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 18/021229 response filed 02/04/2026.
Claims 1-2 & 4-6 are pending and have been fully considered.
Claim 3 is cancelled.
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 ofmatter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to theconditions and requirements of this title.
The claimed invention of Claims 1-2 & 6 are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The invention of instant claims for independent claim 1 is drawn towards a detection method for diagnosing. However, as instantly considered as a whole the claim is drawn towards the judicial exception which is diagnosing based on the natural correlation of the amount of the claimed lipids, which indicates acting or non-acting of nervonic acid. This is a natural correlation which is a law of nature judicial exception.
The invention of instant claims for independent claim 6 is drawn towards a method of treating, however as there is no positive step of treatment, it is read the same way at the method of diagnosing in Claim 1.
Through 101, inquiry:
Inquiry: Are the claims directed to a statutory category of invention?
Yes, independent Claims 1 & 6 are drawn towards a statutory category (a method).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Do the claims involve a Judicial Exception?
Yes, independent Claims 1 & 6 are drawn towards or read as diagnostic claims, which involve the natural correlation of the claimed lipids with the action or inaction of nervonic acid in diseased patients (in Claim 6, is a patient with cognitive impairment with demyelinating disease). This is a law of nature judicial exception.
Claim 6 also seems to sort of require a comparison, which if so, would be considered a mental process which is another judicial exception itself.
Claim 6 also includes guidelines for determining if the treatment was effective or not based on a mental comparison. This is an abstract idea judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Has the natural correlation or abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
In Claims 1 & 6, there is no integration of the claimed judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Both claims 1 & 6 contain claim detection/detecting, however it is not claimed how this is done. They specify that the detection is ultra-high performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. As in Claim 1, this detection is used to gather data to perform the judicial exceptions. At the level of generality claimed, this detecting is insignificant extra-solution activity as it is just done to gather data to perform the claimed judicial exceptions. See MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Further Claims 1 & 6 specify, “wherein administering the subject a dose of 0.03 g/kg/d of nervonic acid.” With respect to this--- due partially to the lack of clarity with respect to this limitation, and also due to other reasons, this is not found to be particular or specific treatment. As claimed, it is not clear if this is a positive claim step or if this is just the does which occurs outside of the claimed measurement of the natural correlation. Further, as claimed this exact treatment would always occur and it does not seem to depend on the natural correlation or what is found with respect to it, so it does not tie to it and therefore, there is no practical application.
See MPEP 2106.04 (d)(2) with respect to particular treatment.
Step 2B: Do the claims recite any elements which are significantly more than the natural correlation or abstract idea?
In addition to the claimed judicial exceptions, the additional steps are required for Claims 1 & 6:
Both claims 1 & 6 contain claim detection/detecting, however it is not claimed how this is done. They specify that the detection is ultra-high performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. At the level of generality claimed, this detecting the claimed lipids are well understood, routine and conventional (WURC) in the art and therefore is not enough to add significantly more. The claimed detecting is a standard laboratory technique and is not sufficient to show an improvement in technology or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) & (a).
Further Claims 1 & 6 specify, “wherein administering the subject a dose of 0.03 g/kg/d of nervonic acid.” With respect to this--- due partially to the lack of clarity with respect to this limitation, and also due to other reasons, this is not found to be particular or specific treatment. As claimed, it is not clear if this is a positive claim step or if this is just the does which occurs outside of the claimed measurement of the natural correlation. Further, as claimed this exact treatment would always occur and it does not seem to depend on the natural correlation or what is found with respect to it, so it does not tie to it. Further—nervonic acid can be/is ingested through a person’s regular diet in small amounts (such as through eating salmon) and therefore the claimed treatment even if it is intended to be limiting is well understood routine and conventional (WURC) and therefore does not add significantly more.
The dependent claims are reviewed for additional limitations dependent on the independent claim above.
Claim 2 adds guidelines for determining if the non- positively claimed treatment is successful or not. This is a claiming of the judicial exception itself and the guidelines hint at comparison which is a mental process/abstract idea. Therefore, this does not add practical application at step 2A/2. Also- at the level of generality claimed, this technique is WURC so does not add significantly more at step 2B.
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 1-2 & 4-6 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 Claim 1, the examiner notes that there are errors in the claim that might possibly be related to translation errors. For claim 1, it is unclear if administering the subject a dose of nervonic acid is a positive claim step or not, the way it is claimed. “wherein administering.” Further--- if nervonic acid is administered, it is not clear when it is administered, and if the administration is the same as the claimed “intaking”.
Further, it is not clear if the serum samples are “isolated,” within the boundary of the claims or not, from the way it is instantly claimed. Further claim 1 is drawn towards “diagnosing,” in the preamble, however not diagnosis results in the end of the claim(though applicant should consider potential other issues with respect to this as well). Even further, in the preamble of Claim 1, “using an ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry,” the “an,” is not proper English grammar when used this way.
With respect to Claim 2, “products,” in lines 3-5 fail to have proper antecedent basis as there is no “the,” in front of them and this term was used priorly in the claims. Correction is required.
With respect to Claim 4, “ultra-high performance liquid chromatography”, was mentioned priorly in the claims, however this fails to have proper antecedent basis as “the,” is not used before it.” Further- applicant claims two “the cone voltages,” so it is unclear which they mean, if any to be limiting as it is unclear since applicant claims both that a cone voltage is both 1.5 kV and also 30V. Does applicant intend for their to be two separate cone voltages?
Claim 5 is a kit claim and requires a “liquid A,” and a “liquid B,” and also both contain different volume ratios claimed. With respect to the volume ratios, since so many elements are claimed, it is unclear if these ratios are with respect to solvent/solute or if they are with respect to other elements. Further—it is unclear if applicant means the “solvent,” and “solvent,” to indicate that the compounds are mixed, or if they are separated in the kit. Further, the term “standard,” is relative and not defined by the claim. What one person considers, “standard,” another might not, so this is unclear in the claims. Correction is required to clear up.
Claim 6 is drawn towards treating, but there is no positively claimed step of treating as the “wherein administering,” is unclear in the claim 6, the same way as it is unclear for Claim 1, above. This is confusing and unclear. Correction is required.
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 1-2 & 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by SCHATZ in US 20180238914 in view of TERLUK in Nervonic Acid Attenuates Accumulation of Very Long-Chain Fatty Acids and is a Potential Therapy for Adrenoleukodystrophy further in view of SARAFIAN in Objective Set of Criteria for Optimization of Sample Preparation Procedures for Ultra-High Throughput Untargeted Blood Plasma Lipid Profiling by Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography−Mass Spectrometry.
With respect to Claim 1, SCHATZ teaches of a method for diagnosing a cardiac disease in a subject based on determining the amounts of at least three lipid metabolite biomarkers and at least one further cardiac biomarker (abstract).
SCHATZ teaches that the lipid biomarkers that are detected are Sphingomyelin(d17:1/24:1) (paragraph 0130), and detecting Ceramide(d18:1/24:1) (paragraph 0051) and of detecting them in serum samples (paragraph 0057).
SCHATZ further teaches of using these biomarkers to determine if the subject is in need to therapy or treatment (paragraph 0596-0611), and further of assessing if the treatment is effective or not (paragraph 0657).
SCHATZ does not teach of diagnosing acting of, or using nervonic acid.
TERLUK is used to remedy this. TERLUK teaches of a method of detecting Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) that is characterized by accumulation of very long-chain fatty acids (VLCFA), specifically hexacosanoic acid (C26:0). This can trigger other pathological processes such as mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and inflammation, which if involves the brain tissues can result in a lethal form of the disease called childhood cerebral ALD (abstract). TERLUK further teaches that the disorder involves cognitive deficits and demyelinating disease (Page 1014, column 1, first paragraph 1).
TERLUK even further teaches of using nervonic acid to treat these conditions and that nervonic acid can protect ALD fibroblasts from oxidative insults, presumably by increasing intracellular ATP production (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use nervonic acid as is done in TERLUK to treat in the method of SCHATZ since nervonic acid is known to successfully alter biochemistry and have potential therapeutic affect for individuals with ALD (in which patients have demyelination and cognitive decline) and therefore in improve patient’s internal biochemistries functioning (TERLUK, abstract).
TERLUK teaches of using nervonic acid in 5, 20, and 50uM concentrations and of treating cells with this and further of increasing the concentration of nervonic acid over days (Page 1008, column 2, paragraphs 2-3 & Figure 1-4). TERLUK further teaches of administering multiple days and doses of treatments (Page 1012, column 1, last paragraph). TERLUK further teaches of administering nervonic acid at a dose of approximately 23 mg/kg (which reads on .023 g/kg/d) for 30 days and also 6g/kg/d--- since TERLUK teaches that this is “approximately,” the does this makes the instantly claimed .03 g/kg dose obvious to adjust and to optimize through routine optimization (Page 1015, column 2, paragraph 2). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to diagnose the acting of, or using nervonic acid to treat as is done in TERLUK in the method of SCHATZ due to the advantage it has shown as being a safe and none toxic treatment and due to the advantage it has for improving energy metabolism (Page 1015, column 2, paragraph 1).
SCHATZ and TERLUK teach of the invention as shown above, including the use of mass spectrometry liquid chromatography as shown for Claim 1. They do not teach of the use of ultra-high performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (UHPLC).
SARAFIAN is used to remedy this and teaches of methods of profiling lipids using UHLPC mass spectrometry (abstract and title).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use UHPLC mass spec as is done in SARAFIAN in the methods of SCHATZ and TERLUK due to the advantage it offers with respect to shorter acquisition times for similar resolution to HPLC (Page 5766, column 1, paragraph 1).
With respect to Claim 2, SCHATZ teaches of the above, but does not teach of detecting before and after treatment with nervonic acid.
TERLUK is used to remedy this. TERLUK teaches of monitoring over 5 days and of treatment each of the 5 days with nervonic acid to determine effectiveness (Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to detect before and after treating with nervonic acid as is done in TERLUK in the method of SCHATZ due to the advantage this offers for monitoring cell viability (Page 1008, column 2, second to last paragraph).
SCHATZ and TERLUK do not teach of the claimed 1.2 times and 1.3 times levels indicating success, they make this obvious since they show increase in these compounds being better diagnostically, and the numbers themselves are result effective variables so would be obvious to optimize through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to Claim 4, see Claim 3 rejection. SCHATZ and TERLUK further do not teach of the claimed reaction conditions and parameters.
SARAFIAN is used to remedy this and specifically teaches of using ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography. Chromatographic analysis was performed using an Acquity UPLC system (Waters Ltd., Elstree, U.K.). Precipitated and extracted samples (organic phase) were injected onto a C18 CSH column (100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.7 μm; Waters) at 55 °C. Flow rate was 400 μL/min. The mobile phase A consists of CAN (acetonitrile)/H2O(water) (60:40, v:v) mixed with 10 mM ammonium formate and 0.1% formic acid and mobile phase B IPA(isopropal alcohol which is the same thing as isopropanol)/ACN (acetonitrile)(90:10, v:v) mixed with 10 mM ammonium formate and 0.1% formic acid. The injection volume was 5 μL (Page 5767, column 2, paragraph 4).
SARAFIAN further teaches of using MS in positive ion-mode, and that the MS parameters were as follows: capillary voltage was set at 2.5 kV, cone voltage at 30 V, source temperature at 120 °C, desolvation temperature at 400 °C, desolvation gas flow at 800 L/h, and cone gas flow at 20 L/h. Acquisition was performed from m/z 100 to 1500. In negative ion mode, MS parameters were as follows: capillary voltage was set at 2.5 kV, cone voltage at 25 V, source temperature at 120 °C, desolvation temperature at 500 °C, desolvation gas flow at 800 L/h, cone gas flow at 25 L/h. Acquisition was performed from m/z 100 to 1500 (Page 5767, column 2, paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the UHPLC mass spec parameters as is done in SARAFIAN in the methods of SCHATZ and TERLUK due to the advantage it offers with respect to shorter acquisition times for similar resolution to HPLC (Page 5766, column 1, paragraph 1).
With respect to Claim 5, SCHATZ teaches of what is shown above for Claim 1, including the claimed lipids and further teaches of using a kit for the invention (paragraph 0595, 0652-0653, 0655).
SCHATZ and TERLUK further do not teach of UHLPC and MS reagents components.
SARAFIAN is used to remedy this and specifically teaches of using ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography. Chromatographic analysis was performed using an Acquity UPLC system (Waters Ltd., Elstree, U.K.). Precipitated and extracted samples (organic phase) were injected onto a C18 CSH column (100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.7 μm; Waters) at 55 °C. Flow rate was 400 μL/min. The mobile phase A consists of CAN (acetonitrile)/H2O(water) (60:40, v:v) mixed with 10 mM ammonium formate and 0.1% formic acid and mobile phase B IPA(isopropal alcohol which is the same thing as isopropanol)/ACN (acetonitrile)(90:10, v:v) mixed with 10 mM ammonium formate and 0.1% formic acid. The injection volume was 5 μL (Page 5767, column 2, paragraph 4).
SARAFIAN further teaches of using MS in positive ion-mode, and that the MS parameters were as follows: capillary voltage was set at 2.5 kV, cone voltage at 30 V, source temperature at 120 °C, desolvation temperature at 400 °C, desolvation gas flow at 800 L/h, and cone gas flow at 20 L/h. Acquisition was performed from m/z 100 to 1500. In negative ion mode, MS parameters were as follows: capillary voltage was set at 2.5 kV, cone voltage at 25 V, source temperature at 120 °C, desolvation temperature at 500 °C, desolvation gas flow at 800 L/h, cone gas flow at 25 L/h. Acquisition was performed from m/z 100 to 1500 (Page 5767, column 2, paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the UHPLC mass spec reagents and include them in the claimed kit as is done in SARAFIAN in the methods of SCHATZ and TERLUK due to the advantage the UHLPC- MS offers with respect to shorter acquisition times for similar resolution to HPLC and dur to the advantage putting everything in a kit offers for ease of use (Page 5766, column 1, paragraph 1).
With respect to Claim 6, SCHATZ teaches of a method for diagnosing a cardiac disease in a subject based on determining the amounts of at least three lipid metabolite biomarkers and at least one further cardiac biomarker (abstract).
SCHATZ further teaches that the lipid biomarkers that are detected are Sphingomyelin(d17:1/24:1) (paragraph 0130), and detecting Ceramide(d18:1/24:1) (paragraph 0051) and of detecting them in serum samples (paragraph 0057).
SCHATZ further teaches of using these biomarkers to determine if the subject is in need to therapy or treatment (paragraph 0596-0611), and further of assessing if the treatment is effective or not (paragraph 0657).
SCHATZ does not teach of diagnosing or using nervonic acid or of detecting before and after treatment with nervonic acid.
TERLUK is used to remedy this. TERLUK is used to remedy this. TERLUK teaches of a method of detecting Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) that is characterized by accumulation of very long-chain fatty acids (VLCFA), specifcally hexacosanoic acid (C26:0). This can trigger other pathological processes such as mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and inflammation, which if involves the brain tissues can result in a lethal form of the disease called childhood cerebral ALD (abstract). TERLUK further teaches that the disorder involves cognitive deficits and demyelinating disease (Page 1014, column 1, first paragraph 1).
TERLUK even further teaches of using nervonic acid to treat these conditions and that nervonic acid can protect ALD fibroblasts from oxidative insults, presumably by increasing intracellular ATP production (abstract)
TERLUK teaches of monitoring over 5 days and of treatment each of the 5 days with nervonic acid to determine effectiveness (Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to detect before and after treating with nervonic acid as is done in TERLUK in the method of SCHATZ due to the advantage this offers for monitoring cell viability (Page 1008, column 2, second to last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use nervonic acid as is done in TERLUK to treat in the method of SCHATZ since nervonic acid is known to successfully alter biochemistry and have potential therapeutic for individuals with ALD (in which patients have demyelination and cognitive decline) and therefore in improve patient’s internal biochemistry functioning’s (TERLUK, abstract).
SCHATZ and TERLUK do not teach of the claimed 1.2 times and 1.3 times levels and B1/B2 values and ratios indicating effectiveness or ineffectiveness, but they make this obvious since they show increase in these compounds being better diagnostically, and the numbers themselves are result effective variables so would be obvious to optimize through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 101 rejection, it is maintained as shown above for all claims aside from instant Claim 4, which has been overcome by the instant amendments. The limitations in Claim 4, at least as the rest of the claims are currently worded, in addition with the UHPLCMS claimed in Claim 1, show that what is instantly being performed is particular and specific detection. It is possible that this will change though, depending on what other amendments are made to the claims and it is noted that even though Claim 4 could overcome the 101 rejection--- it would also need to overcome both the 112 and 103 rejections.
Applicant argues that the use of the claimed ultra high performance liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry itself, should allow the claims to overcome the instant 101 rejection as it is particular detection. The examiner disagrees, as this is a technique is still only used to gather data, so does nothing to practically apply at Step 2A, 2 and further is very routinely used in the art, so does not add significantly more.
Applicant also argues that the newly claimed “wherein administering the subject a dose of 0.03 g/kg/d of nervonic acid,” is particular treatment and should overcome the 101 rejection. The examiner again disagrees. The reasons for this are shown in the above 101 rejection, for this newly amended subject matter. The examiner further notes though—that there are clarity issues with this aspect of the claim which applicant should also pay attention, and in which fixing might help these matters.
Further the examiner notes that applicant made the argument—“the Office is now supposed to find diagnostic methods patent eligible when they are directed to a method of treating, as opposed to being directed to an alleged naturally occurring correlation.” With respect to this, the examiner submits that applicant is gravely oversimplifying this matter. One cannot just add that the method is for treating/treatment to the claims or preamble, while leaving everything else in the claims the same and expect it to be determined “eligible.” This is especially the case when the claim body method steps do not include a clear treatment step as is instantly the case, and further wherein though directed to treating, the claims do not result in a treatment….meaning, are the claims really drawn towards treating or not?
With respect to the instant claims--- they do have potential for overcoming the 101 rejections. Again, Claim 4 was indicated eligible as instantly claimed. Possibly if the claimed nervonic acid in a dose of .03g/kg/d is claimed as a positive method step as a result of the judicial exception this could help as well. However—there are so many ways these claims could possibly amended and the examiner cannot advise on a direction applicant should go.
With respect to the 112 issues, some of them were overcome in amendments dated 02/04/2026, however new issues were added as shown above in the 112 rejection due to these amendments.
With respect to the 103 rejection, applicant argues that none of the prior art references teaches of the claimed dosing of .03 g/kg/d of nervonic acid. The examiner disagrees and TERLUK teaches of dosing with “approximately,” .023 g/kg/d , as shown in the above rejection. This makes the instant dosing obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further- the examiner notes that this subject matter was newly amended 02/04/2026. Therefore, the examiner not pointing out subject matter that was not in the claims in the prior action which was before the 02/04/2026 date is not improper as alleged by applicant, since this subject matter was not in the claims at the time of the last examination.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is in fact motivation to combine the references, as shown in the above rejection.
Applicant argues that since the references are drawn towards different purposes, that there is no reason for their combination. Again, the examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the pieces of from art are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the references teach of detecting the same compounds (lipids) and using the same treatment (nervonic acid) and therefore, they are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem the instant inventor is trying to solve.
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