DETAILED ACTION
Disposition of Claims
Claims 54-68 were pending. Claims 1-53, 55, 63, and 68 are cancelled. Amendments to claims 54, 56, 62, and 66-67 are acknowledged and entered. Claims 54, 56-62, and 64-67 will be examined on their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 regarding the previous Office action dated 10/09/2025 have been fully considered. If they have been found to be persuasive, the objection/rejection has been withdrawn below. Likewise, if a rejection/objection has not been recited, said rejection/objection has been withdrawn. If the arguments have not been found to be persuasive, or if there are arguments presented over art that has been utilized in withdrawn rejections but utilized in new rejections, the arguments will be addressed fully with the objection/rejection below.
Examiner’s Note
All paragraph numbers (¶) throughout this office action, unless otherwise noted, are from the US PGPub of this application US20240016919A1, Published 01/18/2024. Amendments to the specification presented on 02/03/2026 are acknowledged and entered.
Applicant is encouraged to utilize the new web-based Automated Interview Request (AIR) tool for submitting interview requests; more information can be found at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
The Power of Attorney filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged and entered.
Optional Authorization to Initiate Electronic Communications
The Applicant’s representative may wish to consider supplying a written authorization in response to this Office action to correspond with the Examiner via electronic mail (e-mail). This authorization is optional on the part of the Applicant’s representative, but it should be noted that the Examiner may not initiate nor respond to communications via electronic mail unless and until Applicant’s representative authorizes such communications in writing within the official record of the patent application. A sample authorization is available at MPEP § 502.03, part II. If Applicant’s representative chooses to provide this authorization, please ensure to include a valid e-mail address along with said authorization.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification - Drawings
(Objection withdrawn.) The objection to the drawings is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the drawings.
Claim Objections
(Objection withdrawn.) The objection to the claim set numbering is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b); Second Paragraph
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
(Rejection withdrawn.) The rejection of Claim 66 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claim.
(New rejection – necessitated by amendment.) Claims 54, 62, and 67 and dependent claims 56-61 and 64-66 thereof 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 54, 62, and 67 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear as to what the upper and lower limit of “about” would reasonably ascertain for the claimed low dose. As the specification does not provide a clear definition of what is considered to be “about”, it is suggested that the dose be claimed in the specific range envisioned by the term.
Since a skilled artisan would not be reasonably apprised as to the metes and bounds of the claimed invention, instant Claims 54, 62, and 67 are rejected on the grounds of being indefinite. Claims 56-61, and 64-66 are also rejected since they depend from claim 54, 62, or 67, but does not remedy these deficiencies of claim 54, 62, or 67.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 54 is drawn to a method of inducing an immune response against a Middle East Respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in a subject in need thereof, the method comprising administering an immunogenic composition intradermally to the subject, wherein the immunogenic composition is administrated at a low dose, wherein the low dose is about 0.2 mg, wherein the immunogenic composition comprises a nucleic acid molecule comprising a nucleotide sequence selected from the group consisting of:
a) an immunogenic fragment of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the fragment encodes a sequence having 100% identity to consecutive amino acids over at least 60% of the full length of SEQ ID NO:2;
b) an immunogenic fragment of SEQ ID NO:3, wherein the fragment encodes a sequence having 100% identity to consecutive amino acids over at least 60% of the full length of SEQ ID NO:4;
c) a nucleotide sequence having at least 90% identity over an entire length of the nucleic acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1;
d) a nucleotide sequence having at least 90% identity over an entire length of the nucleic acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:3;
e) an immunogenic fragment of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the fragment comprises a sequence having 100% identity to consecutive bases over at least 60% of the full length of SEQ ID NO:1; and
f) an immunogenic fragment of SEQ ID NO:3, wherein the fragment comprises a sequence having 100% identity to consecutive bases over at least 60% of the full length of SEQ ID NO:3.
Further limitations on the method of claim 54 are wherein the method of administering further comprises an electroporation step (claim 56); wherein the composition is administered twice (claim 57), wherein the second administration of the immunogenic composition is given at least 7 days after the first administration (claim 58); wherein the nucleic acid molecule comprises an expression vector (claim 59);wherein the immunogenic composition further comprises a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient, an adjuvant, or a combination thereof (claim 60); and wherein the immune response is protective or therapeutic (claim 61).
Claim 62 is drawn to a method of inducing an immune response against a Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in a subject in need thereof, the method comprising administering an immunogenic composition intradermally to the subject, wherein the immunogenic composition is administrated at a low dose, wherein the low dose is about 0.2 mg, wherein the immunogenic composition comprises an antigen comprising an amino acid sequence selected from the group consisting of:
a) an amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO:2;
b) an amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO:4;
c) a fragment of SEQ ID NO:2 lacking the IgE leader sequence as set forth by SEQ ID NO:6; and
d) a fragment of SEQ ID NO:4 lacking the IgE leader sequence as set forth by SEQ ID NO:6.
Further limitations on the method of claim 62 are wherein the method of administering is intradermal administration (claim 63); wherein the method of administering further comprises an electroporation step (claim 64); wherein the composition is administered twice (claim 65), and wherein the second administration of the immunogenic composition is given at least 7 days after the first administration (claim 66).
Claim 67 is drawn to an intradermal vaccine comprising an immunogenic composition, wherein the vaccine is formulated for administration as a low-dose formula, wherein the low-dose formula is about 0.2 mg, wherein the immunogenic composition comprises a nucleic acid molecule comprising a nucleotide sequence selected from the group consisting of:
a) an immunogenic fragment of SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the fragment encodes a sequence having 100% identity to consecutive amino acids over at least 60% of the full length of SEQ ID NO:2;
b) an immunogenic fragment of SEQ ID NO:3, wherein the fragment encodes a sequence having 100% identity to consecutive amino acids over at least 60% of the full length of SEQ ID NO:4;
c) a nucleotide sequence having at least 90% identity over an entire length of the nucleic acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1;
d) a nucleotide sequence having at least 90% identity over an entire length of the nucleic acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:3;
e) an immunogenic fragment of SEQ ID NO:1, wherein the fragment comprises a sequence having 100% identity to consecutive bases over at least 60% of the full length of SEQ ID NO:1; and
f) an immunogenic fragment of SEQ ID NO:3, wherein the fragment comprises a sequence having 100% identity to consecutive bases over at least 60% of the full length of SEQ ID NO:3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
(Rejection maintained in part and extended – necessitated by amendment.) Claims 54, 56-62, and 64-67 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weiner et. al. (US20170258893A1; Pub. 09/14/2017; hereafter “Weiner”.) Note the rejection of claims 55, 63, and 68 is withdrawn in light of the cancellation of said claims.
The Prior Art
Weiner teaches vaccine compositions comprising Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) antigens, such as consensus spike (S) antigens, and methods of administering said compositions to a subject in need thereof (entire document; see abstract.) Weiner teaches SEQ ID NO: 1, which aligns with 100% identity to instant SEQ ID NO:1, which is a consensus sequence for MERS CoV spike (S) protein, and encodes SEQ ID NO:2, which is 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO:2 (¶[0102]). Weiner also teaches SEQ ID NO: 3, which aligns with 100% identity to instant SEQ ID NO: 3, and is a MERS-CoV consensus spike antigen lacking the cytoplasmic domain (ΔCD) which encodes SEQ ID NO:4 (¶[0110]). Weiner teaches that the compositions would be used in methods of inducing a prophylactic or therapeutic immune response against a in a subject in need thereof (¶[0138-0143]), the method comprising administering an immunogenic composition intradermally to the subject (¶[0092][0144-0147][0183]), wherein the immunogenic composition comprises a nucleic acid molecule, wherein the nucleic acid molecule comprises a nucleic acid sequence having at least about 90% identity over an entire length of the nucleic acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1 (¶[0120][0172-0173]), and shows that a low dose formulation comprised delivery of 0.5 mg/animal (¶[0043][0248-0250]) and that the vaccine dose may be between 1 ug to 10 mg active component/kg body weight or between 20 ug to 10 mg active component/kg body weight (¶[0140]; instant claims 54, 61, 67). Weiner teaches the nucleic acid molecule comprises an expression vector (¶[0122-0126][0144]; instant claim 59). Weiner teaches the composition may comprise a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (reference claim 15) and an adjuvant (reference claim 16; instant claim 60.) Weiner teaches the vaccine may further comprise a peptide comprising an amino acid sequence having at least about 90% identity over an entire length of the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO: 2 or SEQ ID NO: 4 (¶[0258]; instant claims 62). The peptides of the composition may be an immunogenic fragment of SEQ ID NO: 2 or 4 and may comprise or lack an IgE leader sequence (¶[0104-0106]). Weiner teaches the intradermal administration comprises electroporation or injection (¶[0285][0287][0289]; instant claims 56, 64). Weiner teaches the administration can be followed by boosting administrations, such as a prime on day 0 and a boost on days 14 and 28 (¶[0183]; instant claims 57-58, 65-66). Weiner teaches the amount required to raise the desired immune response is a “therapeutically effective dose” (¶[0143]) and can be between 1 ug to 10 mg active component per kg body weight/time (¶[0140]).
For at least these reasons, Weiner teaches the limitations of instant claims 54, 56-62, and 64-67, and anticipates the invention encompassed by said claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Weiner fails to teach or suggest intradermal administration of the recited immunogenic composition at the specific recited low dose. Applicant argues that Weiner instead discloses administration at a dose from 0.5-2.0 mg, and, in contrast, the instant claims demonstrate the unexpected result that intradermal administration of the claimed immunogenic composition against MERS CoV induced faster seroconversion and higher binding antibody titers at lower doses. The Office does not agree. First, Weiner teaches in their examples that the composition was administered intramuscularly (IM)(¶[0183]; Example 4), but Weiner also teaches the compositions may be administered via intradermal means (¶[0145][0147][0153]). As per MPEP §2131, a reference that clearly names the claimed species anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are claimed, and a generic disclosure will anticipate a claimed species covered by that disclosure when the species can be “at once envisaged” from the disclosure (§2131.02.II-III). Weiner clearly teaches that intradermal delivery is a desired delivery method of the claimed composition.
Additionally, in light of the 35 USC 112b rejection supra, the metes and bounds of “about 0.2 mg” is unclear. The low dose taught by Weiner (0.5 mg for a mouse) may be within this “about 0.2 mg” dosage as the metes and bounds of what is “about” the dose is unclear. Additionally, Weiner provides additional guidance for dosages of the composition, stating that the vaccine dose may be between 1 ug to 10 mg active component/kg body weight or between 20 ug to 10 mg active component/kg body weight (¶[0140]). The global average weight for an adult human is approximately 62 kg. This amounts to a range of 62 ug (0.062 mg)-620 mg or 1240 ug (1.24 mg)-620 mg for the vaccine taught by Weiner. As per MPEP 2131.03.II, a prior art which teaches a range overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipates if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”. As Weiner teaches administration to the mouse at a low dose of 0.5 mg, and teaches the range would be between 1 ug to 10 mg active component/kg body weight. The average weight of an adult male rhesus macaque (utilize in the instant examples) is approximately 8 kg, which is 8 ug-80 mg for the dosage range of Weiner. Weiner clearly teaches the claimed dosage amount with sufficient specificity.
Finally, an argument of surprising or unexpected results is not considered with respect to anticipation (MPEP §2131.04, Evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results or commercial success, is irrelevant to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections and thus cannot overcome a rejection so based. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973).)
For at least these reasons, the arguments presented were unpersuasive and the pending claims stand rejected for the reasons set forth supra.
Double Patenting
The text regarding nonstatutory double patenting was presented in a previous Office action.
(Rejection maintained in part and extended – necessitated by amendment.) Claims 54, 56-62, and 64-67 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 10,016,497 in view of Weiner (supra). Note the rejection of claims 55, 63, and 68 is withdrawn in light of the cancellation of said claims.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to immunogenic compositions which comprise nucleic acid sequences of SEQ ID NO: 1 or 3 which encode protein sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, respectively. Both sets of claims are drawn to the compositions further comprising peptides of SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, both are drawn to the nucleic acid molecules being within an expression vector, or incorporated into a viral particle. Both sets of claims are drawn to the compositions comprising pharmaceutically acceptable excipients or adjuvants. Both sets of claims are drawn to methods of prophylactically or therapeutically treating a subject in need thereof against a MERS CoV infection, wherein the method may comprise injection or electroporation. The main difference is that the instant claims provide that the method of delivery of the immunogenic composition may be intradermally at a low dose; however, said methods of administration of such a composition were well-known to a skilled artisan, as evidenced by the teachings of Weiner (NB: while Weiner is the PGPub of the ‘497 patent, the PGPub qualifies as prior art to the instant claims and speaks to the obvious nature of the variations between the instant claims and the ‘497 claims.) Weiner teaches immunogenic compositions which comprise nucleic acids comprising SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 3, which encode SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, and Weiner teaches that the compositions may be delivered intradermally to a subject in need thereof to therapeutically inhibit MERS CoV infection at the low dosages encompassed by the instant claims (see detailed teachings of Weiner outlined supra.) Therefore, the differences between the instant claims and the ‘497 claims would be obvious to a skilled artisan, especially in light of the teachings of Weiner, and are not patentably distinct.
(Rejection maintained in part and extended – necessitated by amendment.) Claims 54, 56-62, and 64-67 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,548,971 in view of Weiner (supra). Note the rejection of claims 55, 63, and 68 is withdrawn in light of the cancellation of said claims.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to immunogenic compositions which comprise nucleic acid sequences of SEQ ID NO: 1 or 3 which encode protein sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, respectively. Both sets of claims are drawn to the compositions further comprising peptides of SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, both are drawn to the nucleic acid molecules being within an expression vector, or incorporated into a viral particle. Both sets of claims are drawn to the compositions comprising pharmaceutically acceptable excipients or adjuvants. Both sets of claims are drawn to methods of prophylactically or therapeutically treating a subject in need thereof against a MERS CoV infection, wherein the method may comprise injection or electroporation. The main difference is that the instant claims provide that the method of delivery of the immunogenic composition may be intradermally at a low dose; however, said methods of administration of such a composition were well-known to a skilled artisan, as evidenced by the teachings of Weiner (NB: while Weiner is the PGPub of the ‘497 parent patent, the PGPub qualifies as prior art to the instant claims and speaks to the obvious nature of the variations between the instant claims and the ‘971 claims.) Weiner teaches immunogenic compositions which comprise nucleic acids comprising SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 3, which encode SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, and Weiner teaches that the compositions may be delivered intradermally to a subject in need thereof to therapeutically inhibit MERS CoV infection at the low dosages encompassed by the instant claims (see detailed teachings of Weiner outlined supra.) Therefore, the differences between the instant claims and the ‘971 claims would be obvious to a skilled artisan, especially in light of the teachings of Weiner, and are not patentably distinct.
(Rejection maintained in part and extended – necessitated by amendment.) Claims 54, 56-62, and 64-67 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,135,284 in view of Weiner (supra). Note the rejection of claims 55, 63, and 68 is withdrawn in light of the cancellation of said claims.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to immunogenic compositions which comprise nucleic acid sequences of SEQ ID NO: 1 or 3 which encode protein sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, respectively. Both sets of claims are drawn to the compositions further comprising peptides of SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, both are drawn to the nucleic acid molecules being within an expression vector, or incorporated into a viral particle. Both sets of claims are drawn to the compositions comprising pharmaceutically acceptable excipients or adjuvants. Both sets of claims are drawn to methods of prophylactically or therapeutically treating a subject in need thereof against a MERS CoV infection, wherein the method may comprise injection or electroporation. The main difference is that the instant claims provide that the method of delivery of the immunogenic composition may be intradermally at a low dose; however, said methods of administration of such a composition were well-known to a skilled artisan, as evidenced by the teachings of Weiner (NB: while Weiner is the PGPub of the ‘497 parent patent, the PGPub qualifies as prior art to the instant claims and speaks to the obvious nature of the variations between the instant claims and the ‘284 claims.) Weiner teaches immunogenic compositions which comprise nucleic acids comprising SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 3, which encode SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, and Weiner teaches that the compositions may be delivered intradermally to a subject in need thereof to therapeutically inhibit MERS CoV infection at the low dosages encompassed by the instant claims (see detailed teachings of Weiner outlined supra.) Therefore, the differences between the instant claims and the ‘284 claims would be obvious to a skilled artisan, especially in light of the teachings of Weiner, and are not patentably distinct.
(Rejection maintained in part and extended – necessitated by amendment.) Claims 54, 56-62, and 64-67 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,801,298 in view of Weiner (supra). Note the rejection of claims 55, 63, and 68 is withdrawn in light of the cancellation of said claims.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to methods of delivering immunogenic compositions which comprise protein sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, respectively. Both sets of claims are drawn to methods of prophylactically or therapeutically treating a subject in need thereof against a MERS CoV infection, wherein the method may comprise injection or electroporation. The main difference is that the instant claims are drawn to the compositions which comprise nucleic acids which also encode said proteins of SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, and the instant claims provide that the method of delivery of the immunogenic composition is intradermally at a low dose; however, said method and dosage of administration of such a composition were well-known to a skilled artisan, as evidenced by the teachings of Weiner (NB: while Weiner is the PGPub of the ‘497 parent patent, the PGPub qualifies as prior art to the instant claims and speaks to the obvious nature of the variations between the instant claims and the ‘298 claims.) Weiner teaches immunogenic compositions which comprise nucleic acids comprising SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 3, which encode SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, and Weiner teaches that the compositions may be delivered intradermally to a subject in need thereof to therapeutically inhibit MERS CoV infection at the low dosages encompassed by the instant claims (see detailed teachings of Weiner outlined supra.) Therefore, the differences between the instant claims and the ‘298 claims would be obvious to a skilled artisan, especially in light of the teachings of Weiner, and are not patentably distinct.
(Rejection maintained in part and extended – necessitated by amendment.) Claims 54, 56-62, and 64-67 remain provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 36-42 of copending Application No. 18/476,921 in view of Weiner (supra). Note the rejection of claims 55, 63, and 68 is withdrawn in light of the cancellation of said claims.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to immunogenic compositions which comprise protein sequences of SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, respectively. Both sets of claims are drawn to methods of prophylactically or therapeutically treating a subject in need thereof against a MERS CoV infection, wherein the method may comprise injection or electroporation. The main difference is that the instant claims are drawn to the compositions which comprise nucleic acids which also encode said proteins of SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, and the instant claims provide that the method of delivery of the immunogenic composition is intradermally at a low dose; the reference claims additionally provide that the immunogenic fragment of SEQ ID NO: 2 or 4 would lack the IgE leader sequence. However, all these minor distinctions, such as methods of administration of such a composition, the dosage of said composition, and presence/absence of an IgE leader sequence, were well-known to a skilled artisan, as evidenced by the teachings of Weiner (NB: while Weiner is the PGPub of the ‘497 parent patent, the PGPub qualifies as prior art to the instant claims and speaks to the obvious nature of the variations between the instant claims and the ‘921 claims.) Weiner teaches immunogenic compositions which comprise nucleic acids comprising SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 3, which encode SEQ ID NOs: 2 or 4, and Weiner teaches that the compositions comprising the nucleic acids and/or amino acids may be delivered intradermally to a subject in need thereof at a therapeutically effective low dosage to therapeutically inhibit MERS CoV infection. Weiner also teaches said immunogenic MERS CoV S protein sequences may comprise or lack an IgE leader sequence (see detailed teachings of Weiner outlined supra.) Therefore, the differences between the instant claims and the ‘921 claims would be obvious to a skilled artisan, especially in light of the teachings of Weiner, and are not patentably distinct.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant repeats many of the same arguments regarding Weiner, and for reasons elaborated upon supra, said arguments were not persuasive and remain unpersuasive here.
For the reasons set forth supra and in the previous Office action, the instant pending claims stand rejected over the noted patent claims and copending claims.
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 RACHEL B GILL whose telephone number is (571)272-3129. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Michael Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3497. 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.
/RACHEL B GILL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1671