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 .
Claim Status
The amendments and arguments filed 3/30/26 are acknowledged. Claims 3 and 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4-17 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 12 and 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/26/25.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13 are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Takami publication and the English translation of the Written Opinion are persuasive, and the Information Disclosure Statements have been updated to indicate that the references were considered. Signed copies are enclosed.
However, Applicant’s argument that the TARC reference is in the English language search report and therefore must be considered is not found to be persuasive.
The listing of the references cited in a Search Report itself is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, "the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper." Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information or any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the IDS, including all "statement" requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Withdrawn Objections
The objection to claim 1 because of the following informalities: the term “TARC (Thymus and activation-regulated chemokine)” should be amended to read “Thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC)” is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments thereto.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 18-20 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 is rendered moot by cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP3443891 B2; filed 9/14/93; published 9/8/03 is rendered moot by cancellation of the claims.
Maintained Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The rejection of claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 10-11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plattel et al (Haematologica. 2012 Mar;97(3):410-5) in view of JP3443891 B2; filed 9/14/93; published 9/8/03 is maintained. The rejection of claims 3 and 18-20 is rendered moot by cancellation of the claims.
Instant claim 1 is directed to a composition comprising TARC (Thymus and activation-regulated chemokine); and a polymer having 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine as a structural unit, and being in liquid form and wherein the composition is contained a storage container. Instant claim 2 is directed to the composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition is a calibration sample solution for measuring TARC. Instant claim 4 is directed to the composition according to claim 3, wherein the storage container is plastic or glass. Instant claim 5 is directed to the composition according to any one of claims 1, wherein the TARC concentration is 10 pg/mL to 1 μg/mL with respect to the composition. Instant claim 6 is directed to the composition according to any one of claim 1, wherein a concentration of the polymer is 0.001 mass% to 5 mass% with respect to the composition. Instant claim 7 is directed to the composition according to any one of claim1, wherein the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 1000 to 2000000. Instant claim 8 is directed to the composition according to any one of claim1, wherein when the TARC concentration is 500 pg/mL with respect to the composition, the TARC residual rate is 80% or more after storage at 37°C for 28 days in a plastic container. Instant claim 9 is directed to the composition according to any one of claim1, wherein when the TARC concentration is 500 pg/mL with respect to the composition, the TARC residual rate is 80% or more after storage at 4°C for 28 days in a plastic container. Instant claim 10 is directed to the composition according to claim 1, wherein when the TARC concentration is 500 pg/mL with respect to the composition, the TARC residual rate is 30% or more after storage at 100C for 12 hours in a glass container. Instant claim 11 is directed to the composition according to any one of claim 1, wherein the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 10000 to 70000. Instant claim 13 is directed to a kit for measuring TARC, wherein the kit comprises the composition according to any one of claim 1. Further, the term “having” as recited in claim 1 is not defined as having an open- or closed-construction. The specification does not define “having” and therefore it will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, which is an open construction similar to “comprising” (see MPEP 2111.03).
Plattel teaches plasma thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) is a potential biomarker for classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma (see e.g. abstract). TARC was measured in blood plasma samples by a double antibody sandwich ELISA (see e.g. page 412, left column). The measurement included mass-calibrated standards to analyze samples (see e.g. page 412, left column). The TARC was measured up to 1000 pg/mL (see e.g. page 412, left column), with a median TARC level of 118 pg/mL (see e.g. Figure 1 legend, page 412). As stated in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Plattel does not teach the use of a polymer having 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine as a structural unit, the use of a storage container of either plastic or glass, a specific concentration or molecular weight of the polymer, functional features of the polymer as presented in claims 8-10, or a kit comprising the compositions.
JP3443891 teaches a composition comprising 2-methacryloyloxyethylphosphorylcholine used as a protein adsorption inhibitor in biochemical analysis methods and the like, more specifically in a two-site method (i.e. sandwich measurement method) (see e.g. page 1, claim 1; and paragraph [0001]). JP3443891 teaches an example polymer with a molecular weight 32000, which falls within the range of the instant claims (see e.g. Example 2, paragraph [0025], page 4). The polymer can have a concentration of 0.0001 to 5% by weight (see e.g. paragraph [0013]-[0018], page 3). The inhibition of adsorption can be on materials including glass (see e.g. paragraph [0013]-[0018], page 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the assay of Plattel to incorporate the adsorption inhibitor comprising 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC) as taught in JP3443891 because MPC offers advantageous suppression of protein adsorption without affecting the measurement of protein in the assay (see e.g. JP3443891, paragraph [0007]). One of the main factors that influence the sensitivity of sandwich methods is the adsorption of the labeled antibody to the antibody-bound solid phase or the adsorption of the labeled antigen to the antigen-bound solid phase (see e.g. JP3443891, paragraph [0002]-[0003]). Adsorption causes a reduced sensitivity and lack of reproducibility in sandwich methods (see e.g. JP3443891, paragraph [0002]-[0003]). Furthermore, conventional methods for preventing adsorption, such as weak acid or blocking with albumin or serum does not sufficiently block protein adsorption (see e.g. JP3443891, paragraph [0002]-[0004]). Use of the polymer of JP3443891, offers an advantage of more complete inhibition of adsorption, along with potential for increased sensitivity and reproducibility for sandwich assays, such as the one described in Plattel. These advantages provide the motivation to make the aforementioned modification of the sandwich method of Plattel, based on the teachings of JP3443891, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the functional limitations of instant claim 10, the combination of references render obvious the invention of claim 1, and therefore render obvious any inherent properties of the disclosed composition of claim 1. Plattel discloses a sandwich assay comprising TARC measured up to 1000 pg/mL (see e.g. page 412, left column), with a median TARC level of 118 pg/mL (see e.g. Figure 1 legend, page 412). As stated in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). JP3443891 renders obvious the use of MPC for inhibiting protein adsorption in a solution for the benefit of suppressing protein adsorption, and preventing reduced sensitivity and lack of reproducibility in a sandwich method, and thus would inherently result in a TARC residual rate of 80% or more after storage at 37°C for 28 days or TARC residual rate of 90% or more after storage at 4°C for 28 days.
Additionally, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses that if a technique has been used to improve one method, and a person of ordinary skill would recognize that it would be used in similar methods in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its application is beyond that person’s skill. It would be obvious to apply a known technique to a known product to be used in a known method that is ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Thus, the combination of prior art references as combined provided a prima facie case of obviousness, absent convincing evidence to the contrary.
2. The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plattel et al (Haematologica. 2012 Mar;97(3):410-5) in view of JP3443891 B2; filed 9/14/93; published 9/8/03 and further in view of Weinschenk (US 8,669,063 B2; filed 11/22/11; published 3/11/14) is maintained. The rejection of claims 3 and 18-20 is rendered moot by cancellation of the claims.
Instant claim 1 is directed to a composition comprising TARC (Thymus and activation-regulated chemokine); and a polymer having 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine as a structural unit, and being in liquid form. Instant claim 2 is directed to the composition according to claim 1, wherein the composition is a calibration sample solution for measuring TARC. Instant claim 4 is directed to the composition according to claim 3, wherein the storage container is plastic or glass. Instant claim 5 is directed to the composition according to any one of claims 1, wherein the TARC concentration is 10 pg/mL to 1 μg/mL with respect to the composition. Instant claim 6 is directed to the composition according to any one of claim 1, wherein a concentration of the polymer is 0.001 mass% to 5 mass% with respect to the composition. Instant claim 7 is directed to the composition according to any one of claim1, wherein the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 1000 to 2000000. Instant claim 8 is directed to the composition according to any one of claim1, wherein when the TARC concentration is 500 pg/mL with respect to the composition, the TARC residual rate is 80% or more after storage at 37°C for 28 days in a plastic container. Instant claim 9 is directed to the composition according to any one of claim1, wherein when the TARC concentration is 500 pg/mL with respect to the composition, the TARC residual rate is 80% or more after storage at 4°C for 28 days in a plastic container. Instant claim 10 is directed to the composition according to any one of claims1 to 9claim1, wherein when the TARC concentration is 500 pg/mL with respect to the composition, the TARC residual rate is 30% or more after storage at 100C for 12 hours in a glass container. Instant claim 11 is directed to the composition according to any one of claim1, wherein the polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 10000 to 70000. Instant claim 13 is directed to a kit for measuring TARC, wherein the kit comprises the composition according to any one of claim 1. Further, the term “having” as recited in claim 1 is not defined as having an open- or closed-construction. The specification does not define “having” and therefore it will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, which is an open construction similar to “comprising” (see MPEP 2111.03).
Plattel teaches plasma thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) is a potential biomarker for classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma (see e.g. abstract). TARC was measured in blood plasma samples by a double antibody sandwich ELISA (see e.g. page 412, left column). The measurement included mass-calibrated standards to analyze samples (see e.g. page 412, left column). The TARC was measured up to 1000 pg/mL (see e.g. page 412, left column), with a median TARC level of 118 pg/mL (see e.g. Figure 1 legend, page 412).
Plattel does not teach the use of a polymer having 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine as a structural unit, the use of a storage container of either plastic or glass, a specific concentration or molecular weight of the polymer, functional features of the polymer as presented in claims 8-10, or a kit comprising the compositions.
JP3443891 teaches a composition comprising 2-methacryloyloxyethylphosphorylcholine used as a protein adsorption inhibitor in biochemical analysis methods and the like, more specifically in a two-site method (i.e. sandwich measurement method) (see e.g. page 1, claim 1; and paragraph [0001]). JP3443891 teaches an example polymer with a molecular weight 32000, which falls within the range of the instant claims (see e.g. Example 2, paragraph [0025], page 4). The polymer can have a concentration of 0.0001 to 5% by weight (see e.g. paragraph [0013]-[0018], page 3). The inhibition of adsorption can be on materials including glass (see e.g. paragraph [0013]-[0018], page 3).
Plattel and JP3443891 fail to disclose a plastic container.
Weinschenk discloses a diagnostic kit comprising materials for performing a method in one or more separate containers for detecting CCL17/TARC, wherein the container(s) of the kit are formed of plastic (see Col. 14, lines 46-56).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the assay of Plattel to incorporate the adsorption inhibitor comprising 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC) as taught in JP3443891 because MPC offers advantageous suppression of protein adsorption without affecting the measurement of protein in the assay (see e.g. JP3443891, paragraph [0007]). One of the main factors that influence the sensitivity of sandwich methods is the adsorption of the labeled antibody to the antibody-bound solid phase or the adsorption of the labeled antigen to the antigen-bound solid phase (see e.g. JP3443891, paragraph [0002]-[0003]). Adsorption causes a reduced sensitivity and lack of reproducibility in sandwich methods (see e.g. JP3443891, paragraph [0002]-[0003]). Furthermore, conventional methods for preventing adsorption, such as weak acid or blocking with albumin or serum does not sufficiently block protein adsorption (see e.g. JP3443891, paragraph [0002]-[0004]). Therefore, use of the polymer of JP3443891, offers an advantage of inhibition of adsorption, along with potential for increased sensitivity and reproducibility in sandwich assays, such as the one used in Plattel. These advantages provide the motivation to make the aforementioned modification of the sandwich method of Plattel, based on the teachings of JP3443891, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the functional limitations of instant claim 8-10, the combination of references render obvious the invention of claim 1, and therefore render obvious any inherent properties of the disclosed composition of claim 1. Plattel discloses a sandwich assay comprising TARC measured up to 1000 pg/mL (see e.g. page 412, left column), with a median TARC level of 118 pg/mL (see e.g. Figure 1 legend, page 412). As stated in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). JP3443891 renders obvious the use of MPC for inhibiting protein adsorption in a solution for the benefit of suppressing protein adsorption, and preventing reduced sensitivity and lack of reproducibility in a sandwich method, such as the one used in Plattel, and thus would inherently result in a TARC residual rate of 80% or more after storage at 37°C for 28 days or TARC residual rate of 90% or more after storage at 4°C for 28 days.
Additionally, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses that if a technique has been used to improve one method, and a person of ordinary skill would recognize that it would be used in similar methods in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its application is beyond that person’s skill. It would be obvious to apply a known technique to a known product to be used in a known method that is ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Thus, the combination of prior art references as combined provided a prima facie case of obviousness, absent convincing evidence to the contrary.
Plattel, JP3443891, and Weinschenk are analogous in the art of protein detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the reagents of the assay of Plattel to be stored in a container that could be plastic as this is a suitable material for the intended purpose as taught by Weinschenk (see Col. 14, lines 46-56 of Weinschenk and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose).
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues:
1. Plattel is directed to the measurement of TARC in cHL, a condition in which TARC is produced in extraordinarily high concentrations. Under such conditions, detection is inherently straightforward and is not meaningfully impacted by adsorption losses. Because Plattel deals with high TARC concentrations, it does not recognize, address, or suggest the problem of adsorption losses that become critical at low analyte levels. Plattel does not describe any measures to prevent adsorption when handling samples. JP3443891 fails to remedy the issue. The reference is directed to preventing nonspecific protein adsorption during short term assay procedures, and does not address long-term storage, nor does it consider the behavior of low abundance analytes such as TARC under storage conditions. Because neither reference recognizes the problem solved by the present invention, there is no motivation to combine them in the manner proposed by the Examiner.
2. There is no reasonable expectation of success, as the adsorption behavior of trace-level analytes during storage differs materially from the short-term assay conditions addressed in JP3443891.
3. Weinschenk discloses plastic containers but does not address the problem of TARC adsorption or provide teaching relevant to the claimed solution.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant is relying on limitations that are not actually claimed. The claims do not reference high or low concentrations, and there is no requirement of recognition of a specific problem related to adsorption losses. In fact, the word “adsorption” does not appear in any claim.
Regarding the composition claims, the prior art discloses the composition structure of the instant claims, which is all that is required. The instant claims require only TARC, a polymer having a 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine structural unit, liquid form, and a storage container. There is no requirement for a specific effect on adsorption or TARC concentrations. Furthermore, such limitations would amount to an intended use. According to MPEP 2111.02, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If Applicant is implying that additional components are necessary to produce the claimed invention, then the invention may not be adequately described and/or additional claim limitations should be introduced to remedy the deficiency.
Regarding the method claims, the method only requires “improving the storage stability” and do not require any limitation that involves “adsorption.” MPEP 2145 states that mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). The cited art is also in the relevant field of endeavor for the claimed invention. Similar to the instant disclosure, the prior art references measure protein and identify compositions to prevent protein adsorption. The instant claims do not require any limitation related to adsorption, or a specific type or level of adsorption inhibition, and the dependent claims only refer to a specific concentration of polymer and weight of the polymer.
Furthermore, Applicant fails to consider the combined teachings of Plattel, JP3443891, and Weinshenk combined, and is arguing the references separately. According to MPEP 2145, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant is relying on conclusory arguments without providing evidence of the alleged material difference between the assay conditions. As stated in MPEP 2145, arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.").
Applicant fails to consider the combined teachings of Plattel, JP3443891, and Weinshenk combined. According to MPEP 2145, One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. Where an applicant’s reply establishes that each of the applied references fails to teach a limitation and addresses the combined teachings and/or suggestions of the applied prior art, the reply as a whole does not attack the references individually as the phrase is used in Keller and reliance on Keller would not be appropriate. This is because "[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
New Claim Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3, which has been cancelled. Therefore, the scope of claim 4 is indefinite.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA MCCOLLUM whose telephone number is (571)272-4002. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VANESSA FORD can be reached at (571)272-0857. 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.
/ANDREA K MCCOLLUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1674
/BRIAN GANGLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1645
Prosecution Insights