DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicants’ Amendment
1) Acknowledgment is made of Applicants’ amendment filed 05/11/2026 in response to the non-final Office Action mailed 02/11/2026.
Status of Claims
2) Claims 1, 5, 6 and 8 have been amended via the amendment filed 05/11/26.
Claims and 18-20 have been canceled via the amendment filed 05/11/26.
New claims 21-23 have been added via the amendment filed 05/11/26.
Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 21-23 are under examination. .
Information Disclosure Statement
3) Acknowledgment is made of Applicants’ information disclosure statement filed 03/20/26. The information referred to therein has been considered and a signed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Priority
4) As set forth previously, the instant AIA application, filed 07/20/2023, is the national stage 371 application of PCT/JP2022/001882 filed 01/20/2022, which claims priority to application 2021-009348 filed 01/25/2021 in Japan. A certified copy of the foreign priority application is of record, but not a certified English translation of the same. With regard to the Office’s noting of a certified English translation of the priority document being not of record in the instant application, Applicants state the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
108
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
107
525
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The first sentence of the first paragraph of Applicants’ response set forth supra is incorrect. With regard to a certified English translation of the priority document not being of record in the instant application,the prior Office Action stated the following:
Should Applicants desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), a certified copy of the English translation thereof should be submitted under 37 CFR 1.55 in reply to this Office Action. Failure to do so may result in no benefit being accorded.
Currently, instant claims are not afforded the effective filing date of the foreign priority application.
Prior Citation of Title 35 Sections
5) The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Prior Citation of References
6) The references cited or used as prior art in support of one or more rejections in the instant Office Action and not included on an attached form PTO-892 or form PTO-1449 have been previously cited and made of record.
Objection(s) to Specification and Claim(s)
7) 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) provides, in part, that ‘the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.’ Furthermore, 35 U.S.C § 132 states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
New claim 23 includes the limitations “configured to cause suppression of degradation of memory ....... amyloid b25-35” [Emphasis added], which lack descriptive support and antecedent basis in the as-filed specification.
Rejection(s) Withdrawn
8) The provisional rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-17 set forth in paragraph 8 of the Office Action mailed 02/11/26 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-12 of the co-pending 18273779 application is withdrawn in light of Applicants’ claim amendments and the new rejection set forth in this Office Action to address the claims as amended.
Applicants state that they will file a terminal disclaimer to obviate the rejection if after all claims are otherwise found allowable and the double patenting rejection remains.
9) The provisional rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 12, 13 and 15-17 set forth in paragraph 9 of the Office Action mailed 02/11/26 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-4 and 7 of U.S. 18008698 application is withdrawn in light of the current abandoned status of said application.
10) The provisional rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 12, 13 and 15-17 set forth in paragraph 10 of the Office Action mailed 02/11/26 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-6 of the co-pending 18273796 application is withdrawn in light of Applicants’ claim amendments.
11) The rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-17 set forth in paragraph 12 of the Office Action mailed 02/11/26 under 35 U.S.C § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is withdrawn in light of Applicants’ amendments to claim 1. A new rejection is set forth in this Office Action to address the claims as amended.
12) The rejection of claim 1 set forth in paragraph 14(a) of the Office Action mailed 02/11/26 under 35 U.S.C § 35 U.S.C § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claim.
13) The rejection of claim 5 set forth in paragraph 14(b) of the Office Action mailed 02/11/26 under 35 U.S.C § 35 U.S.C § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in light of Applicants’ amendments to the claim.
14) The rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-17 set forth in paragraph 14(c) of the Office Action mailed 02/11/26 under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in light of Applicants’ amendments to the base claim.
15) The rejection of claims 1-5 and 10-13 set forth in paragraph 16 of the Office Action mailed 02/11/26 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TW 201443075 A (Original; and Machine Translation, pages 1-14, 2014, of record) is withdrawn in light of Applicants’ claim amendments. Applicants’ arguments have been considered, but are moot in light of Applicants’ claim amendments and the new art rejection set forth in this Office Action to address the claims as amended.
16) The rejection of claims 1-7 and 10-17 set forth in paragraph 17 of the Office Action mailed 02/11/26 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 102101988 B1 (Original; & Machine Translation, pages 1/10 to 10/10, 05/12/2020, of record) (KR ‘988) is withdrawn in light of Applicants’ claim amendments. Applicants’ arguments have been considered, but are moot in light of Applicants’ claim amendments and the new art rejection set forth in this Office Action to address the claims as amended.
17) The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 12, 13 and 15-17 set forth in paragraph 18 of the Office Action mailed 02/11/26 under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20220112235 A1 (of record) is withdrawn in light of Applicants’ claim amendments. Applicants’ arguments have been considered, but are moot in light of Applicants’ claim amendments and the new art rejection set forth in this Office Action to address the claims as amended.
Rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) or (Pre-AIA ), First Paragraph
18) The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 the invention.
19) Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as containing 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
New claim 23 includes the limitations “configured to cause suppression of degradation of memory ....... amyloid b25-35” [Emphasis added], which lack descriptive support in the as-filed specification. Therefore, the above-identified limitations in the claim and/or the current scope of the claim constitute new matter. See M.P.E.P 608.04 to 608.04(c).
Applicants are invited to point to the descriptive support in specific pages and lines of the disclosure, as originally filed, for the limitation identified above, or alternatively, remove the new matter from the claim(s). Applicants should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 714.02 and 2163.06.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101
20) 35 U.S.C § 101 states:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
21) Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Instant claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 23 are directed to a composition comprising an enzymatically degraded or protease degraded phycocyanin as an active ingredient as claimed and one or more additive ingredients including a food. Claims 3, 4 and 10-13 are directed to a composition wherein the phycocyanin is derived from a Cyanobacterium or a Cyanobacterium of the genus Spirulina. Such a product is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step: 1: YES). The composition of the dependent claims 6, 7 and 14-17 as a whole is required to be a food composition. Phycocyanin and phycocyanin-containing Spirulina are naturally occurring products. For instance, phycocyanin from a Cyanobacterium or Spirulina is recognized in the art as a naturally occurring product having innumerable natural properties and multiple uses including as a food, pharmaceutical and neutraceutical having innumerable natural properties and multiple uses including as a food, pharmaceutical and neutraceutical. See Abstract; at least first full paragraph under section 7 on page 6; 5th full sentence of 1st full paragraph of page 2; and 2nd full paragraph under section 4 on page 6 of Athiyappan et al. Food and Humanity 2: 100235, pages 1-19, 2024 (of record). Phycocyanin is recognized in the art as a natural fluorophore and as a natural substance that alleviates insulin resistance and enhancer of insulin sensitivity. See 1st sentence of last full paragraph of page 13; and the last sentence of the paragraph bridging pages 12 and 13 of Athiyappan et al. Athiyappan et al. further teach that the extracted phycocyanin has abundant natural properties including antioxidant, anti-microbial, anti-cancer and anti-anemic properties and bioactivity in it. See Abstract; 5th full sentence of 1st full paragraph of page 2; 2nd full sentence of the paragraph bridging pages 11 and 12; and 4th full sentence in right column of page 1. The enzymatically degraded phycocyanin is obtained by degrading the phycocyanin comprised in the cyanobacterial Spirulina., i.e., rendered isolated or purified. See 2nd paragraph under section [0035] of Applicants’ specification. Thus, the enzymatically degraded phycocyanin containing therein components of the recited molecular weight, mass ratio, and C-phycocyanin to allophycocyanin ratio is nature-derived. The enzymatically degraded phycocyanin is the natural phycocyanin of cyanobacterial Spirulina source that is broken up naturally, for example, by a digestive protease, i.e., by natural proteolytic degradation, in the gut of a subject who has consumed phycocyanin-containing Spirulina. Merely removing a natural product from its environment (even breaking bonds) would not make that product patent eligible. There is no evidence that the components of the enzymatically degraded phycocyanin are markedly different as they existed in the enzyme-untreated natural counterpart phycocyanin. An additive ingredient of the claimed composition such as a food recited in claims 6-7 also occurs naturally. Each component of the claimed composition is a nature-derived product. The dry weight recited in new claims 21-22 is not of “the” active ingredient recited in claim 1. There is no evidence that the combination, for example, of a plant food and the enzymatically degraded phycocyanin results in a markedly different characteristic of each of the components of the composition. The claims are therefore directed to naturally occurring judicial exceptions (Step 2: prong 1). All the properties of the claimed phycocyanin such as improving memory learning function and/or cognitive function or suppressing deterioration thereof represent the inherent qualities, properties or characteristics inseparable from said product and therefore are a handiwork of nature. Note that “….. patents cannot issue for the discovery of phenomena of nature”. Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175. Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or a combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the exceptions. There are no additional features in the claims that would either integrate the judicial exceptions (Step 2: prong 2) or add significantly more under Step 2B. The recitations such as ‘health food’ and ‘for improving memory ......’ merely represent the field of use limitations or an intended use of the claimed composition that comprises the judicial exceptions (JE). These limitations do not change, manipulate or modify the JE. Clearly, the claims are subject matter ineligible as they are directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
The rationale for this determination is formed in view of the 2019 PEG, the 2015 Update of the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 4618) (hereafter Interim Eligibility Guidance) dated 16 December 2014, the Life Sciences Examples issued in May 2016, and in view of Myriad v Ambry, CAFC 2014-1361, -1366, 17 December 2014. The unpatentability of laws of nature was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150 (March 20, 2012). The unpatentability of natural products was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U. S. (June13, 2013).
Rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) or (Pre-AIA ), Second Paragraph
22) 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.
23) Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which inventor or a joint inventor, or for the pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Claim 1 is vague, ambiguous and indefinite in the limitations “a molecular weight of less than 500” and “a proportion of components .... is 20 mass% or more”. First, it is unclear what precise molecular weight does the unitless ‘500’ represent. Second, the recited ’20 mass% or more’ represents what precise components having said vague molecular weight is not clear. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot understand in an unambiguous way that which is being claimed. The metes and bounds of the claim are indeterminate.
(b) The dependent claim 2 is indefinite in having improper antecedence in the limitation “the enzymatically degraded spirulina”. Claim 2 depends from the amended claim 1, which does not recite enzymatically degraded ‘spirulina’.
(c) Analogous rejection applies to the dependent claim 5 with regard to the limitation “the phycocyanin or ....” since the amended claim 1 does not recite a phycocyanin, i.e., a phycocyanin other than the enzymatically degraded phycocyanin.
(d) Analogous rejection applies to the dependent claims 11-13 with regard to the limitation “the phycocyanin or .....” since the amended claim 1 from which each of these claims depend indirectly, does not recite a phycocyanin, i.e., a phycocyanin other than the enzymatically degraded phycocyanin.
(e) The dependent claims 21 and 22 are indefinite and appear to lack sufficient antecedence in the limitation “active ingredient”. See line 2. Is this ‘active ingredient’ other than the ‘an active ingredient” recited in the base claim 1 from which instant claims depend directly or indirectly? If not, for proper antecedence, it is suggested that Applicants insert the limitation –the-- prior to the above-identified claim limitation in claims 21 and 22.
(f) New claim 23 is ambiguous and indefinite in the abbreviated limitations “Cct4, Map9, Prnp, Mgat3, Vegfd”. It is unclear what do these abbreviations stand for. Furthermore, it is unclear what these elements are: proteins, peptides, or genes?
(g) New claim 23 is ambiguous and indefinite in the limitations “configured to cause suppression of degradation of memory learning function .....” because it is unclear what is involved or encompassed in ‘configuring’. The term is not specifically defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite process or step, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
(h) The phrase “amyloid ....... Vegfd” in new claim 23 is incomplete and indefinite because it is missing the conjunction word "and" or "or". To appreciate the importance of the conjunctions, see Superguide Corp v. DirecTV Enterprises, 358 F.3d 870 (2004).
(i) New claim 21 is ambiguous and indefinite in the limitations “amount is 0.01 g or more or 10 g or less”. It is unclear what precise amount is encompassed. For example, an amount of more than 0.01 g within the limitation “0.01g or more” includes more than 10 g. One of ordinary skill cannot understand in an unambiguous was the metes and bounds of the claim.
(j) New claim 22 is ambiguous and indefinite in the limitations “amount is 0.03 g or more and 4 g or less”. It is unclear what precise amount or amount range is encompassed. For example, an amount of more than 0.03 g within the limitation “0.03 g or more” includes more than 4 g, and an amount of less than 4 g within the limitation “4 g or less” includes less than 0.03 g. One of ordinary skill cannot understand in an unambiguous way the metes and bounds of the claim.
(k) Claims 2-7, 10-17, 21 and 22, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, are also rejected as being indefinite due to the indefiniteness identified supra in the base claim.
Rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C § 102
24) The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
25) Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 101928743 A (Original and machine translation) as evidenced by US 2022/0232875 A1 filed 10/20/2019 (‘875).
The page numbers and/or sections and claims indicated in the rejection below refer to those in the translated document unless indicated otherwise.
CN 101928743 A taught treating the Spirulina phycocyanin with an enzyme such as trypsinase, chymotrypsin, pepsin, Bacillus licheniformis protease, endopeptidase, or a combination thereof to obtain an enzymolysis product of the Spirulina phycocyanin or enzyme-hydrolyzed Spirulina phycocyanin. Relatively small molecular weight peptide fragments are produced by the endopeptidase enzyme. CN 101928743 A taught a food composition such as a functional food comprising an effective amount or dose (i.e., configured as recited in claim 23) of said enzymolysis product of the Spirulina phycocyanin. The functional food further comprised any other food, i.e., additive food ingredient. The prior art’s enzymatically degraded phycocyanin has advantageous antioxidant activity and higher oxidation resistance and is used for reducing the free radical level in individual body, reinforcing the anti-oxidant system of individual, and/or preventing and/or curing free radical associated disease including neurodegenerative diseases such as ALS, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease, i.e., a disease of cognitive dysfunction as expressly stated by Applicants on page 1 of the as-filed specification. See sections [0004] to [0006], [0008] to [00011], [0013], [0027], [0030], [0033], [0044]; [0047], [0050], [0054], [0056], [0071], [0072], and [0066] the last part therein in particular; Embodiments 2 and 3; Abstract; and claims. A proportion of the enzyme-hydrolyzed peptide fragments depicted on page 5 of Figures/Drawings of the Original CN 101928743 A are expected to meet the vague mass% and molecular weight claim limitations in claim 1 (see 35 U.S.C § 112(b) rejection supra) absent evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, that the mass ratio of C-phycocyanin to allophycocyanin of the phycocyanin of 3 to 9.5 : 0.5 to 7 as recited in claim 1 is inherent from the teachings of CN 101928743 A in light of what was known in the art at the time of the invention. For instance, US ‘875 teaches phycocyanin to be a mixture of C-phycocyanin and allophycocyanin with a mass ratio of 3 to 9.5:0.5 to 7. See section [0053] of US ‘875. The effective amount recited in new claims 21 and 22 (see 35 U.S.C § 112(b) rejection supra) is not required to be that of ‘the’ active ingredient recited in claim 1 and it is expected to be met by any active food ingredient comprised in the prior art composition.
Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 21-23 are anticipated by CN 101928743 A. The reference of US 2022/0232875 A1 is not used as a secondary reference in combination with CN 101928743 A , but rather is used to show that every element of the claimed subject matter is disclosed by CN 101928743 A with the unrecited limitation(s) being inherent as evidenced by the state of the art. See In re Samour 197 USPQ (CCPA 1978).
26) Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imai et al. (Nutrients 13, 4431, pages 1-14, 10 December 2021).
Instant claim is afforded the effective filing date of the instant application due to the new matter set forth supra.
Imai et al. taught a composition comprising an effective amount, as an active ingredient, of an enzyme-digested, i.e., an enzymatically degraded, phycocyanin (EDPC) and an enzymatically degraded Spirulina (ED). The ED was obtained from a purified Spirulina product. The EDPC was a proteolysis product of the PC generated by Protin SD-NY10Ò-mediated cleavage. With the recognition of the prevailing demand for neutraceuticals or functional foods for the prevention or delay of AD, Imai et al. showed that the oral administration of the EDPC composition significantly ameliorated cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) mice model and counteracted the aberrant expression of 35 genes including Vegfd (Figf), Mgat, Prnp, Map9 (Mtap9) and Cct4 by maintaining and/or restoring normal gene expression pattern in the hippocampus. See title, Abstract, and sections 2.1 and 2.2. The Protin SD-NY10Ò is the very same enzyme that has been used by Applicants in the instant application for enzymatic degradation of phycocyanin and therefore, the prior art enzyme-digested phycocyanin product is expected to necessarily have the very same structural, compositional, biological and functional characteristics and activities as claimed.
Claim 23 is anticipated by Imai et al.
27) Claim 1-7, 10-17, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imai et al. (Nutrients 13, 4431, pages 1-14, 10 December 2021).
Imai et al. taught a composition comprising an effective amount, as an active ingredient, of an enzyme-digested, i.e., an enzymatically degraded, phycocyanin (EDPC) and an enzymatically degraded Spirulina (ED), Spirulina being an art-known food ingredient. The ED was obtained from a purified Spirulina product. The EDPC was a proteolysis product of the PC generated by Protin SD-NY10Ò-mediated cleavage, in which no less than 58% were low-molecular-weight components with a molecular weight less than 6 kDa. With the recognition of the prevailing demand for neutraceuticals or functional foods for the prevention or delay of AD, Imai et al. showed that the oral administration of the EDPC composition significantly ameliorated cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) mice model and counteracted the aberrant expression of 35 genes including Vegfd (Figf), Mgat, Prnp, Map9 (Mtap9) and Cct4 by maintaining and/or restoring normal gene expression pattern in the hippocampus. See title, Abstract, and sections 2.1 and 2.2. The Protin SD-NY10Ò is the very same enzyme that has been used by Applicants in the instant application for enzymatic degradation of phycocyanin and therefore, the prior art Protin SD-NY10Ò-enzyme-digested phycocyanin product is expected to necessarily have the very same structural, compositional, biological and functional characteristics and activities as claimed. Furthermore, the recitation such as ‘health food’ merely represents an intended use of the claimed composition.
Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 21-22 are anticipated by Imai et al.
Double Patenting Rejection(s)
28) Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 21-23 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1 and 5-8 of the co-pending 18273779 application.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The identified claims of the co-pending ‘779 application, drawn to a composition such as a food or a health food composition comprising as an effective component a phycocyanin enzymatically degraded product or spirulina enzymatically degraded product obtained by enzyme action of protease PROTIN SD-NY10, wherein the enzymatically degraded product has a molecular weight of less than 500 in a ratio of 20% by mass or more, read on and anticipate the instantly claimed composition. Since the Protin SD-NY10Ò is the very same enzyme that has been used by Applicants in the instant application for enzymatic degradation of phycocyanin, the enzyme-digested phycocyanin product in the composition of the co-pending ‘779 application is expected to necessarily have the very same structural, compositional, biological and functional characteristics and activities as claimed.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
29) No claims are allowed.
30) Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R 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.
Correspondence
31) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to S. Devi, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0854. A message may be left on the Examiner’s voice mail system. The Examiner is on a flexible work schedule, however she can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. (EST). If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Jeffrey Stucker, can be reached at (571) 272-0911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned (571) 273-8300.
32) Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/S. DEVI/
S. Devi, Ph.D.Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1645
July, 2026
Prosecution Insights