DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendment filed 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 12, and 17 have been amended. Claims 6-7 have been cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 8-17 are pending in the instant application and the subject of this final office action.
All of the amendments and arguments have been reviewed and considered. Any rejections or objections not reiterated herein have been withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims or as discussed in this office action.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Previous Rejection
Status of Prior Rejections/Objections:
The objections to claims 1-2 and the specification are withdrawn in view of the respective amendments.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 1-5 and 8-17 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims and the argument regarding the signal-to-noise ration of claim 1.
The 112(a) written description and enablement rejections 1-3 and 9, and 11-17 are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims and the specification to address essential material.
The prior art rejection(s) under 35 USC 103 directed to claim(s) 1-5 and 8-17 as being unpatentable over Princen in view of Hanna is/are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims reciting at least “chemiluminescent emission”. See new art rejection necessitated by amendment.
New Ground(s) of Rejections
The new ground(s) of rejections were necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d).
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Specific deficiency - This application contains sequence disclosures in accordance with the definitions for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences set forth in 37 CFR 1.821(a)(1) and (a)(2). However, this application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825.
The sequence disclosures are located in para [0010], [0017-18], [0025], [0058-59], and [0068 (each disclosure of the COSMIC 6223 and 6210 sequences) of the specification dated 07/06/2026 and claim 12.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure, as described above in item 1); as well as
An amendment specifically directing entry of the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure into the application in accordance with 1.825(b)(2);
A statement that the "Sequence Listing" includes no new matter in accordance with 1.825(b)(5); and
A statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.825(b)(4).
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) a) or b) above, Applicant must also provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter;
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) b), c), or d) above, Applicant must also provide:
A replacement CRF in accordance with 1.825(b)(6); and
Statement according to item 2) a) or b) above.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 contains nucleotide sequences with greater than 10 nucleotides. They must be accompanied by a SEQ ID NO, i.e., “GGAATT…AGC (SEQ ID NO: 33)” or “SEQ ID NO: 33 (GGAATT…AGC). Alternatively, such SEQ ID NO may be provided instead of the sequence itself.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Princen (US 2014/0248612 A1; published 09/04/2014; as cited in the IDS dated 09/19/2024) in view of Nelson (Nelson NC, et al. Detection of all single-base mismatches in solution by chemiluminescence. Nucleic Acids Res. 1996 Dec 15;24(24):4998-5003) and Nelson – 1995 (Nelson NC, et al., "Detection of Acridinium Esters by Chemiluminescence,' in: Nonisotopic Probing, Blotting and Sequencing, 1995, Chapter 17, Academic Press, Inc., pp. 391-428.).
Regarding claim 1, Prince teaches a method of identifying a mutation of a wild type polynucleotide (entire document, e.g., claims 1-16; para [0159-292], Examples 1-9), comprising:
obtaining a sample comprising a first polynucleotide comprising the wild type polynucleotide and a second polynucleotide comprising the mutation at a mutation site (see, e.g., para [0045]), and wherein the first polynucleotide is present in at least a 100-fold excess over the second polynucleotide (para [0251], wherein a sample must have been obtained in order to include it in the reaction mixture; para [0184]: fold excess; see also para [0111-112]);
performing an amplification reaction on the sample in the presence of a “clamping primer” selected to suppress amplification of the first polynucleotide wherein amplification is performed using a primer pair complementary to both the first and second polynucleotides to generate an amplified first polynucleotide comprising the mutation site, thereby generating an amplified sample comprising amplified first and second polynucleotide (para [0252-253]; [0256]; see also para [0137], [0194], [0198-199], [0213] and [0317-318]; see also instant para [0010]);
contacting the amplified sample with a probe “sequence” comprising a polynucleotide complementary to at least a portion of the amplified first polynucleotide and the amplified second polynucleotide (para [0254]; see [0228-236], i.e., “locus-specific detector probes” and Fig. 27A, which illustrates a probe sequence complementary to a portion of both polynucleotides, wherein the artisan would understand that the detector probes would likewise share such complementarity to the targets); and
identifying emissions from the probe sequence in a sample (para [0257]; signal-to-noise: e.g., Fig. 1-10 wherein the “emissions” generated by the detector probes exceed the background “noise” by at least a factor of 10).
It is noted the term “clamping primer” lacks a definition in the specification and was not found to be a term of art. Princen teaches that a PNA-DNA duplex binds with greater strength, higher stability and more specificity than a DNA duplex (para [0205]) and that LNA modification increase binding affinity toward the complementary DNA (para [0203]). Such increased affinity/binding may be considered “clamping”. Thus, interpreted broadly, the claim encompasses application of any primer that includes PNA, LNA, or XNA.
Regarding claim 3, Princen teaches that the mass of the first and second polynucleotide may be less than 300 ng (Fig. 32C: 40, 100, and 20 ng reactions).
Princen also teaches detecting ranges of DNA (e.g., Fig. 32C) and the instant specification recites performing the method in amounts exceeding 300 ng (e.g., para [0061], [0064]).
Regarding claim 4-5 and 8, Princen teaches that the mutation may be SNPs (instant claim 4), insertions, or deletion mutations (para [0189]), wherein the insertions and deletions may be single or multiple nucleotide deletions (para [0189]; see also, e.g., para [0327]: “E746-A750 deletion of the EGFR gene”; instant claims 5 and 8).
Regarding claims 9-10, Princen teaches detecting at least a KRAS G12R mutation (Example 2, e.g., para [0299]; Fig. 3; Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 11-12, Princen teaches detecting an EGFR L858R mutation (Example 2, e.g., para [0301]; Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 13-15, Princen teaches that the polynucleotides may be at a ratio of less than about 1/1,000,000 (para [0184]). See also para [0112].
Regarding claim 17, Princen teaches that the allele-specific primer comprises at least one nucleic acid modification (para [0252]), wherein the modification(s) is/are located at the 3’ end [i.e., a clamping primer] and the modification may be PNA or LNA or a combination thereof (para [0258]; see [0194] and Fig. 15 and 16).
Princen teaches that the rare allelic variant can be less than about 2 copies per 1-1000 microliters of a sample or reaction volume (para [0111]).
Princen teaches that the method may be a two-stage amplification protocol (para [0169-181] wherein the first stage employs 1-10 cycles (para [0180]) and the second stage employs 30-50 cycles (para [0181]), wherein the annealing/extension temperature may be lowered during the first stage (para [0182]). Princen teaches that the allele-specific primers of the invention may have a higher Tm than the anneal/extend temperature of the PCR cycling to increase discrimination of allelic variants (para [0191]).
Princen teaches determining cycle numbers for the detection [e.g., second stage amplification] of 10 cells in the sample (e.g., Fig. 38A and 38C: SW116 cell line; see para [0343]).
Princen fails to teach:
a chemiluminescent emission from the probe sequence with a signal to background noise ratio exceeding 10 when one copy of the second polynucleotide is present in the original sample following hybridization of the probe sequence to the amplified second polynucleotide (claim 1); and
adding an oxidizing agent prior to identifying the chemiluminescent emission (claim 2).
Nelson teaches a method for detection of single-base mismatches using oligonucleotide probes labeled with a highly chemiluminescent acridinium ester, wherein said probe is protected from hydrolysis when hybridized to an exactly complementary target relative to the hybridized conformation (Abstract; Fig. 3).
Nelson teaches adding equimolar concentrations of target nucleic acid and measurement of loss of chemiluminescence (Fig. 1; pg. 4999, Measurement of AE hydrolysis rates). Nelson teaches detection of a majority of chemiluminescent signals with a match/mismatch signal to noise ratio of greater than 10 (Tables 1 and 2) and that to be useful as an assay to discriminate matched and unmatched duplexes, the HPA technique should have a matched/mismatched S/N of at least 10 and be reduced to less than 1% of its initial value (pg. 5000, col 2, para 1).
Nelson teaches hybridizing various amounts of mutant target from 0 to 10 fmol, including ~0.5 and ~1 fmol (Fig. 2a) and various amounts of mutant target and a constant amount of wild-type target in excess over the mutant, including 100x (Fig. 2b).
Nelson teaches addition of H2O2 and subsequently measuring chemiluminescence (pg. 4999, Measurement of AE hydrolysis rates; instant claim 2).
Nelson teaches that the method may be used to detect multiple mismatches, insertions, and deletions (pg. 503, col 1, lines 7-8; instant claims 5, 5, 8-12).
Nelson teaches that the assay is applicable to amplified targets (Abstract) from “virtually any amplification procedure” (pg. 5003, lines 9-10) and names amplification refractory mutation system and mutagenically separated PCR (MS-PCR) [which utilize allele-specific primers] to identify known mutations (pg. 4998, col 2, para 1), suggesting that the usefulness of utilizing differences in PCR amplification efficiencies to distinguish mutant and wild-type sequences of such methods may be limited by the increased time and complexity because of the typical downstream analysis of gel electrophoresis (pg. 5003, col 1, para 1).
Nelson teaches that the degree of discrimination (i.e., the magnitude of the S/N ratio) was dependent upon the identity of the bases in the mismatched pair (pg. 5000, col 2, para 2; Tables 1 and 2). Nelson teaches adding linkers to achieve the S/N ratio of at least 10 (pg. 5000, col 2, para 1).
Nelson teaches that this method is rapid and simple to perform, rendering the assay a practical method for detection and identification of known mismatches (pg. 499, col 1, lines 7-9).
Nelson – 1995 teaches that a DNA amplification method using cell lysate was able to detect as little as 4 copies of a target DNA and that the HPA format is at least as sensitive as the 32P-method (pg. 420, para 1).
Nelson – 1995 teaches that background levels of 0.002% have been achieve in a homogenous format (pg. 396, lines 4-5), such as a HPA method (pg. 396, para 1). Nelson – 1995 teaches that the method may readily be utilized on products from amplification procedures (pg. 401, Limitations of the Method, para 2).
Nelson – 1995 teaches that a full amplification reaction volume may be too much for the assay and may need to be diluted and further teaches troubleshooting techniques for optimization (pg. 419, 2. HPA Protocol for the Detection of Products from
in Vitro Amplification Techniques).
Nelson – 1995 teaches that chemiluminescent labels have the advantages of high sensitivity, ease of use, handling, disposal, precise control of detection, a wide range of detection method, and long shelf lives, (pg. 392, para 1). Nelson – 1995 teaches that the AE molecule reaction rapidly with H2O2 under alkaline conditions and the rapid reaction kinetics permit detection over a very short time frame, thereby minimizing background noise and improving overall sensitivity, wherein it may be used with a standard luminometer (pg. 392, para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the fluorescent probes of Princen for the chemiluminescent AE probes of the HPA method of Nelson and Nelson – 1995, motivated by the desire to further improve sensitivity and/or ease of measurement, as taught by Nelson and Nelson – 1995.
In adapting the HPA method, it further would have been obvious to have utilized a threshold of at least 10, as taught by Nelson, wherein the ability to detect such a S/N when one copy is present is the result of routine optimization, dependent on the choice of cycles (as taught by Prince and suggested by Nelson and Nelson - 1995), design of the oligo/mutant, dilution of the amplified material (as taught by Nelson – 1995), etc.
Nelson – 1995 teaches four copies and further diluting amplified target and Princen teaches detecting less than 2 copies for a selected volume, including the reaction volume taught by Nelson as may need to be diluted, where both Nelson and Nelson – 1995 teach applying HPA to amplified target. Princen teaches a variety of cycle numbers within which to optimize, including embodiments performing two distinct amplifications, and the artisan would understand that a PCR amplification reaction approximately duplicates the starting copy number such that, for example, 35 cycles in the initiation and exponential phase (across either one or two amplification steps, as taught by Princen) for one starting molecule would result in 1*2^35 = 3.45*10^10 molecules or 3.45*10^10/6.022*10^23 molecules/mol * 10^15 = 57.06 fmol, beyond what was required in Neslon for detection. Accordingly, the artisan would understand that even low starting materials to be compatible with the HPA method and predictable used with the HPA assay using a threshold of > 10 S/N, as taught by Nelson, when combined with amplification, as taught by Nelson and Nelson – 1995. Similarly, the detection, when first modified by the initial amplification of Princen would be predictably optimizable to be within the range taught by Nelson and at least a subset of the probes of Nelson would be inherently capable of detecting such amplified nucleic acids with the S/N > 10 as claimed, given the teaching of Princen on the fold-change and discrimination permitted via its amplification. See MPEP 2122(I-IV) regarding the inherent characteristics of prior art teachings.
Altering the threshold from > 10 to > 10 would further be a matter of routine optimization as the ranges overlap and there is no showing that the range is critical. Indeed, for example, para [0064] recites that a S/N ratio of 3.5, 5, 10, or greater is readily distinguishable from background and is readily detectable. See MPEP 2144.05 discussing overlapping ranges and routine optimization.
Thus, the combination would have a strong expectation of success as such represents the application of a known technique to a known method for improvement in a predictable manner.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Princen (US 2014/0248612 A1; published 09/04/2014; as cited in the IDS dated 09/19/2024) in view of Nelson (Nelson NC, et al. Detection of all single-base mismatches in solution by chemiluminescence. Nucleic Acids Res. 1996 Dec 15;24(24):4998-5003) and Nelson – 1995 (Nelson NC, et al., "Detection of Acridinium Esters by Chemiluminescence,' in: Nonisotopic Probing, Blotting and Sequencing, 1995, Chapter 17, Academic Press, Inc., pp. 391-428.) as applied to claims 1-5, 8-15, and 17 above, and further in view of NEB (New England Bio Labs. Phusion DNA polymerase [Internet]. 2020 Apr 24 [cited 2026 Jan 4]. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20200424003201/https://www.neb-online.de/en/pcr-and-dna-amplification/high-fidelity-pcr/phusion-dna-polymerase/).
Regarding claim 16, Princen teaches that various polymerase may be used (para [0241]) but fails to explicitly teach high fidelity polymerase.
NEB rectifies this by teaching Phusion DNA polymerase, and that it dramatically reduces extension times with increased yield (Advantages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the Phusion DNA polymerase of NEB as the DNA polymerase in the amplification of the combined method, motivated by the desire to reduce extension times and/or increase yield, as taught by NEB. Such would have also been obvious as a substitution for the same purpose it was likewise taught for the same purpose of amplifying DNA in PCR. See MPEP 2144.06(II). There would have been a strong expectation of success as Princen and NEB are both directed to amplifying nucleic acids.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/850 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 103 rejection, on pg. 10-14, Applicant argues that Princen fails to teach the 10-fold difference required by the claim and that Princen is silent regarding reaction conditions and copy number in the samples being tested. Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides a previously undocumented combination of specificity and sensitivity that is neither taught nor suggested in Princen, and further alleges that such combination has considerable commercial applicability, meeting needs that are not met by methods having reasonable specificity but that do not demonstrate high sensitivity. Applicant also argues that Princen is silent regarding detection of chemiluminescence and the use of acridinium dyes or other compounds that elicit chemiluminescence in combination with such clamping methods, wherein Princen cannot teach or suggest an unexpected synergistic effect when a clamping primer is used with such a probe. Applicant further presents arguments about Hanna and the combination of Hanna and Princen.
The arguments regarding Hanna and the combination of Hanna and Princen and those directed to the individual teaches of Princen being silent on chemiluminescent dyes are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection over Princen in view of Nelson and Nelson – 1995 as required by the amendment requiring chemiluminescent emission. Nelson and Nelson – 1995 do teach chemiluminescent acridinium ester probes as an improvement to amplification, wherein allele specific amplification is likewise contemplated such that it would have been obvious to the artisan to combine as discussed above.
Where the Applicant argues the Princen fails to teach acridinium dyes, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., acridinium dye) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, the arguments directed at the teachings of the sensitivity to noise ratios of Princen are moot in view of the new combination, which explicitly teaches a sensitivity to noise ratio of at least 10 for such chemiluminescent probes. However, it is noted for clarity of the record and compact prosecution that the broadest reasonable interpretation of noise may encompass not only the Applicant’s “truly negative result” as argued, which is not required by the claim or defined by the specification, but also other measurements of “background” or “noise” as broadly interpreted.
For example, under the previously encompassed fluorescent qPCR probes, the background instrument and dye/statistical noise measured during the lag phase (“baseline”), as would be consistent with Applicant’s arguments regarding the 112(b) on pg. 7. Indeed, Thermo (Thermo Fisher Scientific. Baselines in real-time PCR [Internet]. YouTube; 2022 [cited 2026 Sept 16]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUzUV0Ssv1s) explicitly describes this as “noise” at 0:44. It is noted that similar methods that, for example, utilize time to collect a “background” for noise would be interpreted to meet the limitation as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
794
1398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a 10-fold difference in reference to a negative control) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the arguments directed to copy number and the unexpected synergy, the previous claims required at least one copy of the second polynucleotide which encompassed any copy number above one. Princen teaches a variety of embodiments and amounts of DNA from cells, as was cited. As directed to the amended claims which now recite one copy of the second polynucleotide, which comprises a mutation the detection would be obvious with the combination with Nelson and Nelson – 1995 at least in part through routine optimization, wherein the chemiluminescent AE probes of Nelson/Nelson – 1995 are capable of achieving such S/N ratios and are compatible with amplifications and the amplification of Princen would be predictable in producing an amount of DNA from one copy compatible with the detection of said probes using routine optimization of at least the cycle number. Further, the S/N achieved is only what would be expected from such AE probes, when applied to an optimized amount of amplification reaction. Therefore, the synergy is not unexpected.
Regarding the arguments of sensitivity and specificity, the combination of Princen in view of Nelson and Nelson – 1995 meets the amended claims directed to the sensitivity and specificity, as discussed above.
Where the Applicant argues the commercial applicability, it is noted that while commercial success may support nonobviousness, the burden of the evidence of commercial success and the nexus to the claimed invention resides with the Applicant, as discussed in MPEP 716.03(I), and that such evidence must be commensurate in scope with the claim. No such evidence of commercial success has been identified.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma R Hoppe whose telephone number is (703)756-5550. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 11:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Anne Gussow can be reached at (571) 272-6047. 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.
/EMMA R HOPPE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1683
/ANNE M. GUSSOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1683
Prosecution Insights