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
Application Status
This application is a 371 of PCT/GB2021/051805, 01/12/2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
In response to a previous Office action, a Non-Final Rejection Office action (mailed on 02/13/2025), Applicants filed a response and an amendment on May 13, 2026, amending claims 1-8, 9-14, 15-18 and 19-20 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-14 and 19-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicants' arguments filed on May 13, 2026, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive to overcome some of the rejections previously applied. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-8, and 15-18 are present for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to a foreign patent application UNITED KINGDOM 2010908.8, filed on 07/15/2020.
Withdrawn-Specification Objection
The previous objection of the Specification for reciting an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code, is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the Specification and persuasive arguments. See MPEP § 608.01.
Withdrawn-Drawings Objections
The previous objection of the Drawings for not clearly legible is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the Drawings and persuasive arguments. See particularly 37 CFR 1.821(d).
Withdrawn-Claim Objections
The previous objections of Claims 2 (depends on claim 1), 3-8, 6, and 15-18, are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims and persuasive arguments.
Withdrawn-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)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 previous rejection of Claims 1-8, 15-17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention, is withdrawn, in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims and persuasive arguments.
The previous rejection of Claim 18 (depends on claim 1) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, is withdrawn, in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims and persuasive arguments.
The previous rejection of Claim 15 (depends on claim 1) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention, is withdrawn, in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims and persuasive arguments.
Withdrawn-Claim Rejections – Improper Markush Grouping
The previous rejection of Claim 2 is rejected under the judicially approved “improper Markush grouping” doctrine, is withdrawn, in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims and persuasive arguments.
The previous rejection of Claim 6 under the judicially approved “improper Markush grouping” doctrine, is withdrawn, in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claims and persuasive arguments.
New-Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 1-8, 15-17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 part (ii) is indefinite as reciting a method with no sufficient steps for second liquid phase, which is required for the releasing the captured CO2 by first liquid phase, and claim 1 is also not further limited by any dependent claims 2-8, and 15-18 and thus, claimed invention is incomplete due to the absence of second liquid phase of step (ii). However, withdrawn claims 12-14 shows the evidence of step (ii) of claim 1, which is indeed further limited in withdrawn claims 12-14. Therefore, amended claim 1 now stands alone with only one active steps of (i) for capturing the CO2, and releasing, and under BRI, the second liquid step could be interpreted as any non-aqueous liquid, which are unknown rendering the metes and bounds of the liquid phase of step (ii) is unclear and confusing. Therefore, the claim 1 as amended is indefinite and confusing.
A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. The method steps should be amended to clearly identify the method steps. Appropriate correction is required for giving patentable weight on this claim.
Maintained-Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
According to MPEP 2143:
“Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products)
in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready
for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “ Obvious to try ” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in
either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market
forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.”
The previous rejection of Claim 1-8, 15 -17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rayner et al. (System for the capture and release of acid gases. WO2015/092427A2, published 06/25/2015) in view of common knowledge of a skilled artisan, is maintained and the rejection is maintained as discussed previously for the following reasons.
The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, which is drawn to a method for capturing CO2 from a gas stream, the gas stream containing CO2,the method comprising: contacting the gas stream containing CO2 with a capture composition in a gas-liquid contacting apparatus to generate a loaded capture composition, the capture composition comprising (i) a first liquid phase comprising at least one capture reagent; and (ii) a second liquid phase; wherein the second liquid phase is an effective solvent for CO2 and is chemically inert to CO2; wherein the first liquid phase comprises an aqueous solution of at least one salt of at least one carboxylic acid; and wherein the method further comprises releasing said CO2 from the loaded capture composition.
Rayner et al. teach a method for the capture of at least one acid gas in a composition, the release of said gas from said composition, after combustion, and the subsequent regeneration of said composition for re-use, said method comprising performing, the steps of (a) capturing the at least one acid gas by contacting said at least one gas with a capture composition comprising at least one salt of a carboxylic acid and (b) at least one water-miscible non-aqueous organic solvent (creating a phase separation (see, abstract, para 58), wherein the capturing composition is loaded in packed column containing mono-ethanolamine (30%w/w) for absorption (see, para 4, 131); (b) releasing said at least one acid gas by adding at least organic solvents like DMSO, to said composition; and (c) regenerating the capture composition by partial or complete removal of said added protic solvent or agent from said composition, wherein said at least one protic solvent or agent is selected from water or an alcoholic solvent, wherein said alcoholic solvent is selected from methanol, ethanol, glycerol, ethylene glycol, trifluoroethanol or dihydroxy-methane, sugars, oligosaccharides and amino acids, wherein said at least one protic solvent or agent is added in an amount of from 5-50% v/v, wherein said composition comprising at least one salt of a carboxylic acid and at least one water-miscible non-aqueous solvent comprises water or another protic solvent or agent, wherein said water or another protic solvent or agent is present at a level of from 1-30% v/v relative to the total solvent volume, wherein at least ne salt of a carboxylic acid is a salt of an alkali metal, wherein said carboxylic acid is a an aliphatic carboxylic acid, wherein said aliphatic carboxylic acid is selected from straight chained, branched or cyclic carboxylic acids which may be substituted or unsubstituted, wherein said at least one salt of an aliphatic carboxylic acid is selected from salts of C1-2o aliphatic carboxylic acids including acetic acid, propionic acid, or butyric acid in the form of bicarbonate salt, bicarbonate composed of C, H and O, and meets claim limitation of claim 4 (see, para 15, 47, 57), wherein said at least one water- miscible non-aqueous solvent comprises at least one polar aprotic or organic solvent, wherein said solvent is dimethyl-sulphoxide (DMSO), wherein said at least one salt of a carboxylic acid is initially present in said composition at a level of between 1 M and 14M, wherein said at least one acid gas comprises carbon dioxide gas, wherein said composition comprises a solution, a slurry, a dispersion or a suspension, wherein said at least one acid gas is contacted with the composition at a temperature in the range of from 10° to 50°C, the acid gas is contacted with the composition at pressures in the range of from 1 to 150 bar, wherein said release of said at least one acid gas occurs at temperatures in the range of from 10° to 80°C, wherein partial or complete removal of said at least one protic solvent or agent from the composition is achieved by means of adsorption into hydrophilic or hydrophilic materials, and post combustion capture of CO2 gas (see, Title, abstract, para 4, 7, 12, 15, 21, 23, 25-29, 31, 47, 57, 72, 89, 92, 105, 118, 128, 131, 135, 145, Fig. 1, claims 1-47).
Claim 4 is included in this rejection because carbon dioxide gas mainly composed of Carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, and salt (sodium, magnesium or ammonium of carbonate when in water, HCO3- or salt thereof is in fact composed of Carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, which is indeed taught by Rayner et al.
Claim 15 is included in this rejection because Rayner et al. teach ratio of the two liquids, which are 1:1, 1:3, and 1:5, which is within the scope of the claimed limitation (see, para 145).
Claim 16 is included in this rejection because the increased physical solubility of the CO2 is the inherent property of the second liquid phase than first liquid phase. Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing applicants' products (first and second liquid) recited by the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention as a whole before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made by combining the teachings of Rayner et al. with a common knowledge of a skilled artisan in the same field for using separate solution instead of a single solution for capturing CO2 gas from air under the provision of obvious to try of KSR Ruling acid as taught by Rayner et al. to arrive the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to use two separate solution of capturing CO2 gas and stripping in order to produce more captured CO2 gas which is commercially, industrially and financially beneficial. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Rayner et al. could successfully produce CO2 gas from air.
Thus, the above references render the claims prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Arguments: Applicants argue that Claims 1-8, 15-17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over WO Publication No. 2015/092427 to Rayner et al. ("Rayner"). As Rayner fails to describe, teach, or suggest all the features of these claims, Applicant traverses these rejections. Initially, Applicant notes that the Office points to para. [0058] of Rayner to allegedly teach a capture composition comprising at least one salt of a carboxylic acid and at least one water-miscible non-aqueous solvent, wherein the salt and solvent create a phase separation, however, this is an inaccurate reading of the reference and also improper mapping onto the present claims. Paragraph [0058] of Raynor is reproduced here for reference. [O05S] Said at least one water -miscible non-aqueous solvent may be selected from all available at least partially water-miscible. optionally completely water-miscible, non-aqueous vet but typically comprises at one polar solvent which is most typically a protic solvent may include for example, dierthylsulphoxide (DM50), N-methyIpyrroidinone (NMP ), dimethypformamni:de (DMF, tetahydrofuran (THF), 2-methyltetrahydrofuran, acetonitrile, suoane., 1,1,3,3-etrarethyurea (TM4U),N N'- dimethy-NNttnmethyeneurea (1. -direthyl-3,4,5-tetrahydro-2-pydmidinone (DM PU)). ethy-2-imidazolidinone (DM), 14-dioxane, 1,3-dioxolane, lactate esters such asethyl lactate, or polyethers, for exampie glycol ethers, incuding (poly)aIkyethers such as propylene glycol dimethsy ether (proglyde) or diethylene glyool diethyl ether. In some embodiments, th water rmscibility of certain solvents may only be partia. but such solvents have particular benefits in developing processing routes which employ aqueous-organic phase separation for solvent regeneration. According to Rayner, the last sentence of paragraph [0058] refers to "aqueous-organic phase separation" for solvent regeneration, however, as will be appreciated, this is specifically in relation to solvent regeneration and not CO2 capture. Solvent regeneration is discussed further in paragraph [0072] of Rayner where the original capture composition is regenerated by separating the composition (comprising the water-miscible non-aqueous solvent and carboxylic acid salt) from the protic solvent/agent (which was added to the composition to release the captured gas). This technique is emphasised again in paragraph [00149] of Rayner which describes phase-separation of the non-aqueous water-miscible solvent from the release solvent. Therefore, based on the clear disclosure of Rayner, the phase separation discussed in Rayner relates to the following liquid phases: (i) the capture composition; and (ii) the protic release solvent/agent. This mixture of two phases is not itself used to capture CO2. Rayner therefore, does not disclose a capture composition which itself comprises two discrete liquid phases, and therefore Rayner does not teach or suggest all the features of these claims.
The Office alleges that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use two separate solutions for capturing CO2 gas in order to produce more captured CO2 gas which is commercially, industrially and financially beneficial. Applicant disagrees. There is no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion in Rayner that links biphasic solutions with improved processes. In fact, the one of skill in the art would have been motivated against a biphasic system. It would not have been obvious for one of skill in the art to introduce a two-phase liquid system. Using the claimed two- phase capture composition system in fact involves a three-phase system: i) the gas; ii) the first liquid phase; and iii) the second liquid phase. Three phases introduces significant complexity into the system in terms of process engineering. Maintaining sufficient contact between phases to provide an effective process is challenging. Doing this for three phases is exponentially more difficult. One of skill in the art would be motivated away from increasing the complexity of the system by increasing the number of phases. In the absence of a specific motivation to increase the number of phases during C02 capture (which is absent in Rayner), one of skill in the art would actually seek to keep the process as simple as possible. As will be appreciated, and in light of the above, the following factors will influence whether you have a monophasic system or a biphasic system: i) the identity of the non-aqueous solvent or mixture of non-aqueous solvents; ii) where it is a mixture of non-aqueous solvents, the relative amount of the non- aqueous solvents; iii) the relative amounts of the non-aqueous solvent(s) and water; iv) the identity of the carboxylic acid (or mixture thereof) in the salt of the carboxylic acid; v) the cationic counterion in the salt of the carboxylic acid (or mixture thereof); vi) the relative amount of the salt of the carboxylic acid and the non-aqueous solvent(s); vii) the relative amount of the salt of the carboxylic acid and the water; viii) the presence or absence of other components and their relative quantities; ix) the temperature; and/or x) the pressure. Accordingly, to arrive at a biphasic mixture of a partially miscible non-aqueous solvent and water in Rayner, one of skill in the art must control each of these factors listed above. There is discussion or teaching in Rayner for one of skill in the art to do so, or even consider all these influencing factors. Indeed, Rayner is primarily concerned with miscible solvents (see, e.g., claim 1 of Rayner). So, if anything, one of skill in the art would understand from the teachings of Rayner to control these factors in such a way as to generate a monophasic mixture. This is further emphasized in paragraph [0058] of Rayner, which teaches the that water miscibility with the non-aqueous solvent is particularly beneficial for solvent generation. This, again, teaches the skilled person away from preparing biphasic liquid systems such as those claimed, and in contrast to the present claims Rayner teaches a monophasic system. Rayner fails to describe, teach or suggest all the features of at least independent claim 1, and therefore claim 1 is non-obvious over the reference. Further, claims 2-8, 15-17, and 18 add patentable subject matter to their base claim, and as such, are also non- obvious over Rayner based at least on their dependency therefrom. Reconsideration and withdrawal of these rejections is respectfully requested.
Response: Applicants lengthy arguments have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive to overcome the rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims thereof because steps (ii) of claim 1 is missing and any dependent claims do not further limit claim 1, and thus claim 1 is indefinite and confusing (see, 112(b) rejection), and the evidence of step (ii) of claim 1 is indeed further limited in withdrawn claims 12-14, and furthermore, para 58 of the Rayner et al. indeed teach capture reagents and process of capturing CO2 and releasing as outlined in step (i) and (ii) of claim 1, and all the arguments are untrue and baseless also regarding pointing para 58 for not teaching capture composition, which is not persuasive because for efficient capturing CO2 by aqueous solution comprising one salt of a carboxylic acid, and a second organic liquid phase comprises either aprotic reagents or organic solvents like ether as claimed in withdrawn claim 14, which is indeed taught by Rayner et al. (see, para 58), and Rayner et al. indeed teach capture and releasing composition for efficient capture and release CO2 gas. Therefore, organics solvents are the important steps for practicing the claimed invention for capturing CO2, and thus, para 58 was along with many other paras are indeed teaching the claimed and claims 1-47 indeed teach claimed invention.
Regarding the arguments that claimed composition composed of three phase, which is also not persuasive because two liquid phase one of which is (a) capturing the at least one acid gas by contacting said at least one gas with a capture composition comprising at least one salt of a carboxylic acid dissolved in water (Water = protic solution) and (b) at least one water-miscible non-aqueous organic solvent, i.e., two liquid phase and one gas phase, which is inherently present in the composition of Rayner et al., wherein the mixture of two solutions creating a phase separation (see, abstract, para 58, see also evidential reference: Barnes et al. C1-c8 carboxylic acid salt solution for the absorption of co2 WO2019/025804A1, publication 02/07/2019, see, the whole document).
Regarding the arguments of regeneration of the organic phase is indeed true, which can be separated and reuse, which is economically beneficial step to capture gaseous CO2, and above all claims do not require that limitation, but just to disregard the disclosure of Rayner et al. reference. Applicants reminded not to state something untrue, baseless in a wrong way to misguide the prosecution.
As discussed previously, Rayner et al. indeed teach a method for the capture of at least one acid gas CO2 in a composition, the release of said gas from said composition, after combustion, and the subsequent regeneration of said composition for re-use, said method comprising performing, the steps of (a) capturing the at least one acid gas by contacting said at least one gas with a capture composition comprising at least one salt of a carboxylic acid and at least one water-miscible non-aqueous organic solvent (creating a phase separation (see, para 58), wherein the capturing composition is loaded in packed column containing mono-ethanolamine (30%w/w) for absorption (see, para 4, 131); (b) releasing said at least one acid gas by adding at least organic solvents like DMSO, to said composition; and (c) regenerating the capture composition by partial or complete removal of said added protic solvent or agent from said composition, wherein said at least one protic solvent or agent is selected from water or an alcoholic solvent, wherein said alcoholic solvent is selected from methanol, ethanol, glycerol, ethylene glycol, trifluoroethanol or dihydroxy-methane, sugars, oligosaccharides and amino acids, wherein said at least one protic solvent or agent is added in an amount of from 5-50% v/v, wherein said composition comprising at least one salt of a carboxylic acid and at least one water-miscible non-aqueous solvent comprises water or another protic solvent or agent, wherein said water or another protic solvent or agent is present at a level of from 1-30% v/v relative to the total solvent volume, wherein at least ne salt of a carboxylic acid is a salt of an alkali metal, wherein said carboxylic acid is a an aliphatic carboxylic acid, wherein said aliphatic carboxylic acid is selected from straight chained, branched or cyclic carboxylic acids which may be substituted or unsubstituted, wherein said at least one salt of an aliphatic carboxylic acid is selected from salts of C1-2o aliphatic carboxylic acids including acetic acid, propionic acid, or butyric acid in the form of bicarbonate salt, bicarbonate composed of C, H and O, and meets claim limitation of claim 4 (see, para 15, 47, 57), wherein said at least one water- miscible non-aqueous solvent comprises at least one polar aprotic solvent or organic solvents, wherein said solvent is dimethyl-sulphoxide (DMSO), or ether, wherein said at least one salt of a carboxylic acid is initially present in said composition at a level of between 1 M and 14M, wherein said at least one acid gas comprises carbon dioxide gas, wherein said composition comprises a solution, a slurry, a dispersion or a suspension, wherein said at least one acid gas is contacted with the composition at a temperature in the range of from 10° to 50°C, the acid gas is contacted with the composition at pressures in the range of from 1 to 150 bar, wherein said release of said at least one acid gas occurs at temperatures in the range of from 10° to 80°C, wherein partial or complete removal of said at least one protic solvent or agent from the composition is achieved by means of adsorption into hydrophilic or hydrophilic materials, and post combustion capture of CO2 gas (see, Title, abstract, para 4, 7, 12, 15, 21, 23, 25-29, 31, 47, 57, 72, 89, 92, 105, 118, 128, 131, 135, 145, Fig. 1, claims 1-47). Claim 4 is included in this rejection because carbon dioxide gas mainly composed of Carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, and salt (sodium, magnesium or ammonium of carbonate when in water, HCO3- or salt thereof is in fact composed of Carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, which is indeed taught by Rayner et al. Claim 15 is included in this rejection because Rayner et al. teach ratio of the two liquids, which are 1:1, 1:3, and 1:5, which is within the scope of the claimed limitation (see, para 145). Claim 16 is included in this rejection because the increased physical solubility of the CO2 is the inherent property of the second liquid phase than first liquid phase. Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing applicants' products (first and second liquid) recited by the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention as a whole before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made by combining the teachings of Rayner et al. with a common knowledge of a skilled artisan in the same field for using separate solution instead of a single solution for capturing CO2 gas from air under the provision of obvious to try of KSR Ruling acid as taught by Rayner et al. to arrive the claimed invention. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to use two separate solution of capturing CO2 gas and stripping in order to produce more captured CO2 gas which is commercially, industrially and financially beneficial. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Rayner et al. could successfully produce CO2 gas from air. Thus, the above references render the claims prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-8, 15 -17 and 18 stand/are rejected.
Applicant's amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection (112(b)) 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IQBAL H CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8137. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, at 9:00-5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Manjunath N. Rao, can be reached on 571-272-0939. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Iqbal H. Chowdhury, Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1656 (Recombinant Enzymes and Protein Crystallography)
US Patent and Trademark Office
Ph. (571)-272-8137 and Fax (571)-273-8137
/IQBAL H CHOWDHURY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights