DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Rejection(s) and/or objection(s) not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejection(s) are reiterated. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Maintained 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.
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.
Cox et al. and Dong et al.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 10-12, 15, 20-23, 42, 43, 47, 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al. (US20180282721Al, of record) in view of Dong et al (Sci Rep 10, 17806 (2020), of record).
Regarding claim 1, Cox discloses a method of generating a combinatorial nucleic acid library comprising: b) synthesizing the first plurality of polynucleotides, the second plurality of polynucleotides, and the third plurality of polynucleotides; and c) mixing the first plurality of polynucleotides, the second plurality of polynucleotides, and the third plurality of polynucleotides to form the combinatorial library of nucleic acids, wherein at least about 70% of a predicted diversity is represented. (e.g." (b) synthesizing the first plurality of polynucleotides and the second plurality of polynucleotides; and (c) mixing the first plurality of polynucleotides and the second plurality of polynucleotides to form the combinatorial library of nucleic acids, wherein at least about 70% of a predicted diversity is represented." [paragraph 0008]).
However, Cox does not disclose a) designing predetermined sequences encoding for i) a first plurality of polynucleotides, wherein each polynucleotide of the first plurality of polynucleotides encodes for a first VHH antibody protein sequence or fragment thereof previously identified as a binder for a first epitope; ii) a second plurality of polynucleotides, wherein each polynucleotide of the second plurality of polynucleotides encodes for a second VHH antibody sequence or fragment thereof previously identified as a binder for a second epitope; and iii) a third plurality of polynucleotides, wherein each polynucleotide of the third plurality of polynucleotides encodes for a third VHH antibody sequence or fragment thereof previously identified as a binder for a third epitope; Dong discloses the identification and selection of multiple VHH antibodies that bind distinct epitopes of the SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD, including VHHs classified into different epitope-binding groups based on competition and epitope mapping assays [Fig. 1-2, "Identification of VHHs binding to different epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein RBD" section page 2]. Dong further teaches the construction of trispecific nanobodies by combining predetermined VHH binders, each previously identified to bind a different epitope, into a single multi-specific antibody format [Fig. 5, Abstract, and "Tri-specific VHH-Fcs show potent S1 RBD binding and S/ACE2 blocking activity" section page 5].
As of the application’ s effective filing date, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to to combine teachings of Cox and Dong because Cox discloses the design and synthesis of combinatorial nucleic acid libraries composed of predetermined sequences encoding antibody variants, including libraries that encode portions of antibodies, and are designed for downstream expression and activity screening. Cox further teaches that such libraries are non-random, are constructed from preselect polynucleotide sequences, and are generated with controlled representation of predicted diversity to enable efficient exploration and optimization of functional protein variants [paragraph 0008]. Dong discloses previously identified VHH antibody sequences and expressly teaches reason to combine such binders by showing tri-specific antibodies simultaneously bind multiple epitopes within the S1 protein RBD, hence increase their antigen-binding affinity and avidity [Fig. 5]. Dong also teaches the multi-specific targeting minimizes the loss of antibody binding to viral antigens due to the mutations of the viruses, effective on a broad spectrum of viruses, and more effective in blocking host-virus interactions than using monoclonal antibodies [Discussion]. In view of Dong’s findings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success and motivated to apply Cox’s combinatorial library methods to systematically encode and explore combinations of predetermined VHH binders, rather than limiting experimentations to a small number of constructs. Cox teaches generating combinatorial libraries encoding antibody sequences or fragments thereof for functional screening . Thus, Cox provides a predictable framework for encoding predetermined antibody sequences into combinatorial libraries with defined diversity, while Dong motivates selecting epitope distinct VHH binders as sequences to be encoded. The combination therefore represents a predictable and obvious use of prior art elements according to their established functions Hence, the proposed combination constitutes a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. This reasoning is consistent with KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 — 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A).
Regarding claim 2, Cox further discloses assaying an activity for nucleic acids encoded by or proteins translated based on the combinatorial library of nucleic acids. (e.g. “(c) assaying an activity for nucleic acids encoded by or proteins translated based on the plurality of polynucleotides” [paragraph 0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Cox further discloses the activity is functional activity, structural stability, expression, specificity, or a combination thereof. (e.g. Downstream applications for selected variants are enzymatic activity, changes in cellular activity, for the treatment or prevention of a disease state, change in the proteins expression, binding affinity and stability. [paragraph 0055 and 0127]).
Regarding claims 6 and 43, Cox further discloses generating synthesized combinatorial nucleic acid libraries with highly controlled representation of sequence diversity, wherein a substantial portion of sequences are presented at frequencies closely clustered around a mean value. Specifically, Cox teaches that at least about 80% of nucleic acid sequences are represented within a define ranged relative to the mean frequency following amplification, showing deliberate control of variance and uniformity within the library [paragraph 0069].
Although Cox does not qualify distribution in term of “one standard deviation”, a person of person od ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that tightening the degree of variance around the mean , such as adjusting the representation from broader range unit (e.g. within a multiple of the mean [Cox et al., paragraph 0069]) to a narrower statistical measure (e.g. within one standard deviation), constitute a routine optimization. Cox teaches that controlling representation accuracy and variance is desirable for library performance, and selecting a narrower statistical threshold would have been predictable modification yielding no unexpected results. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust Cox’s disclosed distribution parameters to achieve a library wherein sequence representation falls within one standard deviation of the mean. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 7, Dong discloses the identification and selection of multiple VHH antibody sequences that bind distinct epitope targets [Fig. 1-2, “Identification of VHHs binding to different epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein RBD” section page 2], further disclose the construction of tri-specific VHH antibody constructs by combining predetermined VHH binders [Fig. 5, Abstract, and “Tri-specific VHH-Fcs show potent S1 RBD binding and S/ACE2 blocking activity” section page 5]. While Dong teaches combining VHHs directed to different epitopes of the same antigen, Dong establishes the motivation and technical feasibility of assembling multi-specific VHH constructs. Cox discloses antibody libraries comprising multi-specific antibody formats, including antibody and antibody fragments capable of recognizing different antigens. Cox further define antibodies to include single domain antibodies and multi-specific constructs such as diabodies recognizing two different antigens [paragraph 0059]. Cox therefore teaches that combinatorial antibody libraries are not limited to a single antigen and can be designed to target multiple antigens. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Cox’s teaching regarding multi-antigen antibody format to the tri-specific VHH constructs taught by Dong, as a predictable variation of the disclosed multi-specific antibody design. Extending Dong’s epitope-diverse VHH combinations to bind different antigens, as taught by Cox, represents a routine and predictable modification within established scope of combinatorial antibody design. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate combinatorial libraries encoding tri-specific VHH antibodies, wherein one or more of the binders recognize different antigens.
Regarding claims 10 and 47, Cox further discloses one or more of the first antigen, second antigen, or third antigen is a G protein. (e.g. the proteins selected for optimizations includes enzyme, transporter proteins, G-protein coupled receptors [paragraph 0127]).
Regarding claim 11, Dong further discloses one or more of the first antigen, second antigen, or third antigen are the same antigen (e.g. The antigen is SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein [abstract]).
Regarding claim 12, Dong further discloses one or more of the first epitope, second epitope, and third epitope is present on a single target protein. (e.g. The target protein is SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein [abstract]).
Regarding claim 15, Cox further discloses one or more of the first epitope, second epitope, and third epitope is present on a G protein. (e.g. the proteins selected for optimizations includes enzyme, transporter proteins, G-protein coupled receptors [paragraph 0127]).
Regarding claim 20, Cox further discloses the activity is cellular activity. (e.g. changes in activity, whether increased or decreased, are linked to specific cellular functions. These functions encompass a wide range of physiological processes, including but not limited to growth, reproduction, adhesion, apoptosis (cell death), migration, and metabolic activity. They also involve energy production, oxygen consumption, intracellular signaling, and the cellular response to oxidative stress [paragraph 0061]).
Regarding claim 21, Cox further the cellular activity comprises reproduction, growth, adhesion, death, migration, energy production, oxygen utilization, metabolic activity, cell signaling, response to free radical damage, or any combination thereof. (e.g. changes in activity, whether increased or decreased, are linked to specific cellular functions. These functions encompass a wide range of physiological processes, including but not limited to growth, reproduction, adhesion, apoptosis (cell death), migration, and metabolic activity. They also involve energy production, oxygen consumption, intracellular signaling, and the cellular response to oxidative stress [paragraph 0061]).
Regarding claim 22, Cox further discloses at least 10,000 polynucleotides are synthesized [paragraph 0008].
Regarding claim 23, further discloses at least about 90% of a predicted diversity is represented [paragraph 0007].
Regarding claim 42, Cox discloses a combinatorial nucleic acid library, which comprises of Defined sequences comprising: : (i) a first set of polynucleotides, where each member contains a variation relative to a peptide sequence; and (ii) a second set of polynucleotides, in which each member also encodes a variant relative to a peptide sequence. [paragraph 0008]. However, Cox does not disclose a third set of polynucleotides and that the polynucleotides encodes for VHH antibody sequences.
Dong discloses the identification and selection of multiple VHH antibodies that bind distinct epitopes of the SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD, including VHHs classified into different epitope-binding groups based on competition and epitope mapping assays [Fig. 1-2, “Identification of VHHs binding to different epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein RBD” section page 2]. Dong further teaches the construction of tripecific nanobodies by combining predetermined VHH binders, each previously identified to bind a different epitope, into a single multi-specific antibody format [Fig. 5, Abstract, and “Tri-specific VHH-Fcs show potent S1 RBD binding and S/ACE2 blocking activity” section page 5].
The rationale for combining the Hindson and Kong references with respect to claim 42 is the same as set forth above for claim 1 and is incorporated herein by reference, as claim 42 does not introduce a limitation that would alter the motivation to combine or the predictable resulted achieved by the combination.
Regarding claim 69, Cox discloses a combinatorial sequence library comprising: Defined sequences comprising: (i) a first set of polynucleotides, where each member contains a variation relative to a peptide sequence; and (ii) a second set of polynucleotides, in which each member also encodes a variant relative to a peptide sequence. [paragraph 0008]. However, Cox does not disclose a third set of polynucleotides and that the polynucleotides encodes for VHH antibody sequences.
Dong discloses the identification and selection of multiple VHH antibodies that bind distinct epitopes of the SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD, including VHHs classified into different epitope-binding groups based on competition and epitope mapping assays [Fig. 1-2, “Identification of VHHs binding to different epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 S1 protein RBD” section page 2]. Dong further teaches the construction of trspecific nanobodies by combining predetermined VHH binders, each previously identified to bind a different epitope, into a single multi-specific antibody format [Fig. 5, Abstract, and “Tri-specific VHH-Fcs show potent S1 RBD binding and S/ACE2 blocking activity” section page 5].
The rationale for combining the Hindson and Kong references with respect to claim 69 is the same as set forth above for claim 1 and is incorporated herein by reference, as claim 69 does not introduce a limitation that would alter the motivation to combine or the predictable resulted achieved by the combination.
Cox et al., Dong et al., and Sato et al.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al.
(US20180282721A1, of record) in view of Dong et al. (Sci Rep 10, 17806 (2020) , of record), and Sato et al. (WO2021061842A1, disclosed in IDS).
Regarding claim 4, Cox does not explicit said the “thermal stability” as a selection criteria.
Sato discloses the structural stability is thermal stability. (e.g. Antibody libraries and their specific regions are screened for functional activity, structural stability (e.g., thermal and pH), expression, specificity, and proper folding [paragraph 0078].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to evaluate thermal stability as part of structural stability assessment of the combinatorial antibody libraries of Cox and Dong because thermal stability is a well-established and routine measured parameter for antibody developability and functionality. Incorporating thermal stability testing represent a predictable variation of the screening criteria already taught by Cox and Dong and would have been expected to yield useful information regarding antibody performance and suitability for downstream applications. As of the application’ s effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success and motivated to include Sato’s assessing thermal stability in the method of Cox and Dong. This reasoning is consistent with KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 — 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E).
Regarding claim 5, Dong discloses that stability is one of the criteria for screening antibodies [paragraph 0126], However, Dong does not explicitly disclose the stability is pH stability.
Sato discloses the structural stability is pH stability. (e.g. Antibody libraries and their specific regions are screened for functional activity, structural stability (e.g., thermal and pH), expression, specificity, and proper folding [paragraph 0078].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to evaluate pH stability as part of structural stability assessment of the combinatorial antibody libraries of Cox and Dong because pH stability is a well-established and routine measured parameter for antibody developability and functionality. Incorporating pH stability testing represent a predictable variation of the screening criteria already taught by Cox and Dong and would have been expected to yield useful information regarding antibody performance and suitability for downstream applications. As of the application’ s effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success and motivated to include Sato’s assessing pH stability in the method of Cox and Dong. This reasoning is consistent with KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 — 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E).
Cox et al., Dong et al., and Corti et al.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox et al.
(US20180282721A1, of record) in view of Dong et al. (Sci Rep 10, 17806 (2020), of record), and Corti et al. (WO2021203053A1, of record)
Regarding claim 16, Cox and Dong do not disclose one or more of the first epitope, second epitope, and third epitope is present on more than one target protein.
Corti discloses antibodies and antigen-binding fragments that recognize a conserved epitope region represent on the SARS CoV-2 surface glycoprotein receptor binding domain (RBD), wherein the same epitope shared across multiple coronaviruses target proteins, including SARS CoV-2 and other
SARS-related coronaviruses (e.g., Urbani, CHUK-1, GZ02, HC_SZ_61_03, A031G, WIV1 SARS-like bat) [Line 1-6 page 14]. Thus, Corti teaches that a single epitope sequence can be present on more than one target protein.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Corti’s teaching into combinatorial library method of Donga and Cox, because selecting epitopes that are conserved across multiple target proteins is a well-established strategy for increasing breadth of binding and functional utility of antibody libraries. Applying Cox’s combinatorial library framework and Dong’s epitope-specific VHH selection to conserved epitopes taught by Corti represents a predictable and routine modification, yielding antibody binders capable of recognizing the same epitope on more than one target protein. As of the application’ s effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success and motivated to generate combinatorial sequence library where in one or more epitopes is presented on more than one protein target. This reasoning is consistent with KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 — 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E).
Response to Remarks
Applicant's argument filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the
reasons set forth below. While applicant has amended the claims and presented arguments traversing
prior rejections, the amendments and arguments do not overcome the rejections as presently applied.
Hence, the rejections maintained.
RE: Applicant argues Cox only teaches variants of a single reference sequence, not different antigens.
In response: 1) Independent claims 1, 42, and 69 are drafted in the alternative and require VHH antibody sequences or fragment thereof previously identified as a binder for a first/second/third epitope or first/second/third antigen. Thus, the claims are satisfied by teachings directed to epitopes. 2) Further, dependent claims 11 separately recites that that claimed epitopes are the same antigen, and dependent claim 12 recites epitopes on the same target protein. 3) Cox is not relied upon for multiple epitopes binding structure. Dong teaches VHH binders that bind to different epitopes of SARS. 4) The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
RE: Applicant argues Dong only teaches tri-specific constructs, not a combinatorial library.
Dong is not relied upon for Cox’s combinatorial library generation method. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
RE: Applicant argues Dong does not teach “pluralities” corresponding to different binders.
Dong identifies multiple VHH binders to SARS and classified them to different epitope binding groups based on competition/epitope mapping. For example, Dong identifies Group 1 VHHs and Group 2 VHHs, then selects VHHs from different groups for construction of multi-specific antibodies. Dong further teaches evaluate multiple multi-specific constructs, e.g. 3F-1B-2A and 1B-3F-2A. Thus, Dong teaches a testing different combination variations of set of previously determined binders. Additionally, Cox is relied on for the teaching of encoding predetermined antibody sequences as pluralities of polynucleotides and mixing such pluralities of polynucleotides to form a combinatorial nucleic acid library. Thus, the limitation is taught by combined teachings of Cox and Dong.
RE: Applicant argues neither Cox or Dong teaches the motivation to combine and no reasonable expectation of success.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as discussed in claim 1, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Cox’s combinatorial library to Dong’s epitope distinct VHH binders to systematically generate and screen more combinations of predetermined VHH-Fc constructs since Dong already confirm the enhance efficacy and thermal stability of multi-specific antibodies over individual VHH-Fc constructs/monoclonal antibody constructs.
RE: Applicant argues the dependent claims 4 and 5 are over Sato does not fixed the deficiencies of Cox and Dong.
In response: with respect to claim 4, although Dong does not mention that thermal stability is part of the screening criteria, Dong teaches that the multi-specific antibodies are thermostable as one of the advantage and strength of the disclosed constructs (e.g. multi-specific VHH-Fc show that they are thermostable [Discussion]). A skilled artisan would have understood that such teaching suggest thermal stability is an important selection criteria for selecting antibodies structures. This teaching is further strengthened and verify by Sato, who explicitly list thermal stability as a consideration in selection workflow.
With respect to claim 5, 1) the claim recites that “the structural stability is pH stability” without defining or set a limitation to any particular pH range, assay, condition, threshold, or result. Applicant’s specification also does not appear to assign a special definition to “pH stability” or requires a specific range for the claimed method. 2) Base on the specification, the identified pH disclosure appears in context of purification buffer conditions, such as TBS pH 7.2 washing buffer and glycine-HCl pH 2.5 elution buffer [applicant’s specification paragraph 00316]. Cox teaches the applicant’s disclosed affinity purification buffers conditions, TBS pH 7.2 washing buffer and glycine-HCl pH 2.5 elution buffer [paragraph 0257]. Dong teaches slightly modified version, buffer A: PBS, pH = 7.4; buffer B: 0.1 M Glycine, pH = 2.5 [“VHH-Fc expression and purification” section]. 3) Sato further strengthen Cox’s teaching to include stability as criteria in antibody screening. Sato took it a step further and lists pH as one of the stability condition. A skilled artisan would have understood that the pH stability limitation suggested by Sato to prevents denature, aggregate, or lose binding affinity during experiments and increase high-throughput . 4) applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
RE: Applicant argues Corti does not cure claim 16 and lack teaching to combine with Cox/Dong.
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Khai Quynh Tien Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-6998. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-4 ET.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at (571) 272-2876. 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.
/KHAI QUYNH TIEN PHAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1684
/JEREMY C FLINDERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights