DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments filed 6/11/2026 to claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 have been entered. Claims 15-18 have been added. Claims 1-18 remain pending, of which claims 1-13 and 15-18 are being considered on their merits. Claim 13 remains withdrawn from consideration. References not included with this Office action can be found in a prior action.
The instant amendments to claims 3, 5, and 10 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 112(d) rejections of record, which are withdrawn. The instant amendments to claim 1 have overcome the obviousness rejection of record, which is withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are set forth below necessitated by the instant claim amendments.
Any other rejections of record not particularly addressed below are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments and/or applicant’s comments.
Duplicate Claims
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof and vice versa. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 is 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.
See MPEP § 2163(I)(B), 2163.06, and 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter. The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc., 935 F.2d at 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d at 1117.
In this case, newly added claim 16 recites “wherein contraction is measured as a reduction in collagen gel diameter at a plurality of time points over a period of about 24 hours to about 72 hours.” and which lacks original support. The limitations of the new claim are not found verbatim in the original claims, specification, or drawings, and the specification only discloses measuring the broader embodiment of “size” at pages 11-12 and not the claimed narrower embodiment of “diameter”.
Applicant must either specifically point out the original descriptive support for the full scope of claim 16 to obviate the new matter rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to claim 16, or amend claim 16 accordingly in the next reply to remove the new matter as set forth above.
Claims 16 and 17 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.
The term “about” in claims 16 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (such as by a limiting definition; see M.P.E.P. § 2111.01(IV), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Correction is required.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "diameter”, but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “Diameter” implies a circular or spherical structure of the claimed collagen matrix and neither claim 16 nor the claim from which it depends, claim 1, recite any circular or spherical collagen matrix structure. 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11-13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Korean J. Physiol Pharmacol. (2011), 15, 267-272) in view of Ford et al. (Life Sciences (2019), 222, 69-77).
In view of the indefiniteness rejections above and in the interest of compact prosecution, claim 16 is interpreted as a measurement of gel size. Such an interpretation of claim scope is only made for the purposes of applying pertinent art under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and Applicant must still fully respond to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) rejections set forth above.
Wang teaches a method or assay for measuring the effectiveness of test compounds for blocking or inhibiting 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) induced contraction of feline intestinal smooth muscle cells, comprising the steps of: (a) providing an in vitro sample of feline smooth muscle cells in a culture media (p268, subheading “Preparation of tissue”), (b) inducing contraction of the feline smooth muscle cells by applying multiple concentrations of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) (p268, subheading “Experimental Protocol”), (c) providing Ondansetron in a DMSO solvent (p268, subheadings “Drugs and Chemicals”), (d) adding the Ondansetron at different concentrations to the feline smooth muscle cell culture and quantitatively measuring the contractile response of the feline smooth muscle cells as a dose-response curve (Fig. 5C from 10-10 to 10-6 5-HT and p270, left column, paragraph starting “To test whether…”), thus comparing and determining the efficacy of Ondansetron on 5-HT-induced contractions in feline smooth muscle cells and thus providing a quantitative screening assay predictive of anti-nausea and anti-emetic efficacy and so reading in-part on claims 1, 7, and 9, 17, and 18. Wang teaches a control sample wherein the feline smooth muscle cells are only treated with 5-HT (Fig. 5C), reading on claim 2.
Regarding claims 11-13 and 15, claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. See M.P.E.P. § 2111.02 and 2111.04. In this case, the wherein clauses of these dependent claims only recite the intended result of the positively-recited steps of claim 1 and so these claims have been fully considered but not afforded any patentable weight.
Regarding claim 1, Wang does not teach human intestinal smooth muscle cells. Regarding claim 1, Wang does not teach contraction of the collagen matrix or measuring said contraction as a function of time. Regarding claim 3, Wang and Ford do not teach any collagen matrix formulated as a gel. Regarding claim 16, Wang does not teach the embodiment of wherein contraction is measured as a reduction in collagen gel size at a plurality of time points over a period of about 24 hours to about 72 hours (i.e. 1-3 days).
Ford teaches methods of culturing human intestinal smooth muscle cells (HIMSCs) in collagen gel matrices to measure collagen gel contraction (p70, left column, subheadings 2 2.1), reading on claims 1, 3, and 16. Ford teaches that IFN-γ significantly reduces HIMSC contractility in vitro (Abstract), and that the HIMSC-collagen gel system is useful to study GI motility mechanisms and to provide a method for evaluating treatments for inflammatory bowel syndrome (IBD) (Abstract and subheading 5 spanning p75-76), reading on claim 3. Ford teaches visually measuring contraction of HISMC/collagen gels in 24 well plates as the fractional change in the gel surface area at days 1-6 compared to time=0 gels (subheadings 2.1 and 2.3 and Fig. 1), reading on claims 1 and 16.
Regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to substitute the feline intestinal smooth muscle cells of Wang with the human intestinal smooth muscle cells of Ford in Wang’s methods. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because both Ford and Wang are directed towards methods of obtaining and culturing intestinal smooth muscle cells. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because although not explicitly stated, the substitution of the human cells would predictably improve the methods of Wang as a more physiologically relevant in vitro model of human intestinal disease(s); see the 1st four paragraphs of M.P.E.P. § 2143.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 16, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to add the collagen gel matrices of Ford to the methods of Wang. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because Wang and Ford are directed in-part towards culturing intestinal smooth muscle cells in vitro. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because the addition would predictably improve the methods of Wang to study GI motility mechanisms and to provide a method for evaluating treatments for inflammatory bowel syndrome (IBD).
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to further measure collagen gel contraction according to Ford in Wang’s methods. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because Wang and Ford are directed in-part towards culturing intestinal smooth muscle cells in vitro, and because Ford teaches detailed methods of measuring collagen gel contraction as a reduction of gel area over time. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because the addition predictably improve the methods of Wang to study GI motility mechanisms and to provide a method for evaluating treatments for inflammatory bowel syndrome (IBD) with the test compounds of Wang that potentially block or inhibit 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) induced contraction of intestinal smooth muscle cells.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the invention was filed.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Ford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dadey et al. (US 2014/0073678).
The teachings of Wang and Ford are relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Wang and Ford do not teach gingerol or ginger-based compounds. Regarding claim 4, Wang and Ford do not teach Aprepitant.
Dadey teaches methods of treating subjects for nausea (Abstract). Dadey teaches that ginger-based compounds, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists such as Ondansetron, and NK1 receptor antagonists such as Aprepitant are useful as anti-nausea and/or anti-vomiting medication (¶0028-0029 and ¶0031), reading on claims 4 and 8 respectively.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to substitute the ginger-based compounds or the Aprepitant of Dadey for the Ondansetron in the methods of Wang in view of Ford. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because both Wang and Dadey are in-part directed towards anti-nausea and/or anti-vomiting compositions. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because substitution would be predictably advantageous to further screen the functionally-related anti-nausea compounds of Dadey for their potential impact on intestinal smooth muscle cell contractility in the methods of Wang.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the invention was filed.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Ford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Castor (Planta Med (2015), 81, IL46).
The teachings of Wang and Ford are relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, Wang and Ford do not teach the embodiment of Zindol. Regarding claim 6, Wang and Ford do not teach the embodiment of Z-oil. The claims are read in light of the specification in that the broadest reasonable interpretation of Zindol would also then inherently comprise Z-oil (see the specification at page 11, the paragraph underneath Table 2). Therefore, any teaching in the prior art towards Zindol® will also inherently read on Z-oil. See M.P.E.P. § 2111 for a review of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard used during patent examination.
Castor teaches that Zindol is a product obtained from ginger comprises gingerols and shogaols as the bioactive constituents and is a functional anti-nausea medicine and effective as an adjuvant to treat for nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy (see the Abstract on the first page), reading on claims 5 and 6.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to substitute the Zindol (which inherently comprises Z-oil) of Castor for the Ondansetron in the methods of Wang in view of Ford. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because both Wang and Castor are in-part directed towards anti-nausea and/or anti-vomiting compositions. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because substitution would be predictably advantageous to further screen the functionally-related anti-nausea compounds of Castor for their potential impact on intestinal smooth muscle cell contractility in the methods of Wang.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the invention was filed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Ford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Connor et al. (WO 2018/106966).
The teachings of Wang and Ford are relied upon as set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Wang and Ford do not teach a method further comprising bovine turbinate cells.
O’Connor teaches methods and compositions for treating infections cause by Apicomplexa sp. (e.g. apicomplexian) (Abstract). O’Connor teaches either treating or preventing disease symptoms such as nausea and vomiting (¶00077), reading in-part on claim 10. O’Connor teaches screening bovine turbinate cells for the toxicity of test compounds (Example 11), reading in-part on claim 10.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to add the bovine turbinate cells of O’Connor to the methods of Wang in view of Ford. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to do so because both Wang and O’Connor are in-part directed towards anti-nausea and/or anti-vomiting compositions and methods of in vitro cell culture. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because addition would be predictably advantageous to further screen the functionally-related anti-nausea compounds such as the Ondansetron of Wang of Castor for their potential impact on cellular toxicity in addition to the potential impact on intestinal smooth muscle cell contractility in the methods of Wang.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the invention was filed.
Affidavit/Declaration
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 6/11/2026 is insufficient to overcome the new grounds of rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17, and 18 based upon Wang in view of Ford as set forth above, because Declarant has provided no additional evidence into the record to support the assertion that there is no reasonable expectation of success to combine Ford with Wang for amended claim 1, and because Declarant has not cited any evidence of record and has not provided additional evidence into the record to support the assertion that the claimed method produces an unexpected result reasonably commensurate to the scope of the claims. Declarant’s arguments on pages 2-3 are highly generalized and amount to opinion evidence on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue and are unsupported by the preponderance of evidence at this time. Declarant makes no attempt to address the “opposing evidence” (i.e. the modified obviousness rejection above over Wang and Ford) with respect to the claimed methods, has a vested interest in the outcome of the case as the sole inventor, and has not provided any additional factual support for the expert opinion; see M.P.E.P. § 716..01(c)(III).
Regarding any alleged lack of reasonable expectation of success, absolute predictability is not a perquisite for a prima facie for obviousness; see M.P.E.P. § 2143.02. In this case, Declarant has not advanced any specific technical argument over Wang and/or Ford and/or provided any additional factual evidence that it would otherwise establish unpredictability by a preponderance of evidence to combine Ford with Wang to arrive at the method of claim 1. The ultimate determination of patentability is based on the entire record, by a preponderance of evidence, with due consideration to the persuasiveness of any arguments and any evidence properly made of record; see M.P.E.P. § 2142.
Regarding any alleged unexpected results, the evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance; see M.P.E.P. § 716.02(b). In this case, Declarant has not cited any particular evidence of record and has not provided additional evidence into the record to support the assertion that the claimed method produces an unexpected result reasonably commensurate to the scope of the claims that the claimed method produces an actual unexpected result relative to the prima facie teachings of Wang and Ford as modified above. See M.P.E.P. § 716.02(a) for examples of unexpected results.
Any alleged advantages of the “invention” on page 3 are not persuasive, as this section include(s) statements which amount to an affirmation that the claimed subject matter functions as it was intended to function. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments on pages 1-6 of the reply have been fully considered, but not found persuasive of error for the reasons given below.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 2-3 of the reply that Wang in view of Ford do not teach every element of claim 1 are not persuasive because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference(s). The claims are not rejected under any 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the claimed invention becomes prima facie obvious when the references are considered together as a whole rather than each alone. Similarly, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the claims remain prima facie obvious for the reasons given above.
In response to applicant’s argument on pages 3-4 of the reply, 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, the arguments are not persuasive because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference(s). Applicant briefly summarizes the teachings of Wang and Ford, but has not explained how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Applicant’s arguments on page 4 and separately on page 5are not persuasive of error, as again Wang is not applied alone under any 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection, but in-combination with Ford to reject the claims as prima facie obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Wang only differs from independent claim 1 in being directed towards feline cells (instead of human cells) and measuring contraction of a collagen gel matrix, both of which are fully addressed by the inclusion of Ford as a secondary reference and for the specific motivation(s) with accompanying reasonable expectation of success as set forth above. Wang unequivocally teaches a known and predictive relationship between intestinal smooth cells and compounds capable of blocking or inhibiting 5-HT-induced contraction of said cells, and the prior art is presumed operable absent any showing to the contrary; see M.P.E.P. § 2121).
On pages 4-5 of the reply, Applicants rely on arguments traversing the above rejection of claim 1 over Wang and Ford to traverse the rejection of claims 4 and 8 further in view of Dadey, claims 5 and 6 further in view of Castor, and claim 10 further in view of O’Connor. Therefore, the response set forth above to arguments also applies to this rejection.
Interview Request
Applicant’s request for an interview filed with the instant reply dated 6/11/2026 is acknowledged. See M.P.E.P. § 713.01(IV), in that the interview request will not be granted at this time as an interview would not likely result in expediting allowance of the application.
Going forward, the examiner will likely not grant an interview if the request for one is simply within the written reply; the interview request must be made separately from any written reply (while technically permitted, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.4(c)). On a related matter, the examiner will likely not grant an interview once applicant has already replied in writing, since applicant has no right to have any substantive supplementary amendments or remarks entered after he has submitted a reply, and since the business of the Office is conducted in writing. 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.2 and 1.111(a)(2).
Applicant is directed towards M.P.E.P. § 713.09 for limited situations when an interview may be conducted between final rejection and Notice of Appeal, and which are discretionary on the part of the examiner.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed. No claims are free of the art.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
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 SEAN C BARRON whose telephone number is (571)270-5111. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-3:30pm EDT/EST (M-F).
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at 571-272-0614. 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.
/Sean C. Barron/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights