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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of 18/249,209
Claims 1-3, 13-16, 31, and 204-208 are currently pending.
Priority
Instant application 18/249,209, filed 4/14/2023, claims priority as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
65
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The provisional application contains support for the instant claims, and thus, the instant claims are granted the effective filing date of 10/16/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
All references from the IDS submitted on 1/17/2025 have been considered unless marked with a strikethrough.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed 8/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 206, and 208 have been amended. Claims 19-29 and 209-210 have been cancelled. No claims have been added.
Claims 206 and 208 were rejected in the Non-Final dated 3/20/2026 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). In response, Applicant has amended claims 206 and 208 to omit instances of parentheses, which overcomes the rejection. Thus, the rejection is overcome.
In the Non-Final dated 3/20/2026, claims 1-3, 13-16, 19-20, 25-29, 31, 204-206, and 208 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) – Written Description. In response, Applicant has cancelled claims 19-20 and 25-29, and has amended claim 1 to recite specific cancers, which defines the cancers characterized by the presence of a solid tumor and associated with overexpression and/or aberrant activity of CDK7, which Applicant argues overcomes the rejection. Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been considered, and are persuasive, which overcomes the rejection. Thus, the rejection is withdrawn.
The Examiner notes Applicants arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) – Written Description contains references to an accompanying affidavit with study results. However, this affidavit is insufficient; it initially refers to “Compound 101”, which is interpreted as the instant elected species and the compound of instant claim 1, then switches to “Compound 1”. It is unclear if this is intended to be the same compound. Thus, “Compound 1” is currently being interpreted as the compound labeled “1” in the specification on page 80, as trans tert-butyl N-(6-methyl-3-piperidyl)carbamate (page 80), and the affidavit is insufficient.
In the Non-Final dated 3/20/2026, claims 1, 13-16, 19-20, 25-29, 31, 204-206, and 210 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) – Enablement. In response, Applicant has cancelled claims 19-20, 25-29, and 210, and has provided the definition of the cancers characterized by the presence of a solid tumor and associated with overexpression and/or aberrant activity of CDK7 able to be treated by the compound of the instant claims recited in claim 1. Similar to above, Applicants arguments and amendments to claim 1 have been considered, and are persuasive. Thus, the rejection is overcome and withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 13-16, 19-20, 25-29, 31, 204-206, 208, and 210 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Non-Final dated 3/20/2026. In response, Applicant has cancelled claims 19-20, 25-29, and 210, and argues that the reference NCT03134638 does not teach the claimed, single compound recited in claim 1, and thus does not provide a reasoned basis to substituted SY-5609 for SY-1365 with a reasonable expectation of therapeutic success. This argument has been considered, but is not persuasive, because while the NCT03134638 reference teaches a CDK7 inhibitor as able to treat 12 patients with HR+ metastatic breast cancer post CDK4/6+ hormonal therapy treatment with SY-1365 and fulvestrant, the reference Diab provides the teaching of the deficiency as it teaches SY-5609 as a CDK7 inhibitor. As stated previously, a skilled artisan would expect success because the compounds of NCT03134638 and Diab have the same target, and the compounds would be expected to have similar properties. A skilled artisan would be motivated to make this substitution in order to identify additional breast cancer treatments. Further, Applicant argues that the claimed dosing regimen and dosage range are not suggested by the prior art, and that these variables affect efficacy and toxicity in oncology treatment, and that the cited art provides no guidance that would have led a skilled artisan to make this collection of selections with a reasonable expectation of success. However, the Examiner disagrees because the NCT03134638 reference does teach an administration period, followed by a 7 day pause, and the NCT03134638 reference teaches an administration dose of a CDK7 inhibitor, which are a range of workable conditions, and it would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal limitations to best achieve the desired result. Applicants arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive for the reasons stated above. Thus, the rejection is maintained. Evidence of criticality for the dosing regimens and the dosage range, or superior/unexpected results would overcome this rejection. The rejected claims have been updated to reflect Applicant’s claim changes.
In the Non-Final dated 3/20/2026, claims 1-3, 19-20, 26-29, and 210 were rejected on the ground(s) of nonstatutory double patenting. In response, Applicant has cancelled claims 19-20, 26-29, and 210, and argues that do not recite the specific dosing limitations now required by instant amended claim 1. Applicants arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive because the utility disclosed in the specifications provides further support for a nonstatutory double patenting rejection, and a skilled artisan would be motivated to substitute Compound 101 of the ‘067 Patent, the ‘869 Patent, and the ’690 Application in the CDK7 method of treatment of the NCT03134638 teachings in and Diab. Thus, the rejection is maintained. Similar to above, evidence of criticality for the dosing regimens and the dosage range, or superior/unexpected results would overcome this rejection. The rejected claims have been updated to reflect Applicant’s claim changes.
Additionally, Applicants amendments have provided new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of breast cancer as the single disclosed species of cancer to treat, compound 101:
PNG
media_image2.png
330
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
as the single disclosed species of Formula (I), a 14 day treatment cycle, once or twice daily for the first 7 days of the cycle at a dose of 1-30 mg/day and withheld for the subsequent 7 days of the cycle as the single disclosed species of dosing regimen, a CDK4/6 inhibitor as the single disclosed inhibitor as to which the cancer is resistant or has become refractory, and a taxane as the single disclosed species of second anti-cancer agent, with traverse, in the reply filed 11/20/2025 is acknowledged. The Examiner notes compound 101 is a compound of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image3.png
232
184
media_image3.png
Greyscale
When R1 is methyl, R2 is methyl, R3 is 6,6-dimethylpiperidin-3-yl, and R4 is CF3.
The traversal is on the grounds that the pending claims have been amended to treating a human patient with compounds of Formula (I), and thus, the prior art does not teach the inventive concept. This argument is not found persuasive because the claim set examined for the election of species requirement was the amended claim set submitted 4/14/2023, which recited treatment of a patient. A patient is defined in the instant disclosure on page 46, lines 10-18, and includes research animals such as rodents and transgenic mice. Thus, the art applied in the election of species requirement of 9/23/2025 is valid. The amendments to the claims to recite a human patient were submitted on 11/20/2025, in response to the election of species requirement. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examination will begin with the elected species. In accordance with MPEP § 803.02, if upon examination of the elected species, no prior art is found that would anticipate or render obvious the instant invention based on the elected species, the search of the Markush-type claim will be extended. If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the non- elected species, the Markush-type claim will be rejected. It should be noted that the prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all non-elected species. Should Applicant overcome the rejection by amending the claim, the amended claim will be examined again. The prior art search will be extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. In the event prior art is found during further examination that renders obvious or anticipates the amended Markush-type claim, the claim will be rejected and the action made final.
In the Non-Final dated 3/20/2026, the elected species was searched and prior art was identified. The rejection was not overcome by Applicant’s arguments and amendments dated 8/19/2026. See the 103 rejection below. Moreover, during the search, additional prior art was identified where the second anti-cancer agent of the method is fulvestrant, which is a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD). The full scope of the claims has not yet been searched in accordance with Markush search practice. Claims 1-3, 13-16, 31, 204-206, and 208 read on the elected and expanded species. Claim 207 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species and/or group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites compounds of Formula (I), which when R1 is methyl, R2 is methyl, R3 is 6,6-dimethylpiperidin-3-yl, and R4 is CF3, maps to the elected species, which is also known in the present disclosure as compound 101. During the search, the elected species was also found to be known in the art as SY-5609. Thus, the elected species is currently being interpreted as synonymous with the terminology of “compound 101” and “SY-5609”.
MAINTAINED REJECTIONS
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.
Claims 1-3, 13-16, 31, 204-206, and 208 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clinical Trial NCT03134638 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03134638?cond=Breast%20Cancer&term=CDK7&rank=2&tab=history&a=9#version-content-panel, V9, published 2019-09-12, accessed 3/10/2026, herein after “NCT03134638”) and further in view of Diab (Diab, S. Yu, M. and Wang, S. J. Med. Chem. 2020, 63, 7458-7474). This rejection applies to the expanded species where the second anti-cancer agent is fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD). See below for the rejection of the elected species, where the second anti-cancer agent is a taxane.
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
The reference NCT03134638 teaches methods of treating human patients with advanced solid tumors with CDK7 inhibitor SY-1365 (title). Specifically, NCT03134638 teaches the treatment of cohort 5, which is approximately 12 patients with HR+ metastatic breast cancer post CDK4/6+ hormonal therapy treatment with SY-1365 and fulvestrant (page 6). The drug SY-1365 was administered by intravenous infusion over 1 or 2 hours once a week for 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle, which phrased differently, is where SY-1365 is withheld for the subsequent 7 days of the cycle after drug administration, and fulvestrant, a second anti-cancer agent, is administered at a dose of 500 mg every 2 weeks (pages 9-10). Further, cohort 5 consists of postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2- or TNBC who have failed prior treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, which indicates resistance to a previously administered anti-cancer agent (page 13).
The reference Diab teaches the compound SY-5609, also known as the instant elected species of Formula (I), as a potent, orally bioavailable CDK7 inhibitor (page 7467). Diab further teaches the treatment of breast cancer cell lines and PDX models with SY-5609.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
NCT03134638 fails to teach the method of treatment with the compound SY-5609, also known as the elected species of instant Formula (I).
Diab fails to teach a method of treating a human patient with breast cancer.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
The level of ordinary skill in the art is represented by an artisan who has sufficient background in the development of methods of treating cancers by CDK7 inhibition. An artisan possess the technical knowledge necessary to make adjustments to the methods to enhance their effectiveness. Said artisan has also reviewed the problems in the art as regards to use of said methods of treating cancers by CDK7 inhibition and understands the solutions that are widely known in the art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness
Applying KSR prong (B), it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the CDK7 inhibitor of clinical trial NCT03134638 with the elected species, also known as CDK7 inhibitor SY-5609, because both compounds have the same target. Thus, the substitution of the CDK7 inhibitor of NCT03134638 for the instant elected species would be expected to have similar properties, and a skilled artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date to make such a substitution to identify additional methods of treating breast cancer. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in view of the teachings of Diab and NCT03134638.
With respect to the dosage limitations of claims 1, 2, 204, and 210, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the dosage amounts, frequencies, and durations recited in the instant claims because it is considered well within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the dosage amounts, frequencies, and durations to provide optimal cancer treatment. The dosage amounts, frequencies, and durations are result effective parameters that will affect the outcome of the final treatment. The amount of a compound of Formula (I) in method of treatment is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill would routinely optimize, as is the duration of administration of the compound. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably would expect success. Moreover, the dosage amounts, frequencies, and durations, disclosed by NCT03134638 above, provide a range of workable conditions and it would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal limitations to best achieve the desired result. Furthermore, absent any evidence demonstrating a patentable difference between the dosage limitations and the criticality of the claimed amounts, the determination of the optimum workable range(s) given the guidance of the prior art would have been generally prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan. See MPEP § 2144.05 [R-2](II) (A) and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) “[W]here the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
Claims 31, 205, and 208 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clinical Trial NCT03134638 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03134638?cond=Breast%20Cancer&term=CDK7&rank=2&tab=history&a=9#version-content-panel, V9, published 2019-09-12, accessed 3/10/2026, herein after “NCT03134638”), in view of Diab (Diab, S. Yu, M. and Wang, S. J. Med. Chem. 2020, 63, 7458-7474) and in further view of Syros Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (WO 2018/231859 A1, herein after “Syros”). This rejection applies to the elected species where the second anti-cancer agent is a taxane.
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
The references NCT03134638 and Diab teach as disclose above, and at least those teachings are incorporated herein. Further, the reference Syros teaches methods of treating cancer with CDK7 inhibitors, and specifically identifies administration of the combination of a CDK7 inhibitor and a taxane (page 10, para [27]).
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
NCT03134638 fails to teach the method of treatment with the compound SY-5609, also known as the elected species of instant Formula (I).
Diab fails to teach a method of treating a human patient with breast cancer.
Syros fails to teach a method of treating a human patient with the instant elected species.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
The level of ordinary skill in the art is represented by an artisan who has sufficient background in the development of methods of treating cancers by CDK7 inhibition. An artisan possess the technical knowledge necessary to make adjustments to the methods to enhance their effectiveness. Said artisan has also reviewed the problems in the art as regards to use of said methods of treating cancers by CDK7 inhibition and understands the solutions that are widely known in the art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness
Applying KSR prong (B), it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the second anti-cancer agent, the SERD fulvestrant, of NCT03134638 with a taxane because both SERDs and taxanes are known in the art to treat breast cancer in combination with CDK7 inhibitors. Thus, the substitution of fulvestrant of NCT03134638 for a taxane would be expected to have similar properties, and a skilled artisan would have been motivated before the effective filing date to make such a substitution to identify additional methods of treating breast cancer. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in view of the teachings of NCT03134638, Diab, and Syros.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,738,067 B2 (herein after the “‘067 Patent”) in view of Clinical Trial NCT03134638 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03134638?cond=Breast%20Cancer&term=CDK7&rank=2&tab=history&a=9#version-content-panel, V9, published 2019-09-12, accessed 3/10/2026, herein after “NCT03134638”) and Diab (Diab, S. Yu, M. and Wang, S. J. Med. Chem. 2020, 63, 7458-7474).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘067 Patent teach the instant elected species of Formula (I), also known as SY-5609. The utility disclosed in the specification provides further support for a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. See MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1) and Sun Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 611 F.3d 1381, 95 USPQ2d 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Though the ‘067 Patent fails to recite the dosage limitations of the instant claims, the references NCT03134638 and Diab teach the deficiencies of the ‘067 Patent as disclosed above to arrive at the instant claims.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8-11, 13, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,240,869 B2 (herein after the “‘869 Patent”) in view of Clinical Trial NCT03134638 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03134638?cond=Breast%20Cancer&term=CDK7&rank=2&tab=history&a=9#version-content-panel, V9, published 2019-09-12, accessed 3/10/2026, herein after “NCT03134638”) and Diab (Diab, S. Yu, M. and Wang, S. J. Med. Chem. 2020, 63, 7458-7474).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘869 Patent teach compounds of Formula (I), which is identical to instant Formula (I) including the variables for R1, R2, R3, and R4. The utility disclosed in the specification provides further support for a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. See MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1) and Sun Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 611 F.3d 1381, 95 USPQ2d 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Though the ‘869 Patent fails to recite the dosage limitations of the instant claims, the references NCT03134638 and Diab teach the deficiencies of the ‘869 Patent as disclosed above to arrive at the instant claims.
Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/037,690 (reference application, herein after the “’690 Application”) in view of Clinical Trial NCT03134638 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03134638?cond=Breast%20Cancer&term=CDK7&rank=2&tab=history&a=9#version-content-panel, V9, published 2019-09-12, accessed 3/10/2026, herein after “NCT03134638”) and Diab (Diab, S. Yu, M. and Wang, S. J. Med. Chem. 2020, 63, 7458-7474).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the ‘690 Application teaches a method of treating or preventing a disease in a subject in need thereof, comprising administering a pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound of Formula (I) where the disease is a proliferative disease. The Formula (I) of the ‘690 Application is identical to the Formula (I) of the instant claims, including the variables for R1, R2, R3, and R4. Though the ‘690 Application fails to recite the dosage limitations of the instant claims, the references NCT03134638 and Diab teach the deficiencies of the ‘690 Application as disclosed above to arrive at the instant claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
NEW REJECTIONS NECESSITATED BY AMENDMENT
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 208 is 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.
Claim 208 recites, “the cancer is a melanoma”, in reference to the cancer being treated in the human patient of claim 31, and ultimately claim 1. However, Applicant has amended instant claim 1 to recite that the cancers can be selected from a breast cancer, a gastrointestinal tract cancer, a lung cancer, a pancreatic cancer, a cancer of a reproductive organ, or a cancer of a bone or the surrounding soft tissue. The limitation of melanoma is a skin cancer and thus does not fall into the limitations recited in instant claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 13-16, 31, 204-206, and 208 are rejected. Claim 207 is withdrawn.
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 Kendall Heitmeier whose telephone number is (703)756-1555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, Clinton Brooks can be reached at 571-270-7682. 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.
/K.N.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1621
/CLINTON A BROOKS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights