specific treatment—so the claims are not a practical application.
Step 2B: Do the claims recite any elements which are significantly more than the law of nature/natural correlation?
Independent Claims 1 & 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is no particularity or specificity of measurement, detection or treatment that makes the claims significantly more than the claimed natural correlation.
In addition to the judicial exceptions Claims 1 & 19 require that detecting is done using “nuclear mass spectrometry,” and that detection is done from a “dry blood sample,” or similar.
As instantly claimed these steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activity (WURC) for those in the field of diagnostics. This is evidenced by the fact that prior art teaches of them, and is especially true at the level of generality claimed.
Further MPEP 2106.04 for examples of laboratory techniques that have been shown to be routine and conventional. “The courts have recognized the following laboratory techniques as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity…”
Further, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and detecting steps does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (or natural correlation) (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
The dependent claims undergo a similar analysis.
Claim 3 does not change the matters above. Claim 3 indicates that the values are determined/calculated in a ratio. This is a mathematical calculation/mental process and abstract idea.
Dependent claim 4 does not change the matters above. It indicates the sample is a dry blood spot--- which is still a natural sample so does not practically apply the judicial exception. Further, dry blood spots are WURC in the are so does not make the claims significantly more.
Dependent claim 5 does not change the matters above. It indicates where dry blood spot or similar is obtained from. Emphasizing that it is a natural sample obtained from a person or mammal through fingertip or venipuncture, or from upper arm, and also these sampling techniques are WURC therefor do not practically apply or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 6 does not change the matters above. It indicates the sample is a dry blood spot--- which is still a natural sample so does not practically apply the judicial exception. Further, dry blood spots are WURC in the are so does not make the claims significantly more.
Dependent claims 7-8 & 10 do not change the matters above. It indicates that multiple biomarkers or specific biomarkers are detected in comparison to other biomarkers. These biomarkers are still part of the natural correlation as described for Claim 1 & 19 rejection above.
Dependent Claim 11 does not change the matters above. It indicates what the disease is. The disease is part of the natural correlation judicial exception as shown above. Therefore, does not practically apply or add significantly more.
Dependent claim 13 specifies that the sample specimen is from dried blood or serum or plasma. This is a natural compound and is part of the judicial exception itself (amount/presence or absences of biomarker in natural sample = disease or likelihood of disease). Therefore, this does not practically apply nor does it add significantly more.
Dependent Claim 14 specifies that the disease or risk is determined by a few slightly more specific calculations using risk score, hazard ratio or absolute risk. As claimed as especially as generally claimed the calculations are mental and mathematical processes and abstract ideas- so an abstract idea judicial exception itself. Also- these calculations are also WURC in the art.
Dependent Claims 20-21 do not change the matters above. They indicate what the disease is. The disease is part of the natural correlation judicial exception as shown above. Therefore, does not practically apply nor does it add significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of thel invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-14, & 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for certain types of “diseases or conditions”, does not reasonably provide enablement for the realm of what can be encompassed by these terms. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
This decision was made in taking into consideration all of the Wands factors including:
(A) The breadth of the claims: It is noted that these claim terms encompass a broader scope than what is actually described in the instant specification.
(B) The nature of the invention: The nature of this invention is such that any and determining or diagnosing every disease or condition that could be encompassed by these terms would not be the same as for the specific diseases and conditions described in the instant specification.
(C) The state of the prior art: There are so many diseases and conditions known in the art, one would not be able to just guess diseases or conditions the methods in the instant claims would work for versus what it would not work for.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: The level of ordinary skill in this art is high, though even given that is the case, one would not be able to just guess specific diseases the claimed method would work for and what it would not work for.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: The level of predictability of using the same biomarkers for different diseases is not high enough that one would be able to know what of non-disclosed diseases or conditions the instant claims could work for.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The inventor does provide some amount of direction, but again does not provide enough direction to show how one would be able to effectively diagnose or detect any/every possibility of disease or condition encompassed by these terms.
(G) The existence of working examples: The inventor does provide working examples, but again there is not direction enough that would support effective detection or diagnosis of any/every disease or condition encompassed by these terms.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: There are so many diseases or conditions which could be encompassed by these terms in the claims, that the quantity of experimentation would be high and consequential for someone to determine if any and every disease or condition encompassed by these terms could successfully be diagnosed by the instant methods.
It is noted that “disease or condition,”/s shown in instant PGPub paragraph 0002 & 0210 & 0273 including pneumonia, respiratory infections, diabetes, and sepsis are enabled. Applicant can note if there are other places where these terms are more fully enabled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-14, & 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claims 1 & 19, in lines 1-4 are unclear/confusing. What is claimed is the “the quantitative value(s) of a plurality of biomarker in biological sample from a subject has a disease or condition.” It seems a few words are missing in this section of the claim and this makes it unclear/confusing. Further in the claim body it is required that a comparison is performed to determine if an increase of decrease of a bootmaker is in indicative of disease or not. Therefore, it seems the preamble is not tied to the claim body since the preamble is confusing and unclear.
Further with respect to Claims 1 & 19, applicant claims both “using,” “nuclear magnetic spectroscopy,” and “using,” “H NMR”, and also just, “NMR.” It is unclear as claimed, if applicant means the same thing by these different terms or not.
With respect to Claim 11, “the,” foregoing,” fails to have proper antecedent basis as “foregoing,” was not mentioned prior to this in the claims.
Claims 3-8, 10-11, 13-14, & 20-21 are rejected by virtue of being dependent on Claims 1 & 19.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-14, & 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over GILL in US 20130085079 in view of KETTUNEN in Biomarker Glycoprotein Acetyls is associated with the risk of a wide spectrum of incident diseases and stratifies mortality risk in angiography patients and further in view of FUERTES-MARTIN in Human Serum/Plasma Glycoprotein Analysis by H-NMR, and Emerging Method of Inflammatory Assessment.
With respect to Claims 1 & 19, GILL teaches of a method and biomarkers, devices, reagents, systems, and kits for the evaluation of risk of a cardiovascular (CV) Event (disease or condition) within 5 years. The biomarkers that can be used alone or in various combinations wherein at least one biomarker value corresponding to at least one biomarker selected from the group of biomarkers provided in Table 1, 2, or 3 is used (abstract). The biomarkers can be detected by nuclear magnetic resonance (nuclear magnetic spectroscopy) (paragraph 0121). GILL teaches that the detecting includes detecting and determining “signal,”s corresponding the biomarker values/quantitative biomarker value (paragraph 0121, 0138, 0139).
GILL teaches that the sample is selected from a dried blood spot (paragraph 0103). GILL teaches of detecting multiple biomarkers from anywhere from 2 to 155 biomarkers, of determining the biomarker level/s including determining a ratio of measured levels (paragraph 0115) and also teaches of doing serum albumin testing to improve sensitivity, specificity, and/or AUC (paragraph 0020-0022, 0120). GILL teaches that the values are quantitatively determined (paragraph 0106, 0160-0163).
GILL further teaches of comparing the detected biomarkers to controls (paragraph 0067-0068, 0098, 0110, 0192-0193, 0205), and further than an increase or decrease in comparison to controls indicates increased risk of the disease or condition (paragraph 0098) and further of determining a score and determining a threshold of high intermediate or low risk based on the clinical findings (paragraph 0099).
GILL further teaches of measuring glycoproteins (paragraph 0108, 0288, Table I & 3) and acetylation on molecules (so this would include glycoprotein acetyls) (paragraph 0108-0109, Table 1). Since GILL does not specifically call out detection of glycoprotein acetyls or circulating amounts thereof or specifically “increased or elevated” biomarkers, KETTUNEN is used to remedy this.
KETTUNEN teaches of methods for detecting glycoprotein acetyls as biomarkers for diseases by nuclear magnetic resonance (spectroscopy) (Page 1). KETTUNEN teaches that the detected levels are “elevated,” compared to normal and that this is strongly predictive for disease (Page 2, column 1, paragraph 1, Figures 1 & 2). KETTUNEN also detects albumin (Page 2, column 2, results, lines 8-9 from bottom). KETTUNEN also teaches of detecting the abundance of circulating glycated proteins including GlyA(glycoproteinacetyls)(Page 1, background).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to detect glycoprotein acetyls as is done in KETTUNEN in the method of GILL due to the promise it has for enabling better risk assessment for diseases (Page 2, column 1, paragraph 3).
GILL and KETTUNEN do not teach of the use of H-NMR for the analysis.
FUERTES-MARTIN is used to remedy this and further teach of a method of measuring plasma glycoproteins including glycoprotein acetyls by H-NMR and that these biomarkers are markers for inflammation (abstract). FUERTES-MARTIN further teaches that they are associated with diabetes (Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to use H-NMR to analyze glycoprotein acetyls as is done in FUERTES-MARTIN in the methods of GILL and KETTUNEN due to the advantages H-NMR has the advantage in that it is a versatile technique from which a single spectrum can give information on the glycoprotein profile as well as information on other biomarkers (Page 20, 6.3, first paragraph).
With respect to Claim 3, GILL teaches of detecting multiple biomarkers from anywhere from 2 to 155 biomarkers, of determining the biomarker level/s including determining a ratio of measured levels (paragraph 0115) and also teaches of doing serum albumin testing to improve sensitivity, specificity, and/or AUC (paragraph 0020-0022, 0120).
With respect to Claims 4 & 6, GILL teaches that the sample is selected from a dried blood spot from whole blood (paragraph 0103).
With respect to Claim 5, GILL teaches of collecting the blood sample through venipuncture (paragraph 0103, 0105).
With respect to Claim 7, GILL teaches of detecting multiple biomarkers from anywhere from 2 to 155 biomarkers, of determining the biomarker level/s including determining a ratio of measured levels (paragraph 0115) and also teaches of doing serum albumin testing to improve sensitivity, specificity, and/or AUC (paragraph 0020-0022, 0120).
With respect to Claim 8, GILL teaches of detecting multiple biomarkers from anywhere from 2 to 155 biomarkers, of determining the biomarker level/s including determining a ratio of measured levels (paragraph 0115) and also teaches of doing serum albumin testing to improve sensitivity, specificity, and/or AUC (paragraph 0020-0022, 0120). GILL teaches that the biomarker can be apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein A-1 (paragraph 0028), HDL and LDL (paragraph 0061), glucose (paragraph 0127). KETTUNEN also teaches of detects albumin and VLDL (Page 2, column 2, results, lines 8-11 from bottom).
With respect to Claim 10, GILL teaches of detecting multiple biomarkers from anywhere from 2 to 155 biomarkers, of determining the biomarker level/s including determining a ratio of measured levels (paragraph 0115) and also teaches of doing serum albumin testing to improve sensitivity, specificity, and/or AUC (paragraph 0020-0022, 0120). GILL teaches that the biomarker can be apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein A-1 (paragraph 0028), HDL and LDL (paragraph 0061), glucose (paragraph 0127). KETTUNEN also teaches of detects albumin and VLDL (Page 2, column 2, results, lines 8-11 from bottom).
With respect to Claim 11, GILL teaches that the risk algorithm can also determine if the patient has diabetes or not (paragraph 0127).
With respect to Claim 13, GILL teaches that the sample is selected from a dried blood spot from whole blood (paragraph 0103).
With respect to Claim 14, GILL teaches of using a risk score or hazard ratio to make the determinations therein (Figure 3, paragraph 0127, 0234, 0004, 0297, 0284).
With respect to Claims 20-21, GILL teaches that the risk algorithm can also determine if the patient has diabetes or not (paragraph 0127). KETTUNEN also teaches of GlycA predicting risk of diverse outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes (Page 1, background) and further or monitoring sepsis (Page 6, column 1, first paragraph, lines 7-8 from bottom of paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 rejection, it is maintained for the claims, amended 01/28/2026 as shown in the above rejection.
With respect to the 101 rejection, applicant argues that since the NMR signal is now claimed as corresponding to the amount of glycoprotein acetyls, that this is a recitation of a practical application. The examiner disagrees, though understands why this might be confusing to applicant.
The use of NMR, or H-NMR, as claimed is not however enough to change matters with respect to the 101 rejection. Though H-NMR and NMR yes, are machines, with respect to this instant claims, they are just used to perform data gathering to accomplish the claimed judicial exceptions.
MPEP 2106.05(b) states “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (II) and “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more” (III). Also see MPEP 2106.05 (g)--- data gathering to accomplish a judicial exception is insignificant extra-solution activity.
In this instance, the generically claimed NMR or H-NMR is merely an “object” on which the method operates (i.e. determining the concentration based on sample collected). Furthermore, NMR and H-NMR’s are well-known procedures/techniques in the chemical arts for examining samples in a laboratory setting. Therefore, at best, the claimed limitations, as drafted, are conventional data gathering and processing that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that a “dried blood sample,” is used and that the specification describes many specific different glycoprotein acetyls which are includes and detected. The examiner notes with respect to this, that the specification is not read into the claims, therefore this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Further- using a dried blood sample, and also use of NMR and H-NMR are well understood, routine and conventional in the art. Therefore, they do not add significantly more at step 2B.
With respect to the prior Claim objections, they have been withdrawn, due to applicant’s amendments.
With respect to the 112 (a) scope of enablement rejection, applicant argues that the full scope of any and all “diseases or conditions,” is enabled. The examiner disagrees, and the rejection is maintained. The examiner does agree that applicant has support for the diseases including “sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory infection, and diabetes, respiratory diseases” but the specification does not provide support for other diseases. The claims however do not limit the diseases or conditions to just these “sepsis, pneumonia, respiratory infection, and diabetes, respiratory,” diseases and therefore—the full scope of the instant claims is not enabled by the instant specification.
Applicant has also submitted a Declaration by Dr. Peter Wutz, with respect to the enablement rejection. The examiner has reviewed this, but does not find it convincing with respect to scope of enablement rejection. Applicant argues in the Declaration that H NMR “improves accuracy,” regardless of the disease, but the examiner reminds applicant that an enablement rejection was made, so it is confusing as to why applicant seems to be arguing something akin to unexpected results, which even if present would not overcome and enablement issue. Nothing in this Declaration shows how the instant specification would enable one of ordinary skill to make and use the invention for any and every disease or condition, as instantly claimed.
With respect to the 112 (b) rejections, the prior issues were overcome by the amendments made 01/28/2026, however these amendments also introduced new issues. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 112 (b) as shown above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, applicant argues that the GILL and KETTUNEN references do not teach of some of the newly recited subject matter. The examiner notes that a new reference, FUERTES-MARTIN is used to remedy this.
Applicant argues that GILL does not teach of using NMR. The examiner disagrees. GILL teaches that nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy can be used for detection (paragraph 0121).
Applicant also argues that since the examiner acknowledges that GILL does not teach every single claim limitation that it, it does not make the claims obvious. Applicant argues the same thing about KETTUNEN, since it does not teach of using dried blood The examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, the rejections are based on the combination of the references.
Applicant further argues with respect to the WURTZ declaration submitted 01/28/2026 that “it would not have been obvious to use NMR for determining in a biological sample….a quantitative value of albumin the biological sample,” as recited in instant Claim 1. The examiner disagrees with this, since the GILL reference in fact teaches of this. GILL teaches of detecting multiple biomarkers from anywhere from 2 to 155 biomarkers, of determining the biomarker level/s including determining a ratio of measured levels (paragraph 0115) and also teaches of doing serum albumin testing to improve sensitivity, specificity, and/or AUC (paragraph 0020-0022, 0120).
Further- the examiner notes that the instant claims do not require the albumin concentration specifically to be determined by NMR, so this argument is not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
Applicant also argues with respect to the Declaration that the instant method offers unexpectedly improved accuracy and more consistent measurement. With respect to this, this is not found convincing, but even if it were---- nothing is claimed about accuracy or consistency. Further, again, the prior art still makes the instant claims obvious.
All claims remain rejected.
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 REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. 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.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758