FINAL ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed 28 January 2026. Claims 1-3, 7-9, 12, and 21-22 have been amended and claims 4, 25, and 38 have been canceled. All prior rejections of claims 4, 25, and 38 are moot in view of the cancelation of those claims. Claims 6, 10-11, and 15 remain withdrawn (see also paragraphs 6-7 below), and claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12-14, 16, and 21-22 are under consideration herein. Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed, and have overcome the following objections/rejections set forth in the prior Office action:
The objection to the disclosure in view of Applicant’s amendment correcting a typographical error in the Abstract;
The objection to claim 21, in view of Applicant’s corrective amendments; and
Some rejections under 35 USC 112(b) in view of Applicant’s clarifying amendments (although the claims remain indefinite for the reasons given below).
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12-14, 16, and 21-22 remain rejected for the reasons given below, which include new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Any rejections and/or objections not reiterated in this action have been withdrawn. This action is FINAL.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Comment Regarding Entry of Non-Compliant Amendment
The Amendment filed 28 January 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c), as the text of withdrawn claims 6, 10-11, and 15 has not been provided. While the amendment has been entered as a courtesy, future amendments should comply with all requirements of 37 CFR 1.121.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the species of quercitin for a), PLZF and IHH gene expression for b), and MPA for c) in the reply filed on 14 October 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6, 10-11, and 15 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 14 October 2025.
Comments Regarding Claim Interpretation
With regarding to Applicant’s comments regarding “Claim Interpretation” at page 6 of the Reply of 28 January 2026, while Applicant asserts that miscarriage “is not infertility, rather it is a problem that occurs subsequent to a successful fertilization” and thus “is not ‘infertility associated with progesterone resistance”, it is noted that the specification does not provide any type of limiting definition for the term “infertility”, nor is a definition consistent with Applicant’s remarks supported by the prior art. For example, cited herein is a nichd.nih.gov definition of “infertility” indicating that the term “is also used to describe the condition of women who are able to get pregnant but unable to carry a pregnancy to term because of miscarriage”. Thus, absent the provision of a limiting definition in the specification, the examiner cannot reasonably interpret this term in the narrow manner indicated in Applicant’s remarks (which remarks also lack any provided supporting evidence/documentation/etc.).
Additionally, and given the above interpretation of “infertility”, the prior interpretation of “progesterone resistance” (paragraph 6 of the Office action mailed 03 November 2025) remains in effect. Specifically, it is reiterated that:
With regard to the term “progesterone resistance”, it is noted that the specification teaches that endometriosis “is a complex disorder characterized by progesterone resistance” (paragraph 3), and states (paragraph 21) that:
In embodiments, progesterone resistance in a subject is identified by quantifying a response of endometrial stromal cells (eSCs) from the subject to progesterone (P4) or a progesterone analogue;
and that (paragraph 48, particularly relevant to the elected species):
In embodiments, progesterone-resistance is indicated when the PLZF and/or IHH gene expression are less than a reference value for PLZF and/or IHH gene expression, respectively, for non-progesterone-resistant eSCs.
As a limiting definition of “progesterone resistance” is not provided, the term is interpreted as encompassing any abnormal/impaired response of cells/tissues to progesterone, including in the context of endometriosis (see, e.g., the teachings of Patel et al (Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 96;623 [2017]; previously cited) for an overview). Further, based on the teachings of the specification, altered gene expression (such as that noted above) may function as an indicator of “progesterone resistance” within the context of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)/second paragraph
THE FOLLOWING INCLUDES NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION NECESSITATED BY APPLICANT’S AMENDMENTS:
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12-14, 16, and 21-22 remain 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12-14, 16, and 21 remain indefinite over the recitation in independent claim 1 of the language “an amount of a plant flavonoid or plant flavonoid analogue effective to increase fertility and/or reduce progesterone-resistance in the subject”, because it is unclear whether the limitation “effective to increase fertility and/or reduce progesterone-resistance in the subject” refers to and modifies the “plant flavonoid or plant flavonoid analogue” – i.e., is defining a required property of the flavonoid/analogue – or whether this modifies and further limits the “amount” of the flavonoid/analogue (such that the language is further limiting with regard to, e.g., dosages employed). As there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the claim language that impart different types of boundaries on what is claimed, further clarification is required. The Reply of 28 January 2026 traverses the rejection on the grounds that “the phrase ‘effective to increase fertility and/or reduce progesterone-resistance in the subject’ delimits ‘an amount of a plant flavonoid or plant flavonoid analogue’”, and states that “Applicant maintains that there are not multiple reasonable interpretations of the claim language, and the claim is not indefinite” (Reply page 7). This argument has been thoroughly considered but is not persuasive. While the use of italics in Applicant’s remarks makes clear the intended meaning of the language, these italics do not (and cannot) appear in the claim itself (and thus the claim remains indefinite for the reasons repeated above). It is noted that this rejection could be overcome by clarifying amendments that would render the language of the claim consistent with Applicant’s apparent meaning; e.g., the claim could be amended to recite “administering to the subject so-identified an amount of a plant flavonoid or plant flavonoid analogue, wherein the amount is effective to increase fertility and/or reduce progesterone-resistance in the subject”, or “administering to the subject so-identified a plant flavonoid or plant flavonoid analogue, wherein the amount of the plant flavonoid or plant flavonoid analogue administered is effective to increase fertility and/or reduce progesterone-resistance in the subject”.
Claim 22 remains indefinite over the recitation of the language “an amount of a plant flavonoid or plant flavonoid analogue effective to reduce progression of, or development of, endometriosis in the subject”, because it is unclear whether the limitation “effective to reduce progression of, or development of, endometriosis” refers to and modifies the “plant flavonoid or plant flavonoid analogue” – i.e., is defining a required property of the flavonoid/analogue – or whether this modifies and further limits the “amount” of the flavonoid/analogue (such that the language is further limiting with regard to, e.g., dosages employed). As there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the claim language that impart different types of boundaries on what is claimed, further clarification is required. The Reply of 28 January 2026 traverses the rejection on the grounds that “the phrase ‘effective to increase fertility and/or reduce progesterone-resistance in the subject’ modifieds the recited amount”, asserting that “there are not multiple reasonable interpretations of claim 22 and it is not indefinite” (Reply page 8). This argument has been thoroughly considered but is not persuasive for the same reasons given above regarding the analogous language in independent claim 1. It is noted that the rejection could be overcome by clarifying amendments; see the suggestions provided above regarding claim 1.
Claim 22 is also indefinite over the recitation in line 5 of the limitation “wherein the subject has progesterone-resistance”, as it is unclear how this further limits what is claimed. The claim previously recites a requirement for “identifying, or having identified progesterone-resistance in the subject, and administering to the subject so-identified…” (such that the “identifying, or having identified” occurs prior to the “administering”). It is not clear whether the subsequent recitation “wherein the subject has progesterone-resistance” is simply a re-statement of the result of the “identifying”, a drafting error, or perhaps an unclear attempt to further limit the nature of the “administering”. Further clarification is therefore needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)/fourth paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
THE FOLLOWING INCLUDES NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION NECESSITATED BY APPLICANT’S AMENDMENTS:
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, has been amended to require “identifying, or having identified, infertility associated with progesterone-resistance in the subject” and “administering to the subject so-identified” a plant flavonoid or plant flavonoid analogue. However, claim 9 recites the conditional/contingent language “progesterone-resistance is indicated when….” a recited gene expression pattern is present; i.e., this claim as written is open to either the presence or absence of progesterone-resistance, such that the claim does not include all limitations of a claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
THE FOLLOWING INCLUDES NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION NECESSITATED BY APPLICANT’S AMENDMENTS:
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 13-14, 16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brosens (WO 2021/032973 A1 [25 Feb 2021; filed 19 Aug 2020]; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1 and claims dependent therefrom, Brosens teach methods of assessing, monitoring, and treating infertility/reproductive disorder and related/associated conditions (such as embryo implantation failure and miscarriage) in a subject, which methods comprise quantifying amounts of marker genes for decidual cells in biological samples from the subject (see entire reference, particularly the Abstract and, e.g., pages 26-27). Preferred embodiments taught by Brosens to achieve their assessments, diagnoses, etc., comprise quantifying expression levels of biomarkers in endometrial stromal cells, including in response to treatment with MPA (applicant’s elected species), i.e., a preferred embodiment as set forth in Applicant’s dependent claims 2-3 (see entire reference, including in particular pages 33-34, the Examples at pages 35-36, and particularly the disclosure of MPA on page 36 at line 8). It is reiterated that the specification discloses that the performance of such steps achieves “identifying” a subject as having progesterone-resistance, such that Brosens inherently teaches methods meeting this requirement of the claims. While it is noted that independent claims 1 and 22 have now been amended to recite the language ‘identifying, or having identified, infertility associated with progesterone-resistance in the subject”, this language does not impart a requirement for any type of further activity/manipulation beyond an “identifying” of a subject “by quantifying a response…” as set forth in, e.g., dependent claim 3; such an instructional limitation added to known method constitutes non-functional descriptive material (see MPEP 2111.05), and it is also reiterated that Brosens teaches “diagnosing” any “reproductive disorder” (including, e.g., a disorder “associated with infertility, miscarriage…..” etc. [see again pages 26-27]), which “diagnosing” is itself a type of “identifying”. Among the treatments taught by Brosens for treating patients exhibiting such infertility is administration of “senolytic drugs” including quercitin (i.e., applicant’s elected species) (see “Methods of therapy” at pages 28-29, and in particular the disclosure of quercitin on page 29 (line 14)); Brosens teaches that the purpose of such treatment includes increasing levels of decidual cells and/or decreasing the level of senescent decidual cells (page 29), which constitutes a disclosure of use of a preferred (and elected) plant flavonoid to increase fertility. Brosens thus anticipate claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2-3 (as discussed above).
With further regard to claim 7, Brosens further teaches methods for quantifying gene expression embraced by the claims (see, e.g., pages 22-23 as well as pages 36-37). Regarding dependent claim 8, the use of MPA is addressed above. Regarding claims 13-14, the use of quercitin (which meets the requirements of both of these claims) is addressed above. Regarding dependent claim 16, Brosens discloses administering therapies in a variety of different ways, including administration daily for multiple menstrual cycles (see, e.g., page 32), which encompasses administering “at time of ovulation”. Regarding claim 21, Brosens teaches further administering “additional agents known to be effective in treating reproductive disorders”, which agents may include progesterone (page 32).
Regarding independent claim 22, while Brosens does not explicitly teach that performing their disclosed therapies – which include an “identifying” and administering of the preferred plant flavonoid quercetin (as discussed above) – for the purpose/benefit of reducing progression or development of endometriosis per se, as Brosens discloses an “administering” meeting the requirements of the claim performed with respect to a subject having been “identified’ as required by the claim, they anticipate what is claimed. The discovery of a previously unappreciated/new property does not render something that is old patentable (see MPEP 2112).
The reply of 28 January 2026 traverses the prior rejection of claims under 35 USC 102 on the following grounds.
First, Applicant notes that the claims have been amended (Reply page 8 bridging to page 9), and urges that Brosens does not teach an “identifying” as required by the (new) language of claims 1 and 22 (Reply page 9). This argument has been thoroughly considered but is not persuasive, as Brosens does teach what is actually required by the claims with regard to “identifying, or having identified….” (as is set forth in the revised rejection of the amended claims, above). Second, Applicant urges that “Brosens also regards miscarriage…and miscarriage is not infertility” (Reply page 9). This argument has also been thoroughly considered but is not persuasive because: a) the term “infertility” cannot reasonably be interpreted as having the narrow meaning asserted by Applicant, given Applicant’s disclosure and the meaning of that term in the art (as discussed above); and b) Brosens does teach infertility (as set forth in the above rejection). Further, with regard to “gene expression…associated with progesterone-resistance”, it is again noted that Brosens teach methods corresponding to Applicant’s preferred embodiment (as in claim 3), such that Brosens anticipates what is actually claimed (again, as outlined in the revised rejection above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
THE FOLLOWING INCLUDES NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION NECESSITATED BY APPLICANT’S AMENDMENTS:
Claim(s) 5, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosens in view of Skliute et al (Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22:6774 [24 June 2021]; previously cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 3 (from which claims 5, 9, and 12 depend), Brosens teach methods of assessing, monitoring, and treating infertility/reproductive disorder and related/associated conditions (such as embryo implantation failure and miscarriage) in a subject, which methods comprise quantifying amounts of marker genes for decidual cells in biological samples from the subject (see entire reference, particularly the Abstract and, e.g., pages 26-27). Preferred embodiments taught by Brosens to achieve their assessments, diagnoses, etc., comprise quantifying expression levels of biomarkers in endometrial stromal cells, including in response to treatment with MPA (applicant’s elected species), i.e., a preferred embodiment as set forth in Applicant’s dependent claims (see entire reference, including in particular pages 33-34, the Examples at pages 35-36, and particularly the disclosure of MPA on page 36 at line 8). It is reiterated that the specification discloses that the performance of such steps achieves “identifying” a subject as having progesterone-resistance, such that Brosens teaches methods meeting this requirement of claim 1. While it is noted that independent claim 1 has now been amended to recite the language “identifying, or having identified, infertility associated with progesterone-resistance in the subject”, this language does not impart a requirement for any type of further activity/manipulation beyond an “identifying” of a subject “by quantifying a response…” as set forth in, e.g., dependent claim 3; such an instructional limitation added to known method constitutes non-functional descriptive material (see MPEP 2111.05), and it is also reiterated that Brosens teaches “diagnosing” any “reproductive disorder” (including, e.g., a disorder “associated with infertility, miscarriage…..” etc. [see again pages 26-27]), which “diagnosing” is itself a type of “identifying”. Among the treatments taught by Brosens for treating patients exhibiting such infertility is administration of “senolytic drugs” including quercitin (i.e., applicant’s elected species) (see “Methods of therapy” at pages 28-29, and in particular the disclosure of quercitin on page 29 (line 14)); Brosens teaches that the purpose of such treatment includes increasing levels of decidual cells and/or decreasing the level of senescent decidual cells (page 29), which constitutes a disclosure of use of a preferred (and elected) plant flavonoid to increase fertility.
Brosens thus teach all that is required by claims 12, other than eSCs obtained from/originating from menstrual effluent, as well as all that is required by claims 5 and 9 - which as written embrace “PLZF and/or IHH gene expression” – other than one of these preferred genes.
Skliute et al teach analysis of endometrial cells isolated from menstrual effluent of healthy volunteers and patients with infertility - including with regard to expression of genes related to decidualization, including after induction with MPA – for the benefit of potentially using such analysis “for the treatment of reproductive disorders” (see entire reference, particularly the Abstract and the Materials and Methods at page 12-13, noting the disclosed use of MPA on page 13). Skliute et al thus teach analysis of cells originating from the endometrium in an analogous manner, and for an analogous purpose, to that of Brosens. Skliute et al teach that menstrual blood cells are “extracted in a non-invasive and painless manner” (Abstract). With particular regard to claims 5 and 9, Skliute et al also teach that IHH is a morphogen whose expression is related to endometrial receptivity and implantation (page 11).
In view of the teachings of Skliute et al, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods of Brosens so as to have practiced those methods on cells isolated from menstrual effluent, rather than cells originating from an endometrial biopsy. An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to have made such a modification for the benefit of employing a sample that may be obtained in a “non-invasive and painless manner”, as taught by Skliute et al. Additionally, given Skliute et al’s teachings of the relevance of IHH, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods of Brosens so as to have included IHH among genes measured via the methods of Brosens in view of Skliute et al. An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to have quantified any of the genes/markers relevant to infertility taught by Skliute et al, including IHH, simply for the benefit of better characterizing any abnormalities in gene expression in a subject being tested. With further regard to claim 9, it is noted that the claim is not properly further limiting of amended claim 1; while the claim requires testing with regard to “PLZF and/or IHH gene expression”, the claim otherwise only specifies what is “indicated” by a possible outcome that is not required, such that nothing more is required by the claim language.
The reply of 28 January 2026 traverses the prior rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 based on the same combination of references on the following grounds.
Applicant urges that none of Brosens, Skliute, and Szwarc teach treating
infertility “associated with progesterone-resistance” (Reply page 10 bridging to page 11) or an “identifying” of patients as required by the amended claims (Reply page 11). These arguments have been thoroughly considered but are non-persuasive for the same reasons given above regarding the rejection of claims under 35 USC 102 (as the Brosens reference does in fact provide the teachings required by the amended claims, as set forth in the revised rejections [which address the limitations argued by Applicant]). The Skliute reference is relied upon only for its teachings set forth in the above rejection (again, with the primary reference Brosens teaching an “identifying” and ‘administering” meeting the requirements of independent claim 1).
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Brosens in view of Skliute et al, as applied to claims 5, 9, and 12, above, and further in view of Szwarc et al (Biology of Reproduction 98(1):15 [2018]; previously cited).
This rejection applies to the claims to the extent that they may require testing of expression with regard to both IHH and PLZF.
The teachings of Brosens and Skliute et al are set forth above. Neither Brosens nor Skliute et al teach quantifying expression of PLZF. However Szwarc et al teach that PLZF is “a direct target of the progesterone receptor and is essential for decidualization of human endometrial stromal cells” (see entire reference, particularly the Abstract).
In view of the teachings of Szwarc et al, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods of Brosens in view of Skliute et al so as to have also included
PLZF among genes measured via the methods of Brosens in view of Skliute et al. An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to have included PLZF given Szwarc et al’s disclosure of its importance in decidualization (and thus relevance to fertility/infertility), simply for the benefit of better characterizing any relevant abnormalities in gene expression in a subject being tested.
The reply of 28 January 2026 traverses the prior rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 based on the same combination of references on the following grounds.
Applicant again urges that “Brosens does not teach or suggest identifying progesterone resistance”, and further urges that neither Skliute nor Szwarc provide this teaching (Reply page 12). Again, these arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons noted above regarding what is taught by Brosens, as well as the revised rejection itself (which addresses the claim limitations in question). Szwarc was further cited for its teachings regarding PLZF (and it is reiterated that this is only one embodiment embraced by the claims, which only require “PLZF and/or IHH gene expression”).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosens in view of Guo et al (Scientific Reports 7:11927 [Jan 2017]; previously cited).
This rejection applies to claim 21 to the extent that it is directed to the elected species of MPA (although it is noted that MPA is not recited in claim 21, and that the claim is also anticipated by Brosens as discussed above).
The teachings of Brosens are set forth above. It is reiterated that Brosens (in addition to teaching administration of quercitin) teaches further administering “additional agents known to be effective in treating reproductive disorders”, which agents may include progesterone (page 32). However, Brosens do not teach use of MPA as a therapy for infertility.
Guo et al teach that MPA may be used as a therapy in women with ovarian endometriosis undergoing IVF (see entire reference). In view of the teachings of Guo et al, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods of Brosens so as to have further employed the additional therapy of MPA in patients of the type taught by Guo et al, and in the manner taught by Guo et al, and thereby to have performed methods meeting the requirements of the claim. An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to have made such a modification simply for the benefit of improving IVF outcomes in such patients.
The reply of 28 January 2026 traverses the prior rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 based on the same combination of references on the following grounds.
The reply urges that “Brosens does not teach or suggest a method of treating infertility associated with progesterone resistance” (Reply page 12 bridging to page 13); however, this is not the case, as has already been discussed above. Applicant further argues that “neither Brosens nor Guo discuss the specific treatment of first administering a plant flavonoid or plant flavonoid analogue and then administering a progesterone (P4) or progesterone analogue to treat infertility association with progesterone-resistance” (Reply page 13). However, absent a showing of unexpected results, the disclosures of the prior art regarding the benefits of both these treatments in addressing the same condition/types of conditions render any order of administration obvious. It is also noted that Brosens states that treatment regimens “that may be administered or carried out may be any agent or treatment regiment known to be effective to treat a reproductive disorder” (see the “Methods of Therapy” section at pages 28-33, particular at page 29, lines 8-9), that “routes, dosages and methods of administration of the therapeutic agents…may be routinely determined by the medical practitioner” (Brosens page 31), and that “progesterone and/or progestogen may be additionally administered” (page 32), suggesting flexibility in the timing of administration, as well as the subsequent “additional” administration of a further agent (beyond those primarily taught by Brosens). Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive (and it is also reiterated that the claim in question does not in fact recite MPA; this claim is also anticipated for the reasons given above).
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 DIANA B JOHANNSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am-3:30 pm EST.
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, Wu-Cheng Winston Shen can be reached at (571) 272-3157. 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.
/DIANA B JOHANNSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights