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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 17, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-final Rejection on April 29, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of claims / Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to an amendment filed on August 10, 2026.
Claims 1-11 and 14-22 were previously pending. Applicant amended 1, 3-5, 10-11 and 20.
Claims 1-11 and 14-22 are currently pending, with claims 5, 7, 9, 15 and 17-19 withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 14, 16 and 20-22 are under examination.
Applicant's submission of the amendment to specification obviated the previously presented objection.
Applicant's claim amendments and arguments overcame the following objections and rejection:
Objections to claim 1;
Rejections of Claims 1-2, 10-11, 14, 16 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moshkevich;
Rejections of Claims 3-4, 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moshkevich, in view of Quake, as evidenced by Toronto;
Provisional Rejections of Claims 1-3, 10-11, 14, 16 and 20-21 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 17-18 and 22 of copending Application No. 18/282,390;
Rejections of Claims 1, 10-11, 14 and 16 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, 9 and 11 of U.S. Patent No.12234509B2;
Provisional Rejections of Claims 1, 10-11, 16 and 21-22 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-10 and 14-15 of copending Application No. 18/680,693;
Provisional Rejections of Claims 1-2, 10-11, 16, 20 and 22 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3, 30, 36, 45, 47, 64 of copending Application No. 17/925,693;
Provisional Rejections of Claims 1-4, 6, 10-11,14 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 13-16, 31, 35 of copending Application No. 18/866,747(reference application, amended claims filed on 09/24/2025), in view of Moshkevich.
All of the previously presented prior art rejections have been withdrawn as being obviated by the amendment of the claims, which introduces new limitations that were not previously considered in the prior rejection (e.g., the amended claim 1 now requires a determining step using two thresholds: "a first cutoff threshold" and "a second cutoff threshold," which was not presented in prior claims and not considered in the prior office action.). Thus, the scope of the claims has been changed in a manner that were not considered in the previous rejections.
However, the claims are still considered obvious over the same cited prior art references, as set forth in the new grounds of rejection below, which includes additional evidence and support that address the newly added claim limitations.
Applicant' s amendments and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed, but are not persuasive to place the claims in condition for allowance for the reasons that follow.
This office action contains new grounds for rejection necessitated by amendment.
New Grounds of 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 14, 16 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moshkevich (WO2020010255A1 - Methods for detection of donor-derived cell-free dna; Published: 2020-01-09) , in view of Quake (US20120295810A1 - Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Graft Rejection in Organ Transplant Patients; published on 2012-11-22; cited as US. Pat document #409 in IDS filed on 01/17/2025), as evidenced by
Toronto (Kidney/Pancreas Transplant Manual; Toronto Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Program; Archived July 09, 2020 on WaybackMachine).
A) Moshkevich teaches sequencing methods for determining the status of an allograft within a transplant recipient from genotypic data measured from a blood sample comprising DNA from both the transplant recipient and from the donor (see Abstract; Page 232, claim 1-3, 9, 22).
Regarding claim 1, Moshkevich teaches a method comprising:
(a) extracting cell-free DNA from a blood, plasma, serum or urine sample of a transplant recipient who has received transplantation (Page 225, embodiment 3, “extracting DNA from the blood sample of the transplant recipient, wherein the DNA comprises donor-derived cell-free DNA and recipient-derived cell-free DNA,”; Page 232, claim 1-3, 22),
wherein the extracted cell-free DNA comprises donor-derived cell-free DNA and recipient- derived cell-free DNA (Page 225, embodiment 3; Page 232, claim 1-3, 22);
(b) performing targeted amplification at 200-50,000 target loci in a single reaction volume using 200-50,000 primer pairs,
wherein the target loci comprise polymorphic loci and non-polymorphic loci (Page 225, embodiment 3, “performing targeted amplification at 500-50,000 target loci in a single reaction volume using 500-50,000 primer pairs, wherein the target loci comprise polymorphic loci and non-polymorphic loci;” Page 232, claim 1-3);
(c) sequencing the amplification products by high-throughput sequencing to obtain sequencing reads (Page 225, embodiment 3, “sequencing the amplification products by high-throughput sequencing”) and quantifying an amount of donor-derived cell-free DNA and a fraction of donor-derived cell-free DNA in total cell-free DNA based on the sequencing reads ( Page 226, see embodiments 10-11; see also Page 232, claim 22 “sequencing the amplification products by high-throughput sequencing; and e) quantifying the amount of donor-derived cell-free DNA in the blood sample, wherein an amount of dd-cfDNA of greater than 1% indicates that the transplant is undergoing acute rejection”; claim 36 “the cutoff threshold value is scaled according to the amount of total cfDNA in the blood sample.”); and
(d) determining
whether the amount of donor-derived cell-free DNA or a function thereof exceeds a first cutoff threshold indicating transplant rejection or graft injury (Table 19, 13.4 donor copies/ml ) and
whether the fraction of donor-derived cell-free DNA in total cell-free DNA exceeds a second cutoff threshold indicating transplant rejection or graft injury (Table 19, 1% dd-cfDNA %) ; and
identifying the transplant recipient as being at risk of transplant rejection or graft injury when at least one of the first cutoff threshold and the second cutoff threshold is exceeded (page 226, Embodiment 12, “detecting the occurrence or likely occurrence of active rejection of transplantation using the quantified amount of donor-derived cell-free DNA”.; see page 221, lines 12-18, the rejection status is determined individually based on each threshold; see also FIG. 48).
Regarding the amended part (d), it is taught by Moshkevich.
Specifically, Moshkevich teaches applying different thresholds in Table 19, to determine whether the transplant recipient is at risk of transplant rejection. The thresholds including an amount of donor-derived cell-free DNA (Table 19, 13.4 donor copies/ml ) and a fraction of donor-derived cell-free DNA in total cell-free DNA (Table 19, 1% dd-cfDNA %).
The rejection status is determined individually based on each threshold, and active rejections are identified if the corresponding value from the sample exceeds the threshold (FIG. 48; page 221, lines 12-18), therefore Moshkevich’s teaching meets the limitation “identifying the transplant recipient as being at risk of transplant rejection or graft injury when at least one of the first cutoff threshold and the second cutoff threshold is exceeded.”
Moshkevich teaches its methods are for determining the likelihood of transplant rejection within a transplant recipient (for examples see page 227, embodiment 25; page 4, lines 3-11; page 22, lines 22-29). Although Moshkevich does not explicitly teach a transplant recipient who has received transplantation of multiple organs, a skilled artisan would have found Moshkevich’s teaching applicable to such recipients.
Moshkevich teaches there is a need for a non-invasive test for transplantation rejection:
"There is currently about 190,000 living kidney recipients in the United State and about 20,000 kidney transplant surgeries occur annually. Rapid detection of kidney allograft injury and/or rejection remains a challenge. Previous attempts to use serum creatinine to determine kidney transplant status have lacked specificity, and biopsy transplants are invasive and costly and possibly lead to late diagnosis of transplant injury and/or rejection.
Because the immune system recognizes an allograft as foreign to a body and activates various immune mechanisms to reject the allograft, it is often necessary to medically suppress the normal immune system response to reject a transplant. Therefore, there is a need for a non-invasive test for transplantation rejection that is more sensitive and more specific than conventional tests." (page 1, lines 13-21)
Moshkevich teaches it is known in the art that graft injury causes the release of donor cfDNA in transplant recipients. Moshkevich then teaches an SNP-based massively multiplex PCR assay that identifies transplant rejection by measuring the fraction of donor cfDNA in the patient's blood, without requiring donor genotypes:
"It is known in the art that cell-free nucleic acid (e.g. cfDNA), can be released into the circulation via various forms of cell death such as apoptosis, necrosis, autophagy and necroptosis." (page 152, lines 26-27)
"The single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based massively multiplexed PCR (mmPCR) assay targets 13,926 SNPs to accurately detect allograft rejection/injury without the need for donor genotypes. Leveraging a proven biomarker and an established methodology, the SNP-based dd- cfDNA assay identifies active rejection by measuring the fraction of donor derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) in the patient’s blood, a mixture of donor and recipient cell-free DNA. Because cells release dd-cfDNA upon graft injury or death, a higher dd-cfDNA fraction indicates a higher likelihood of active rejection." (page 198, lines 24-30)
Accordingly, a skilled artisan would readily recognize that the methods taught by Moshkevich is applicable to a transplant recipient who has received transplantation of multiple organs. This scenario share the same unmet needs for a non-invasive test for transplantation rejection, as discussed in Moshkevich.
Therefore, a skilled artisan, understanding that the principle of detecting donor cfDNA (i.e., "Because cells release dd-cfDNA upon graft injury or death, a higher dd-cfDNA fraction indicates a higher likelihood of active rejection") remains consistent between transplantation of a single organ and multiple organs, and recognizing that the rejection risk for multiple-organ transplantation is likely higher than for single organ transplantation, would have found it both prima facie obvious and motivating to apply Moshkevich's assay to assess rejection risk in the specific case of a transplant recipient who has received transplantation of a plurality of organs, thereby addressing the unmet need for improved transplantation rejection monitoring, as suggested by Moshkevich.
The person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success as the principle of detecting donor cfDNA is the same across the contexts of transplantation rejection monitoring. Furthermore, the use of donor cfDNA for monitoring transplantation rejection in multiple-organ transplantation (e.g., simultaneous kidney and pancreas transplantation) has been contemplated by those in the field of molecular pathology, as explicitly disclosed by the teachings in Quake:
“ [0050] Following transplantation, bodily fluid such as blood can be drawn from the patient and analyzed for markers. Examples of bodily fluids include, but are not limited to, smears, sputum, biopsies, secretions, cerebrospinal fluid, bile, blood, lymph fluid, saliva, and urine. Detection, identification and/or quantitation of the donor-specific markers (e.g. polymorphic markers such as SNPs) can be performed using real-time PCR, chips (e.g., SNP chips), high-throughput shotgun sequencing of circulating nucleic acids (e.g. cell-free DNA), as well as other methods known in the art including the methods described herein. The proportion of donor nucleic acids can be monitored over time and an increase in this proportion can be used to determine transplant status or outcome (e.g. transplant rejection).
[0051] In some embodiments, where the transplant is a xenotransplant, detection, identification and/or quantitation of the donor-specific markers can be performed by mapping one or more nucleic acids (e.g., DNA) to the genome of the specie use to determine whether the one or more nucleic acids come from the transplant donor. Polymorphic markers as described above can also be used where the transplant is a xenotransplant.
[0052] In any of the embodiments described herein, the transplant graft can be any solid organ or skin transplant. Examples of organ transplants that can be analyzed by the methods described herein include but are not limited to kidney transplant, pancreas transplant, liver transplant, heart transplant, lung transplant, intestine transplant, pancreas after kidney transplant, and simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant. “
B) Regarding claim 2, Moshkevich teaches wherein the transplant recipient is a human subject (e.g., page 114, line 18; page 169, lines 24-30)
Regarding claim 3, Quake teaches simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant ([0052]).
Regarding claim 4, Quake teaches simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant ([0052]).
In simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant, the organs are from the same transplant donors, as evidenced by Toronto (page 10 "Simultaneous kidney and pancreas transplantation: During this operation, you receive a kidney and a pancreas from a deceased donor. You have one operation, where both organs are inserted at the same time.").
Regarding claim 6, Quake teaches transplant recipient has received simultaneous transplantation of more than one organ ([0052] simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant).
Regarding claim 8, Quake teaches transplant recipient has received simultaneous transplantation of kidney and pancreas (SPK) ([0052] simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplant).
Regarding claim 10, Moshkevich teaches the second cutoff threshold comprises a percentage of donor-derived cell-free DNA out of total cell-free DNA (Table 19, 1% dd-cfDNA %; p. 167, lines 5-6, “it was found that dd-cfDNA at a level of above 1% (out of total free circulating DNA) serves as a suitable threshold for classifying a kidney transplant as undergoing acute rejection (AR).”).
Regarding claim 11, Moshkevich teaches first cutoff threshold comprises a set concentration of donor-derived cell-free DNA (Table 19, 13.4 donor copies/ml).
Regarding claim 14, Moshkevich teaches the targeted amplification comprises PCR, and the 200-50,000 primer pairs comprise forward and reverse PCR primers (page 12, lines 5-12; page 63-64, “Targeted PCR”; page 68, highly multiplex PCR, “more than 10,000 distinct loci can be evaluated simultaneously, in a single reaction, with sufficiently good efficiency and specificity to make non-invasive transplant status calls with high accuracy”).
Regarding claim 16, Moshkevich teaches the target loci comprise single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (page 166-167, example 1, massively multiplexed PCR, which targeted 13,392 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)) .
Regarding claim 20, Moshkevich teaches repeating steps (a)-(d) longitudinally for the same transplant recipient, and determining a longitudinal change in the amount of donor-derived cell-free DNA and the fraction of donor- derived cell-free DNA in total cell-free DNA in the transplant recipient (page 237, claim 33; page 236, claim 26; page 6, lines 4-7; page 175, “dd-cfDNA Variability Over Time”; page 226, embodiments 10-11).
Regarding claim 21, Moshkevich teaches adjusting immunosuppressive therapy based on the longitudinal change in the amount of donor-derived cell-free DNA or a function thereof in the transplant recipient (page 236, claim 27).
Regarding claim 22, Moshkevich teaches wherein the method is performed without prior knowledge of donor genotypes (page 3, lines 10-11; page 169, lines 19-21).
New Grounds of Double Patenting Rejections - Obvious Type
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, 10-11, 14, 16, 20-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, 17-18 and 21 of copending Application No. 18/282,390 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are obvious over the claims (filed on 04/22/2026) of the '390 application.
Instant claim 1 recites:
A method of amplifying and sequencing DNA, comprising:
(a) extracting cell-free DNA from a blood, plasma, serum or urine sample of a transplant recipient who has received transplantation of a plurality of organs (‘390 Application, claim 1, 5),
wherein the extracted cell-free DNA comprises donor-derived cell-free DNA and recipient- derived cell-free DNA (‘390 Application, claim 1);
(b) performing targeted amplification at 200-50,000 target loci in a single reaction volume using 200-50,000 primer pairs (‘390 Application, claim 1, 8),
wherein the target loci comprise polymorphic loci and non-polymorphic loci (‘390 Application, claim 1, 7, any SNP loci can be polymorphic or monomorphic depending on the genomes in comparison);
(c) sequencing the amplification products by high-throughput sequencing to obtain sequencing reads and quantifying an amount of donor-derived cell-free DNA and a fraction of donor-derived cell-free DNA in total cell-free DNA based on the sequencing reads (‘390 Application, claim 1, 21); and
(d) determining
whether the amount of donor-derived cell-free DNA or a function thereof exceeds a first cutoff threshold indicating transplant rejection or graft injury and
whether the fraction of donor-derived cell-free DNA in total cell-free DNA exceeds a second cutoff threshold indicating transplant rejection or graft injury; and
identifying the transplant recipient as being at risk of transplant rejection or graft injury when at least one of the first cutoff threshold and the second cutoff threshold is exceeded (‘390 Application, claim 1, determining whether the amount of donor-derived cell-free DNA crosses a cutoff threshold indicating transplant rejection; claims 9-10).
Therefore, instant claim 1 is obvious over the claims 1, 5, 7-10 and 21 of the '390 application. Instant claims 2-3; 10-11; 14;16; 20-21 are obvious over claims 4-5; 9-10; 8; 7; 17-18 of the '390 application, respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, 16, 20 and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 30, 36, 45, 47 and 64 of copending Application No. 17/925,693 (reference application, amended claims filed on 05/28/2026), in view of Quake (US20120295810A1 - Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Graft Rejection in Organ Transplant Patients; published on 2012-11-22; cited as US. Pat document #409 in IDS filed on 01/17/2025) and Toronto (Kidney/Pancreas Transplant Manual; Toronto Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Program; Archived July 09, 2020 on WaybackMachine).
Instant claim 1 recites:
A method of amplifying and sequencing DNA, comprising:
(a) extracting cell-free DNA from a blood, plasma, serum or urine sample of a transplant recipient who has received transplantation of a plurality of organs (925‘693 Application, claim 64, “extracting cell-free DNA from a blood sample of a transplant recipient”, a skilled artisan would readily understand a transplant recipient encompasses those that received multiple organ transplants, as such procedure is well-known in the art, see Toronto page 10 and Quake [0052]),
wherein the extracted cell-free DNA comprises donor-derived cell-free DNA and recipient- derived cell-free DNA (925‘693 Application, claim 64);
(b) performing targeted amplification at 200-50,000 target loci in a single reaction volume using 200-50,000 primer pairs (925‘693 Application, claim 64),
wherein the target loci comprise polymorphic loci and non-polymorphic loci (925 ‘693 Application, claim 30, any SNP loci can be polymorphic or monomorphic depending on the genomes in comparison);
(c) sequencing the amplification products by high-throughput sequencing to obtain sequencing reads and quantifying an amount of donor-derived cell-free DNA and a fraction of donor-derived cell-free DNA in total cell-free DNA based on the sequencing reads (925‘693 Application, claim 64); and
(d) determining
whether the amount of donor-derived cell-free DNA or a function thereof exceeds a first cutoff threshold indicating transplant rejection or graft injury and
whether the fraction of donor-derived cell-free DNA in total cell-free DNA exceeds a second cutoff threshold indicating transplant rejection or graft injury; and
identifying the transplant recipient as being at risk of transplant rejection or graft injury when at least one of the first cutoff threshold and the second cutoff threshold is exceeded (925‘693 Application, claim 64).
Therefore, instant claim 1, 10-11 and 16 are obvious over claims 30, 64 of the '925‘693 application. Instant claims 2; 20; 22 are obvious over claims 36; 46; 45 of the '925‘693 application, respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Prior Art
Below are relevant prior art not used in rejection but pertinent to the claims or disclosure.
The following prior art references also teach using both the Fraction and Quantity of Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA to detect allograft rejection:
Oellerich et al. Absolute quantification of donor-derived cell-free DNA as a marker of rejection and graft injury in kidney transplantation: Results from a prospective observational study. Am J Transplant. 2019 Nov;19(11):3087-3099. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15416. Epub 2019 May 28. PMID: 31062511; PMCID: PMC6899936 ;
Whitlam et al. Diagnostic application of kidney allograft-derived absolute cell-free DNA levels during transplant dysfunction. Am J Transplant. 2019 Apr;19(4):1037-1049. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15142. Epub 2018 Nov 9. PMID: 30312536.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIAN NMN YU whose telephone number is (703)756-4694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Gary Benzion can be reached at (571) 272-0782. 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.
/TIAN NMN YU/Examiner , Art Unit 1681 /AARON A PRIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681
