DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed 3/16/2026 has been received and entered into the application file. All arguments have been fully considered. Claims 1-25 and 27-36 are currently pending. Claims 1-19, 27 and 32 are withdrawn. Claims 20-22 are currently amended. Claim 36 is new. Claim 26 is cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/3/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections- Withdrawn
Applicant’s amendment submitted 3/16/2026 has cancelled claim 26.
REJECTION(S) WITHDRAWN
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
RE: Rejection of Claims 20-26, 28-31 and 33-35 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite:
Regarding claim 20, Applicant’s amendment submitted 3/16/2026 has removed the term “thin”, thus obviating the previous rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claims 21-22, Applicant’s amendment submitted 3/16/2026 has removed the phrase “prior to implantation”, thus obviating the previous rejection of claims 21-22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
RE: Rejection of Claim(s) 20-23, 28-30, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu:
Applicant’s amendment submitted 3/16/2026 has amended claim 1 to now require the limitations previously recited in claim 26 (now cancelled). Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) is withdrawn. The amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Rejection of Claim(s) 24-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, in view of Liu;
RE: Rejection of Claim(s) 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, in view of Fonseca and WO 2019/198086;
Rejection of Claim(s) 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, in view of Pennington:
For the reasons discussed above, the anticipation rejection over Lu et al is withdrawn, and thus the obviousness rejections that are based on the same basis are likewise withdrawn. However, the amendment submitted 3/16/2026 has necessitated new grounds of rejection, as set forth below.
NEW GROUND(S) OF REJECTION, NECESSITATED BY AMENDMENT
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.
Claim 36 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. Claim 36 recites the following:
36. The method of claim 20 wherein said method does not comprise a step of vacuum desiccation.
The limitation that the method does not comprise a step of vacuum desiccation
is not supported by the original disclosure; therefore, the limitation that the method does not comprise a step of vacuum desiccation is considered new matter.
As set forth at MPEP 2173.05(i):
Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ("[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining."). See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, the disclosure does not ‘reasonably convey’ to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Upon review of Applicant’s specification, a skilled artisan would not understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in Applicant’s disclosure to support exclusion of a vacuum desiccation step.
The original disclosure discloses the following regarding ‘drying’:
[032] The above-mentioned biological and synthetic materials can be processed
by crosslinking, drying, molding, casting, printing, vitrification, polymerization, compression, freeze-drying, laser ablation, laser patterning, melting, evaporation,
condensation or a combination of the above.
[036] In some preferred examples, the scaffold is made by air drying a collagen
solution, followed by crosslinking and rehydrating steps, which is somewhat similar to the process disclosed in patent application IL 269671, which relates to corneal endothelial cells, and not retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells; however, there are significant/non- trivial differences in the methodologies and use. Such as collagen source/type; thickness; concentration; crosslinker; crosslinking conditions; and thickness of the scaffold.
[037] The step of air drying the collagen is done by adding a predefined volume
of aqueous collagen solution to a mold, setting the desired environmental conditions, such as humidity, temperature, gas composition, gas flow rate and direction, and light radiation, and letting the solution dry for a predefined period of time.
[040] To produce the crosslinked, rehydrated collagen scaffolds, a controlled
environment during the drying process is used, which may include a 10%-99% relative humidity, air flow, 4 - 40-degree Celsius temperature range; and gas composition.
Additionally, an appropriately designed drying mold is required to produce a suitable and uniform scaffold, the mold having wetting properties that may be hydrophilic surface or having a hydrophobic surface; e.g. made of glass; plastic, such as PTFE; metal; ceramic, or combination thereof, and made of one or more parts. The mold may comprise coatings thereon. The mold may have a wide range of geometries (flat, concave, convex, etc.) that can be beneficial for interfacing. The mold may also be designed (e.g. with a nozzle, inlet tube or the like) to allow and/or support and/or direct air or gas flow to aid in the drying process.
The only reference to vacuum is in regard to using vacuum sockets for removal of the dried collagen from the mold if the scaffold adheres to the mold surfaces ([043]).
Thus, the original disclosure does not comment on any step of vacuum desiccation. The limitation that the method does not comprise a step of vacuum desiccation was introduced in new claim 36, added on 3/16/2026.
An amendment to the claims or the addition of a new claim must be supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 20-25, 28-30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al., (Biomaterials 28 (2007) 1486-1497; see; previously cited) (“Lu”), in view of Liu et al., (Biomaterials, 29 (2008) 1147-1158; see previously cited) (“Liu”).
Lu is directed to the preparation of thin (e.g., 2 or 10 µm thick, claimed range overlaps the prior art range) collagen film scaffolds that mimic Bruch’s membrane, and are useful for retinal epithelial cell culture since collagen films have been used for implantation as surgical grafts (i.e., retinal graft) (Abstract).
Regarding claim 20 Lu, at 2.1 Preparation of collagen sheets, exemplifies: preparing collagen sheets comprising Vitrogen 100 collagen. The Vitrogen 100 collagen solution (3 mg/ml) was mixed in a 1:2 ratio with Dulbecco’s Phosphate Buffered Saline (DPBS) (i.e., preparing a scaffold material solution), the pH was adjusted to 7.0 and 0.75 ml of the collagen solution was subsequently pipetted into acrylic rings (1.9 cm in diameter and 1 cm in height) for a final liquid height of 2.5 mm. The films were cross-linked under a 254 nm UV lamp for 3.5 h (i.e., crosslinking the thin scaffold layer) and then vacuum-desiccated for 48 h with fresh Drierite (i.e., air-drying the scaffold material to form a thin scaffold). After desiccation, the collagen films were semi-hydrated (i.e., rehydrating the scaffold layer), cut to remove from the acrylic mold, sterilized under UV light prior to seeding of cells. Lu, at 2.2 Cell culture, teaches seeding ARPE-19 cells (retinal pigment epithelial cells) at a density of 90 cells/mm2 and cultured, wherein experiments were performed after 7-25 days of culture (i.e., applying retinal pigment epithelial cells onto the scaffold layer). Lu teaches the thickness of the collagen films was under 5 µm (5. Conclusion) and averaged 2.4 µm (3.1 Film characterization, page 1489) (i.e., claimed range overlaps the prior art range).
Further regarding claim 20 and the limitations directed to the crosslinking step, it is noted that Lu does not further comment on the crosslinking step comprises introducing EDC (1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethyl aminopropyl) carbodiimide) and NHS (N-hydroxysuccinimide) to the scaffold material solution. However, Liu is directed to tissue engineering of corneal implants using recombinant human collagen that is crosslinked by introducing EDC and NHS to the scaffold material solution (Abstract). Liu teaches the addition of EDC and NHS for crosslinking permits fabrication of transparent scaffolds suitable for implantation to the eye (3.1 Fabrication of hydrogels, pages 1149-1150). Liu teaches successfully seeding epithelial cells to the cross-linked collagen scaffolds (2.12 In vitro biocompatibility and performance, page 1149), wherein the collagen scaffolds were fully biocompatible and supported cell attachment and proliferation (3.8 In vitro biocompatibility and performance, page 1153). Liu’s histological results show that the implanted grafts became seamlessly integrated into the host tissue (left col, first paragraph, page 1155).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the addition of EDC and NHS for crosslinking since Liu teaches that doing so permits fabrication of transparent collagen scaffolds suitable for implantation to the eye.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Lu to include the addition of EDC and NHS for crosslinking, as taught by Liu, for the predictable result of successfully permitting fabrication of transparent collagen scaffolds suitable for ocular implantation, thus meeting the limitation of claim 20.
The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Lu and Liu because each of these teachings are directed at tissue engineering ocular implants comprising collagen scaffolds.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, claims 21 and 22 are directed to culturing, i.e., maturing, the retinal pigment epithelial cells for at least one week (claim 21), and at least three weeks (claim 22).
Lu teaches culturing, i.e., maturing, the seeded cell scaffolds for 9 and 25 days prior to immunohistochemistry analysis, thus meeting the limitations of claims 21-22.
Regarding claim 23, Lu teaches using Vitrogen 100 collagen (bovine collagen), thus meeting the limitation of claim 23.
Regarding claims 24-25, it is noted that Lu teaches using Vitrogen 100 collagen solution (bovine collagen) and does not further comment on sourcing the collagen from human collagen (claim 25), or human recombinant collagen (claim 24). However, Liu is directed to tissue engineering of corneal implants using recombinant human collagen that is crosslinked by introducing EDC and NHS to the scaffold material solution (Abstract).
Liu teaches implants based on fully characterized, recombinant human collagen eliminates the risk of pathogen transfer or xenogeneic immuno-responses posed by animal collagens and are thus desirable for clinical use (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to substitute human recombinant collagen for Vitrogen 100 collagen since both types of collagens are known for preparing bioengineered tissue scaffolds for ocular implantation. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as simply substituting one type of collagen for another useful for the same purpose ((KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) pg 14 and 12).
Additionally, given that Liu teaches implants based on fully characterized, recombinant human collagen eliminates the risk of pathogen transfer or xenogeneic immuno-responses posed by animal collagens, one would be motivated to substitute recombinant human collagen for the predictable result of providing a human implant that eliminates the risk of pathogen transfer or xenogeneic immuno-responses posed by animal collagens, such as bovine collagen.
Regarding claim 28, Lu teaches the collagen scaffolds were desiccated for 48 hours (2.1 Preparation of collagen sheets), thus meeting the limitation of claim 28.
Regarding claim 29, the collagen scaffolds were dried in the acrylic ring molds (2.1 Preparation of collagen sheets), thus meeting the limitation of claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, Lu teaches seeding the retinal pigment epithelial cells onto the scaffold layer, thus meeting the limitation of claim 30.
Regarding claim 33, Lu teaches cutting the collagen scaffolds from the acrylic rings having a diameter of 1.9 cm (2.1 Preparation of collagen sheets), thus meeting the limitation of claim 33.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, in view of Liu, as applied to claims 20-25, 28-30 and 33 above, and further in view of Fonseca et al., (Chemical Reviews, Vol 120, Issue 19, 11093-11139, September 16, 2020; see; previously cited) (“Fonseca”) and WO 2019/198086 (published 17 October 2019; IDS 8/2/2023, previously cited) (“WO ‘086”).
The teaching of Lu is set forth above.
Regarding claim 31, Lu teaches applying the cells to the scaffold by manually seeding. Lu does not further comment on seeding of the cells using laser-induced forward-transfer (LIFT) technology. However, Fonseca is directed to an article discussing the generation of 3D cellular constructs using precise spatial positioning of cells using bioprinting technologies to engineer artificial tissue models for personalized medicine, human organogenesis, and for disease and drug screening efforts (Abstract). Figure 3 of Fonseca illustrates a variety of different irradiation techniques used in vat photopolymerization of tissue scaffolds, including LIFT (i.e., laser-induced forward-transfer, synonymous with laser-assisted bioprinting). Fonseca further teaches that, although LIFT is a less commonly applied form of bioprinting for in vitro tissue models, LIFT is viewed as one of the technologies developing fastest in the tissue engineering field. Fonseca further describes how the cells to be bioprinted are combined with hydrogel material and then deposited on a metal film. Fonseca teaches optimization of the intensity and extent of laser exposure in order to yield constructs with much greater cell viability (2.4. Laser-Assisted Bioprinting, page 111000).
WO ‘086 is directed to preparing bioengineered corneal grafts comprising crosslinked collagen methacrylate scaffolds that are further seeded with endothelial cells (i.e., bioink) using printing technology (Abstract; [0008]-[0010], [0117]-[0118]; FIG. 1).
WO ‘086 teaches the step of depositing the cells (i.e., bioink) is performed by Laser-Induced Forward Transfer (LIFT) printing ([0085], [0090], [0139] and [0143]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to substitute Laser-Induced Forward Transfer (LIFT) printing for manual cell seeding since both techniques are known for delivering cells to bioengineered scaffolds. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as simply substituting one type of cell seeding technique for another useful for the same purpose ((KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) pg 14 and 12).
Additionally, given that Fonseca teaches LIFT cell seeding uses precise spatial positioning of cells to engineer artificial tissues, one would be motivated to substitute LIFT cell seeding for manual cell seeding for the predictable result of delivering cells to precise positions on the scaffold.
The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Lu with Fonseca and WO ‘086 because each of these teachings are directed at tissue engineering.
Claim(s) 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu, in view of Liu, as applied to claims 20-25, 28-30 and 33 above, and further in view of Pennington et al., (US 2020/0077641; previously cited) (“Pennington”).
The teaching of Lu is set forth above.
Regarding claims 34-35, Pennington is directed to cryopreservation of cell-seeded (e.g. retinal pigment epithelial) substrates (Abstract; [0012], [0067]; claim 20). Pennington teaches cryopreservation of the cell-seeded substrates allows for long-term storage and later use in cell therapy after thawing of the cell-seeded construct ([0013]). Pennington teaches thawing by warming the cell seeded substrate to a target temperature using a temperature ramp-up heating rate to obtain thawed cells seeded on the substrate, and subsequently culturing (i.e., incubating) the cell-seeded substrate for an additional period of time to reach a mature state prior to implantation ([0020]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include cryopreserving the graft, subsequently thawing and culturing (incubating) prior to implantation since Liu teaches cryopreservation of the cell-seeded substrates allows for long-term storage and later use in cell therapy.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Lu to include cryopreserving the graft, subsequently thawing and culturing (incubating) prior to implantation, as taught by Pennington, for the predictable result of successfully permitting fabrication and long-term storage of cell-seeded scaffolds suitable for ocular implantation, thus meeting the limitation of claims 34-35.
The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Lu and Pennington because each of these teachings are directed at tissue engineering ocular implants comprising RPE cells.
Response to Remarks
Rejection(s) under 35 USC 103:
As set forth above, Applicant’s amendment submitted 3/16/2026 has amended claim 1 to now require the limitations previously recited in claim 26 (now cancelled). As discussed in the previous Office action, Lu did not teach crosslinking comprising introducing EDC and NHS molecules to the scaffold material solution. Therefore, the previous rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection as set forth below.
Applicant has traversed the rejection of record on the grounds that claim 20 requires the drying step is performed prior to crosslinking, and the cited reference to Lu teaches drying is conducted after crosslinking, as discussed at Applicant’s remarks (page 8).
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered, but are not found persuasive given that there are no additional limitations as to the order of steps. Listing of the method steps does not impart that the steps are performed in that order. See MPEP 2144.04 IV C and 2111.01 (II). MPEP 2144.04 IV C notes "selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results " In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), and MPEP 2111.01 (II) indicates it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification.
Additionally, it is noted that Applicant has provided no evidence of new or unexpected results regarding the order of steps.
As to Applicant’s remarks regarding the limitation of air drying and Lu’s teaching of drying by vacuum-desiccation for 48 h with fresh Drierite, said drying technique exposes the scaffold to air, absent evidence to the contrary.
As to Applicant’s remarks regarding the cited reference to Fonseca, cited to address claim 31 and the limitation regarding seeding of the cells using laser-induced forward-transfer (LIFT) technology, Applicant has traversed the rejection of record on the grounds that Fonseca teaches additional seeding options but does not point to a specific reason or technological advantage to choose LIFT over the other disclosed options for seeding of cells, as discussed at Applicant’s remarks (page 8).
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered, but are not found persuasive.
In response, it is noted, as discussed in the previous rejection of record,
Fonseca taught that LIFT is viewed as one of the technologies developing fastest in the tissue engineering field and Fonseca teaches the intensity and extent of laser exposure can be optimized in order to yield constructs with much greater cell viability (2.4. Laser-Assisted Bioprinting, page 111000).
Moreover, regarding Applicant’s remarks that Fonseca teaches multiple bio-printing options, the optional seeding techniques cited in Fonseca are a finite number of identifiable techniques that are well known, predictable options in the bio-printing arts.
As noted in KSR International Co. v Teleflex, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (U.S. 2007), “When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
As to Applicant’s remarks that Fonseca teaches away from LIFT bio-printing since it is recognized the technique exposes cells to high thermal energy, as discussed at Applicant’s remarks (page 8), Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered, but are not found persuasive.
In response, it is noted that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have necessarily suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). MPEP 2123(I)
Furthermore, it is noted that the prior art teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken” in the claim. Galderma labs., L.P. v Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 728 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the instant case, Fonseca provides the skilled artisan the knowledge to optimize and adjust the LIFT parameters of laser intensity and extent of laser exposure in order to improve cell viability, which does not discourage one from following the path and instead informs one of appropriate modifications to successfully carry out the technique.
As to Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection of claims 34-35, as discussed at Applicant’s remarks (page 9), Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered, but are not found persuasive.
In response, Applicants rely on the arguments used in traversing the rejection of claims 20-25, 28-30 and 33, relying on Lu et al, to also traverse this rejection without additional arguments. However, as explained above, the previous rejection stands. Therefore, the response set forth above to arguments also applies to this rejection.
Conclusion
No claim is 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 E. YVONNE PYLA whose telephone number is (571)270-7366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 6pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER BABIC can be reached at 571-272-8507. 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.
E. YVONNE PYLA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1633
/EVELYN Y PYLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1633
Prosecution Insights