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
The amended claims filed on July 24, 2026, have been acknowledged. Claims 1-82, 84, and 90 were cancelled. Claims 83 and 85-89 were amended. Claim 102 is new. Claims 83, 85-89, and 91-102 are pending and examined on the merits.
Applicant’s response has been considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous office action mailed April 24, 2026, are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either newly applied or are reiterated and are the only rejections and/or objections presently applied to the instant application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/110,107, filed November 5, 2020, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. This provisional application does not provide information related to a p00exe014 bacteriophage. However, Application No. 63/184,647, filed on May 5, 2021, did provide the above information. Therefore, claims 83, 85-89, and 91-102 receive domestic benefit from US provisional application 63/184,647, filed on May 5, 2021.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The prior rejection of claims 83-89 and 91-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s remarks filed on July 24, 2026, attesting to the fact that the instant invention has been deposited under the terms of the Budapest Treaty and will be irrevocably and without restriction released to the public upon issuance of a patent (page 7, paragraphs 2-3 of Remarks filed on July 24, 2026).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 83, 85-89, and 91-102 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new rejection that is substantially similar to a previous rejection of record made in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Any aspect of Applicant’s traversal that is relevant to the new rejection of record is addressed below.
Claims 83, 85-89, and 102 are drawn to a genus of bacteriophage. The rejected claims thus comprise a genus of bacteriophage that encompass a first bacteriophage that is at least 95% identical to p00exe014 and a second to sixth bacteriophage that is at least 90% identical (claims 83 and 85-89) or 95% identical (claim 102) to p004ke009, p00c0e030, p5516, p00jc, or p00ke . The applicable standard for the written description requirement can be found in MPEP 2163; University of California v. Eli Lilly, 43 USPQ2d 1398 at 1407; PTO Written Description Guidelines; Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 63 USPQ2d 1609; Vas- Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111; and University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 69 USPQ2d 1886 (CAFC 2004). To provide adequate written description and evidence of possession of a claimed genus, the specification must provide sufficient distinguishing identifying characteristics of the genus. The factors to be considered include disclosure of complete or partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics, structure/function correlation, methods of making the claimed product, or any combination thereof.
In this case, the specification teaches multiple engineered bacteriophage comprising a nucleic acid sequence comprising (a) a CRISPR array and (b) a Cas (including p00exe014, p004ke009, p00c0e030) and multiple wild type bacteriophages without the CRISPR array and Cas (including p5516, p00jc, and p00ke). No description is provided of the specific structure of the bacteriophage. No sequences are provided for any of the claimed bacteriophages. The Applicant does provide Figure 2 which shows that there is a region deleted in the phage genome for insertion of the CRISPR array and Cas genes. However, the phage genome is identified as being over 160,000 base pairs and the region of deletion and insertion is generally defined as occurring between base pairs ~20,000-~40,000. Furthermore, at least 95% sequence identity means that up to 5% of the genome can vary and at least 90% sequence identity means that up to 10% of the genome can vary. Thus, approximately 8,000 (for 95%) and 16,000 (for 90%) nucleotides can vary in a phage genome of 160,000 nucleotides. The specification does not indicate which portions of the bacteriophage are essential to retain a functional bacteriophage or which portions of the unknown bacteriophage genome can be modified or altered and still retain the ability to be a functional bacteriophage.
To provide adequate written description and evidence of possession of a claimed genus, the specification must provide sufficient distinguishing identifying characteristics of the genus. The factors to be considered include disclosure of a complete or partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics, structure/function correlation, and any combination thereof.
The prior art does not appear to offset the deficiencies of the instant specification in that it does not describe a set of bacteriophages that are the specific strains as outlined in the specification as p00exe014, p004ke009, p00c0e030, p5516, p00jc, or p00ke.
Furthermore, the Statistical Analysis Plan (December 17, 2020) from Locus Biosciences (the Applicant) identifies that they generated crPhages internally named as p0031-8, p00ex-2, p004k-5, which are derived from wild-type myroviridae phages that target E. coli (page 8, paragraph 8). Therefore, as best as one can tell, the strain names identified in Table 1 of the specification refer to internal strain names at Locus Biosciences that are not commonly used strain names within the prior art.
It is known in the art that bacteriophage genomes themselves are extremely diverse. Hatfull et al (Curr Opin Virol. 2011 October 1; 1(4): 298–303) teaches that the current state of bacteriophage genomes shows a vast genetic diversity due to phages being highly active in evolutionary changes for billions of years creating horizontal genetic exchange (Page 1, Abstract). This has created what Hatfull explains as a result in the genomes of phages becoming pervasively mosaic (Page 1, Abstract). Hatfull teaches, “Nucleotide sequence comparison of bacteriophage genomes reveals them to be enormously diverse. For example, unless any given phage genome has a known close relative that infects the same host, or there is a closely-related prophage, it is unusual to find extensive nucleotide sequence similarity to other database entries.” (Page 3, first full paragraph). Thus, demonstrating that even by following the same experimentation that was completed for the purpose of creating the specific bacteriophages listed in the specification, it is highly unpredictable whether the same bacteriophage genomes would be obtained as claimed in the invention.
Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the claimed genus. A definition by function alone does not suffice to sufficiently describe a coding sequence because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is. EliLily, 119 F.3 at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
The court clearly states in Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed." (See page 1117.) The specification does not clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventors invented what is claimed. As discussed above, the skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the encompassed genus of bacteriophages that have "at least about 95% sequence identity” to the genome of p00exe014 and at least 80% sequence identity to p004ke009, p00c0e030, p5516, p00jc, or p00ke. Given that the specification does not describe the sequence of any of the claimed bacteriophages, the full breadth of the claims does not meet the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Therefore, the skilled artisan would have reasonably concluded applicants were not in possession of the claimed invention for claims 83, 85-89, and 91-102.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed July 24, 2026, are acknowledged.
Applicant argues that they have deposited their bacteriophages with ATCC and each one is identified by their Patent Deposit Number in Table 1 of the specification as filed. The deposits make the deposited biological material available to the public upon issuance of a patent in accordance with the deposit requirements. Applicant has provided deposited representative bacteriophages and structural characteristics sufficient to demonstrate possession of the claimed bacteriophages.
The deposits provide representative species of the claimed bacteriophages, the structural characteristics of which are described in the specification as filed, including their genus, genomic features, engineered modifications, methods of construction, and functional characteristics. For instance, Example 1 describes the claimed bacteriophages p00exe014, p004ke009, and p00c0e030, as engineered from wild-type strains p00ex, p004k, and p00c0, respectively, which is shown in Table 1. Claimed phages p5516, p00jc, and p00ke, which are wild-type, are also described in Table 1.
The deposited bacteriophages provide representative species, while the specification describes structural and functional characteristics common to the claimed variants, including host specificity, lytic activity, genomic engineering approaches, and maintenance of viability. The claimed bacteriophages are described in the specification in a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which portions of the bacteriophage genome are essential, and which portions can be modified or altered and still retain the ability to be a functional bacteriophage. Exemplary genomic modification sites are described and can occur for instance, at any site that does not disrupt bacteriophage function, e.g., lytic activity and/or viability. For example, insertion of a nucleic acid can occur at a transcription terminator site at the end of an operon of interest, as described at p. 51. The claimed phages can also have one or more non-essential genes removed or replaced. It is understood that genomic modifications do not disrupt lytic activity or viability of the phage. Thus, non-essential genes would be understood from the specification to be genes that are non-essential for survival and/or induction and/or maintenance of the lytic cycle, as described at p. 28. For instance, one or more lysogenic genes, e.g., genes that contribute to establishing or maintaining the lysogenic life cycle, may be removed, replaced, and/or inactivated. Genes that contribute to the lysogenic cycle are understood by those skilled in the art, and can include, for instance, activators of the lysogenic cycle, or promoters of a lysogenic gene or activator, as described at least at p. 25 of the specification (page 8, paragraph 6-page 12, paragraph 1).
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, the bacteriophages are deposited under the Budapest Treaty and only publicly available after a patent is issued and the instant specification does not provide sequences for any of the claimed bacteriophages. Therefore, there is no way to assess whether the different bacteriophages represent a sufficient number of species without knowing the exact structure and/or sequence of the claimed bacteriophages.
As identified in the rejection above, the phage genome is identified as being over 160,000 base pairs and the region of deletion and insertion is generally defined as occurring between base pairs ~20,000-~40,000. Furthermore, at least 95% sequence identity means that up to 5% of the genome can vary and at least 90% sequence identity means that up to 10% of the genome can vary. Thus, approximately 8,000 (for 95%) and 16,000 (for 90%) nucleotides can vary in a phage genome of 160,000 nucleotides. The specification does not indicate which portions of the bacteriophage are essential to retain a functional bacteriophage or which portions of the unknown bacteriophage genome can be modified or altered and still retain the ability to be a functional bacteriophage. Although Applicant broadly identifies that potential modification sites, they do not provide any examples of specific genes that can be modified while still producing the bacteriophage of interest nor which genes they modified as part of their engineered bacteriophages.
Furthermore, although Applicant argues that they have generated sufficient representative species, it is noted that multiple bacteriophages come from different species and without the specific sequences of each bacteriophage, it is not clear what changes are made between the different bacteriophages outside of the ones identified in Table 1.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are considered unpersuasive.
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 83, 85-89, and 91-102 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. This is a new rejection that is substantially similar to a previous rejection of record made in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Any aspect of Applicant’s traversal that is relevant to the new rejection of record is addressed below.
The omitted elements are:
It is apparent that the sequences encoding the bacteriophages referenced as p00exe014, p004ke009, p00c0e030, p5516, p00jc, or p00ke is required to practice the claimed invention. As such the sequences must be known and readily available or obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification, or otherwise known and readily available to the public.
The sequences associated with each of the claimed bacteriophages are not provided in the instant application nor does it appear that the sequences can be found in the prior art. With respect to the bacteriophages p00exe014, p004ke009, p00c0e030, p5516, p00jc, or p00ke, the specification teaches that p00exe014, p004ke009 and p00c0e030 are engineered bacteriophages based on tequatrovirus, tequatrovirus, and mosigvirus, respectively, while p5516 and p00ke are WT bacteriophages based on vectrevirus and unique myoviridae (Table 1). Furthermore, the Statistical Analysis Plan (December 17, 2020) from Locus Biosciences (the Applicant) identifies that they generated crPhages internally named as p0031-8, p00ex-2, p004k-5, which are derived from wild-type myroviridae phages that target E. coli (page 8, paragraph 8). Therefore, as best as one can tell, the strain names identified in Table 1 of the specification refer to internal strain names at Locus Biosciences that are not commonly used strain names within the prior art. Therefore, without providing the sequences associated with each of the claimed bacteriophages, it is not clear how one could determine 95% or 90% sequence similarity to the relevant bacteriophages.
Although the bacteriophage names are presented in Table 1, it is not clear that the starting materials are known and readily available to the public such that one could make constructs with the same materials as the claimed bacteriophages. Searching for each of these strain names failed to show a known correlate in the prior art. Further, the specification does not disclose a specific process of modification in such detail that it could be recreated even if the starting materials were available nor are the sequences for each of the relevant engineered and WT bacteriophages identified in the instant application.
Furthermore, although Applicant has identified that the bacteriophages are deposited under the Budapest Treaty and publicly available after a patent is issued, there is no way to identify and examine the sequences of the claimed bacteriophages at present.
It is known in the art that bacteriophage genomes themselves are extremely diverse. Hatfull et al (Curr Opin Virol. 2011 October 1; 1(4): 298–303) teaches that the current state of bacteriophage genomes shows a vast genetic diversity due to phages being highly active in evolutionary changes for billions of years creating horizontal genetic exchange (Page 1, Abstract). This has created what Hatfull explains as a result in the genomes of phages becoming pervasively mosaic (Page 1, Abstract). Hatfull teaches, “Nucleotide sequence comparison of bacteriophage genomes reveals them to be enormously diverse. For example, unless any given phage genome has a known close relative that infects the same host, or there is a closely-related prophage, it is unusual to find extensive nucleotide sequence similarity to other database entries.” (Page 3, first full paragraph). Thus, demonstrating that even by following the same experimentation that was completed for the purpose of creating the specific bacteriophages listed in the specification, it is highly unpredictable whether the same bacteriophage genomes would be obtained as claimed in the invention.
Furthermore, the specification teaches multiple engineered bacteriophage comprising a nucleic acid sequence comprising (a) a CRISPR array and (b) a Cas (including p00exe014, p004ke009, and p00c0e030) and multiple wild type bacteriophages without the CRISPR array and Cas (including p5516, p00jc, and p00ke). No description is provided of the specific structure of the bacteriophage. No sequences are provided for any of the claimed bacteriophages. The Applicant does provide Figure 2 which shows that there is a region deleted in the phage genome for insertion of the CRISPR array and Cas genes. However, the phage genome is identified as being over 160,000 base pairs and the region of deletion and insertion is generally defined as occurring between base pairs ~20,000-~40,000. Furthermore, at least 95% sequence identity means that up to 5% of the genome can vary and at least 80% sequence identity means that up to 10% of the genome can vary and. Thus, approximately 8,000 (for 95%) and 16,000 (for 90%) nucleotides can vary in a phage genome of 160,000 nucleotides. The specification does not indicate which portions of the bacteriophage are essential to retain a functional bacteriophage or which portions of the unknown bacteriophage genome can be modified or altered and still retain the ability to be a functional bacteriophage.
Without any knowledge about the sequences of each of the claimed bacteriophages with a ~160,000 nucleotide genome, it is not possible to assess whether the prior art teaches any compositions with a first bacteriophage having 95% sequence identity to p00exe014 and a second to sixth bacteriophage having 90% sequence identity to p004ke009, p00c0e030, p5516, p00jc, or p00ke.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments filed July 24, 2026, are acknowledged.
Applicant argues that they have deposited their bacteriophages with ATCC and each one is identified by their Patent Deposit Number in Table 1 of the specification as filed. Applicant cites to Enzo Biochem, Inc v GenProbe Inc. which held that reference to a biological deposit includes a description of the genetic material of the deposited material. Enzo 323 F.3d 956, 965-66 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc in part). Accordingly, because the deposited bacteriophages are specifically identified and available through the referenced deposits, a person of ordinary skill can determine the sequence of the deposited phage and evaluate sequence identity relative thereto (page 13, paragraph 2).
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, the cited case (Enzo Biochem, Inc v GenProbe Inc.) was based on written description issues associated with a biological deposit, and not a 112b issue based on omitting essential elements.
Although the Applicant has identified that the bacteriophages are deposited under the Budapest Treaty and will be made publicly available after a patent is issued, there still remains the issue that sequence similarity to an unknown sequence (the ATCC deposits are not available, at present) is not possible. Without any knowledge about the sequences of each of the claimed bacteriophages with a ~160,000 nucleotide genome, it is not possible to assess whether the prior art teaches any compositions with a first bacteriophage having 95% sequence identity to p00exe014 and a second to sixth bacteriophage having 90% sequence identity to p004ke009, p00c0e030, p5516, p00jc, or p00ke. Therefore, there is essential elements missing and the claims are unclear as a result.
Claims 83, 85-89, and 91-102 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. This is a new rejection that is substantially similar to a previous rejection of record made in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Applicant’s traversal has been addressed above.
Claims 83, 85-89, and 102 refer to sequence identity with p00exe014, p004ke009, p00c0e030, p5516, p00jc, or p00ke but does not provide a sequence for any of the claimed bacteriophages. There are no known correlates of these strain names in the prior art for determining the sequences associated with each claimed bacteriophage. It is not possible to assess sequence similarity to an unknown sequence.
It is apparent that the sequences encoding the bacteriophages referenced as p00exe014, p004ke009, p00c0e030, p5516, p00jc, or p00ke is required to practice the claimed invention. As such the sequences must be known and readily available or obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification, or otherwise known and readily available to the public.
The sequences associated with each of the claimed bacteriophages are not provided in the instant application nor does it appear that the sequences can be found in the prior art. With respect to the bacteriophages p00exe014, p004ke009, p00c0e030, p5516, p00jc, or p00ke, the specification teaches that p00exe014, p004ke009 and p00c0e030 are engineered bacteriophages based on tequatrovirus, tequatrovirus, and mosigvirus, respectively, while p5516 and p00ke are WT bacteriophages based on vectrevirus and unique myoviridae (Table 1). Furthermore, the Statistical Analysis Plan (December 17, 2020) from Locus Biosciences (the Applicant) identifies that they generated crPhages internally named as p0031-8, p00ex-2, p004k-5, which are derived from wild-type myroviridae phages that target E. coli (page 8, paragraph 8). Therefore, as best as one can tell, the strain names identified in Table 1 of the specification refer to internal strain names at Locus Biosciences that are not commonly used strain names within the prior art.
Furthermore, although Applicant has identified that the bacteriophages are deposited under the Budapest Treaty and publicly available after a patent is issued, there is no way to identify and examine the sequences of the claimed bacteriophages at present.
Therefore, without providing the sequences associated with each of the claimed bacteriophages, it is not clear how one could determine 95% or 90% sequence similarity to the relevant bacteriophages.
It is known in the art that bacteriophage genomes themselves are extremely diverse. Hatfull et al (Curr Opin Virol. 2011 October 1; 1(4): 298–303) teaches that the current state of bacteriophage genomes shows a vast genetic diversity due to phages being highly active in evolutionary changes for billions of years creating horizontal genetic exchange (Page 1, Abstract). This has created what Hatfull explains as a result in the genomes of phages becoming pervasively mosaic (Page 1, Abstract). Hatfull teaches, “Nucleotide sequence comparison of bacteriophage genomes reveals them to be enormously diverse. For example, unless any given phage genome has a known close relative that infects the same host, or there is a closely-related prophage, it is unusual to find extensive nucleotide sequence similarity to other database entries.” (Page 3, first full paragraph). Thus, demonstrating that even by following the same experimentation that was completed for the purpose of creating the specific bacteriophages listed in the specification, it is highly unpredictable whether the same bacteriophage genomes would be obtained as claimed in the invention.
Furthermore, the specification teaches multiple engineered bacteriophage comprising a nucleic acid sequence comprising (a) a CRISPR array and (b) a Cas (including p00exe014, p004ke009, p00c0e030, and p00jc) and multiple wild type bacteriophages without the CRISPR array and Cas (including p5516 and p00ke). No description is provided of the specific structure of the bacteriophage. No sequences are provided for any of the claimed bacteriophages. The Applicant does provide Figure 2 which shows that there is a region deleted in the phage genome for insertion of the CRISPR array and Cas genes. However, the phage genome is identified as being over 160,000 base pairs and the region of deletion and insertion is generally defined as occurring between base pairs ~20,000-~40,000. Furthermore, at least 95% sequence identity means that up to 5% of the genome can vary and at least 90% sequence identity means that up to 20% of the genome can vary and. Thus, approximately 8,000 (for 95%) and 16,000 (for 90%) nucleotides can vary in a phage genome of 160,000 nucleotides.
Without any knowledge about the sequences of each of the claimed bacteriophages with a ~160,000 nucleotide genome, it is not possible to assess whether the prior art teaches any compositions with a first bacteriophage having 95% sequence identity to p00exe014 and a second to sixth bacteriophage having 90% sequence identity to p004ke009, p00c0e030, p5516, p00jc, or p00ke.
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 KEENAN A BATES whose telephone number is (571)270-0727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Doug Schultz can be reached at (571) 272-0763. 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.
/KEENAN A BATES/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Prosecution Insights