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
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application filed on July 28, 2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of applications, Amendments, and/or Claims
The Response filed 20 July 2026 has been entered in full. Claims 1 and 4 are currently amended. Claims 1-6 are the subject of this Office Action.
The rejection of claims 1-6 on the ground of 35 U.S.C 101 as directed to laws of nature and abstract ideas without significantly more, as set forth at pp. 2-5 is maintained in view of Applicant’s amendments of the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-6 on the ground of 35 U.S.C 103 for obviousness as set forth at pp. 5-8 is maintained in view of Applicant’s amendments of the claims.
Modified Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Necessitated by amendment
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to laws of nature and abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1-3, Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-3) recite a method of producing TILs comprising steps to (a) determine gene expression levels of chemokines in tumor cells and (c) comparing the tumor gene expression levels to reference gene expression levels to identify a tumor having tertiary lymphoid structures, isolating TILs from tumor and expand the TILs ex vivo in presence of an agonist antibody to produce therapeutic tumor infiltration lymphocytes (TILs).
The calculation of gene expression levels of chemokines to determine its expression levels is a mathematical principle, and the comparison of the different expression levels values is both mathematical concept and also a mental step because it can be performed mentally. In the interest of compact prosecution, it is noted that a correlation between certain levels of chemokines and certain tumor cells would also be a natural phenomenon, if the correlation were shown to accurately represent natural variation. (Step 2A Prong 1: yes, recites an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim’s function is to determine/compare the expression levels of chemokines and identify a tumor having tertiary lymphoid structures; there is no application of this comparison/identifying step. The courts have found that performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation (In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989)) and determining the level of a biomarker in blood (Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968) are examples of mere data gathering. The instant case is similar because the steps merely determine the level of chemokines present in a sample. See also MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception as described above. Further, well-understood, routine and conventional methods exist to perform each of these steps, as taught by the applicant’s use of conventional methods when demonstrating the improvement seen with their preferred method (for example, see pages 8-10). Even assuming the preferred method used by the applicant was not well-known, it would be improper to read the claims in light of the specification by excluding the well-known and conventional methods of accomplishing each method steps.
Therefore, claims 1-3 stand rejected as being directed to a judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4-6, claim 4 (and dependent claims 4-5) are methods of treating a tumor in a subject by (a) obtaining cells from tumor; (b) determining gene expression levels in the tumor above the reference gene expression levels by performing the method of claim 1, and administering to the subject an effective amount of a composition comprising an agonist antibody. Claims 4-6 further limit the treatment step, but do not limit the identification step of claim 1. Because claim 4 step (d) requires that treatment only be administered to a subject who has tumor gene expression levels above reference gene expression levels, the treatment step is not required in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, per MPEP 2111.04.
The non-mathematical step of obtaining cells from the tumor required to calculate the gene expression levels is insignificant extra solution activity because it is mere data gathering. MPEP 2106.05(g) states that the courts have found the following to be mere data gathering: performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); and determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968. In this claim, as in the prior cases, the non-mathematical steps of the method merely perform laboratory manipulation on samples from individuals. (Step 2A Prong 2: no, not integrated into a practical application).
The claims also recite the step of “administering to the subject an effective amount of a composition comprising an agonist anti-CD40 antibody.” The administration step is merely instructions to generically apply the exception, and fails to integrate the mental analysis and law of nature judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, in addition to the considerations in Step 2A Prong 2, the non-mathematical and non-mental data gathering steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim fails to recite a particular treatment that is applied to the subjects. See also MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).
Therefore, the treatment step does not limit the claims, claim 4-6 requires only performing the method of claims 1-3, and these claims stand rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-3.
Modified Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Necessitated by amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Magliocco et al. (US20170175199 A1; hereafter Magliocco; PTO-892) in view of Liu et al. (Published April, 2012; hereafter Liu; PTO-892) and evidenced by Hooran et al. (Published July 5, 2021).
Magliocco teaches methods for selecting a treatment, treating and predicting survival time in subjects with cancer, such as colorectal cancer based on tumor expression levels of chemokines, cytotoxic genes, and/or dendritic cell genes, which is pertinent to claims 1-6. See for example, abstract, paragraphs [0007-0011].
Magliocco teaches tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is associated with a favorable response, even in the setting of a more invasive disease, and patients with higher numbers of CD8 TILs in stages pT2, pT3, and pT4 had better disease-free survival and overall survival compared to patients with similar-staged bladder cancers and fewer intratumoral CD8 TILs, which is pertinent to claim 1. See for example, paragraph [0005].
Magiocco teaches gene signatures that predict the presence of infiltrating immune cells, such as lymphocytes (TILs) and expression levels of these genes to optimize or select treatment and predict survival in subjects with bladder cancer, e.g., with Urothelial cancer (UC). Magliocco teaches a high score of 12-Chemokine GES is correlated with improved overall survival in stage IV patients with UC, which is pertinent to claim 1, See for example, paragraphs [0006], [0080-0081].
Magliocco teaches the methods of obtaining cells from the tumor; determining gene expression levels of chemokines CCL2, CCL3, CCL4, CCL5, CCL8, CCL18, CCL19, CCL21, CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL11, and CXCL13 in the tumor cells; comparing the tumor gene expression levels to reference gene expression levels; and predicting longer survival time if tumor gene expression levels are above the reference gene expression levels, or predicting shorter survival time if tumor gene expression levels are below the reference gene expression levels, which is pertinent to claims 1-6. See for example claims 3, 5-6; paragraphs [0080-0085].
Magliocco teaches the 12-Chemokine GES identified a subset of patients with stage IV UC that generated an organized (tertiary lymphoid structures) immune response toward the invading tumor, which is pertinent to claim 1. See for example paragraph [0092].
Magliocco teaches the 12-chemokine score for bladder tumors was also compared to other cancer types, and that 12-Chemokine GES for bladder tumors showed a large range with many scoring as high as lung and skin (melanoma) samples. Survival analysis was performed using KM-plots and statistical significance was assessed using a log rank test. High and low signature score was determined by median PCA score, which is pertinent to claims 1-6. See for example Figure 3A; paragraphs [0083-0085]; Figures 1-2.
Magliocco teaches in Colorectal cancer (CRC) high expression of genes encoding for chemokines CX3CL1, CXCL9 and CXCL10 was associated with the infiltration of memory T cells and effector T cells, particularly Th1 cells, and was associated with prolonged disease-free survival and overall survival. In Urothelial Cancer, CD8 tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were shown to be predictive of survival in muscle-invasive carcinoma. In the lung cancer local production of CCL19, CCL17, CCL22, CXCL13 and IL-16 is responsible for active recruitment of naive and memory T cells from the blood into TLS via high endothelial venules, which is pertinent to claims 2-3, 5-6. See for example paragraph [0091].
Magliocco teaches a method of treating a subject who has a bladder tumor, comprising obtaining cells from the tumor; determining expression levels of CCL2, CCL3, CCL4, CCL5, CCL8, CCL18, CCL19, CCL21, CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL11, and CXCL13 in the tumor cells; comparing the tumor gene expression levels to reference gene expression levels; selecting for the subject a treatment comprising an immunotherapy if tumor gene expression levels are above the reference gene expression levels, or selecting for the subject a treatment not comprising an immunotherapy if tumor gene expression levels are below the reference gene expression levels, which is pertinent to claims 1-2, 4. See for example claims 3, 5-6, 10, 15; paragraph [0034], [0037].
Magliocco teaches the methods of determining levels of the chemokine genes in a sample, then administering one or more doses of the treatment, then determining levels of the chemokine genes to determine whether the treatment has increased immune infiltration of the tumor. An increase in chemokine gene levels (or chemokine gene score, if calculated) indicates that the treatment was effective, which is pertinent to claims 4. See for example paragraph [0056]. Magliocco also teaches the immunotherapy comprises administering to the subject dendritic cells or peptides with adjuvant, a DNA-based vaccine, cytokines, cyclophosphamide, anti-interleukin-2R immunotoxin, or an anti-cancer antibody (anti-CD137, anti-PD1, anti-PDL1, or anti-CTLA-4), which is pertinent to claim 1, 4-6. See for example claim 3, 6, 10-11.
Magliacco also does not teach administering to the subject an effective amount of a composition comprising an anti-CD40 antibody, wherein the solid tumor is a prostate, breast, ovarian, lung or colon cancer.
Liu teaches cytokines or other stimuli and anti-CD40 mAb to treat patients with cancer.
Liu teaches the adoptively transferred ex vivo-cultured, activated, transgenic T cells (pmel-1 cells) expressing a TCR that specifically recognizes an H-2Db-restricted epitope of gp100, in conjunction with anti-CD40 mAb administration.
Liu teaches the administration of CD40 agonistic mAb, along with IL-2, can expand adoptively transferred T cells and boost their antitumor response. Liu teaches anti-CD40 mAb leads to the expansion of adoptively transferred T cells and enhanced antitumor activity in vivo. Liu teaches the use of anti-CD40 mAb to enhance adoptively transferred T cells for cancer treatment, which is pertinent to claims 1, 4. See for example, page 2.
Hooren teaches that systemic delivery of αCD40 in preclinical glioma models induces the formation of tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) in proximity of meningeal tissue. In treatment-naïve glioma patients, the presence of TLS correlates with increased T cell infiltration and the pleiotropic effects of αCD40 therapy in glioma and reveals that immunotherapies can modulate TLS formation in the brain, opening up for future opportunities to regulate the immune response. Hooren teaches that to assess T cell functionality ex vivo, brain-infiltrating CD45+ immune cells were isolated on day 22 of post-tumor implantation (three days after the last αCD40 treatment on day 19) and were co-cultured with GL261 cells expressing luciferase at a 7:1 ratio (immune cells: tumor cells Finally, Hooren teaches that αCD40 antibodies are currently in clinical development for numerous solid tumors.
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the teachings of Magliocco and Li, thereby arriving to invention of claims 1-6, because Magliocco already taught the methods of determining expression levels of chemokines to predict the presence of infiltrating immune cells, such as T cells for preventing and treating solid tumoral cancers, such as prostate, breast, ovarian, lung or colon and administering an antibody, and Liu teaches anti-CD40 mAb leads to the expansion of adoptively transferred T cells and enhanced antitumor activity in vivo. Furthermore, Hooren teaches a systemic delivery of αCD40 in preclinical glioma models induces the formation of tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) in proximity of meningeal tissue, and that in treatment-naïve glioma patients, the presence of TLS correlates with increased T cell infiltration and the pleiotropic effects of αCD40 therapy in glioma and reveals that immunotherapies can modulate TLS formation in the brain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute these known equivalents; see MPEP 2144.06.
See MPEP 2144(II): “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art … that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.
Reasonable expectation of success would be expected because US20170175199 A1 specifically suggests using the method of determining the gene expression of 12-chemokine for preventing and treating cancer to determine an immunotherapy capable of produce tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), such as antibodies and does not specify any immunotherapy capable of inducing the production of TILs that should not be used.
Also, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious unless its application is beyond that person's skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) also discloses that "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results". In the instant case, the prior art (US20170175199 A1) teaches a method that only differs from the claimed invention by the substitution of a single component (i.e. substitution of immunotherapy, such as type of antibody capable of produce TILs); the substituted element (i.e. anti-CD40) was already known and known to function as an anticancer antibody associated with production of TILs , therefore no change in the function of the substituted element occurred; and one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of choosing an antitumoral antibody disclosed as being useful with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e. the substitution of the element would lead to predictable results), particularly because US20170175199 A1 teaches the method comprising of obtaining cells from the tumor; determining expression levels of chemokine markers in the tumor cells and treating cancer by administering an antitumoral antibody were known to be used for identifying tumors associated with immune cell infiltration. Therefore, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art, absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.
Response to Amendments
Applicants’ arguments as they pertain to the rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant argues at pg. 1-6 of the Response (filed 20 July 2026) that “The determining and comparing steps are not bare mathematical calculations or comparisons that can be performed entirely in the human mind; rather, they are physical laboratory operations performed on tumor cells within a method whose express purpose is to produce a tangible therapeutic product. The claim as a whole is therefore not "directed to" a judicial exception at Prong One.” “Even if the Examiner were to maintain that the determining and comparing steps recite a judicial exception, claim 1 satisfies Step 2A, Prong Two because the additional elements integrate any such exception into a practical application. The Examiner has alleged that "there is no application of this comparison/identifying step." Office Action, page 3. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 expressly recites "isolating TILs from the tumor" and "expanding the TILs ex vivo in the presence of an anti-CD40 antibody to produce a therapeutic TIL." These steps do far more than gather data-they transform biological material extracted from a tumor into a concrete, tangible therapeutic product: a therapeutic TIL”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that “claim 1 as a whole is not "directed to" a judicial exception at Prong One”. The applicant should recognize that the claimed invention relies on gathering data from gene expression levels of chemokines (step a of the method), which is data obtained from tumor cells. It is known that acquired numerical experimental data which is generated by cell cultivation must be analyzed and compared to a reference data, which is also known as control”. The Step 2A, Prong One, the inquiry is whether the claim recites a judicial exception-a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (including mathematical concepts and mental processes). If so, Step 2A, Prong Two asks whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. A claim that integrates the exception into a practical application is patent-eligible and the analysis ends. If not, Step 2B asks whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception.
The applicant is claiming the mathematical calculations (step c) as part of the method for isolating TILs from tumor (step d); and expanding the TILs ex vivo in presence of an agonist anti-CD-40 antibody to produce TILs (step e). The whole method relies on the determination of gene expression levels of biomarkers of tumor cells by using mathematical principle and comparing the results to reference gene expression levels, and it is a mental process.
The applicant argues that “they are physical laboratory operations performed on tumor cells within a method whose express purpose is to produce a tangible therapeutic product”.
The applicant should note that the claimed method depends on the identification of tertiary lymphoid structures in a tumor via expression levels of cell biomarkers, which are produced by the presence of an immunotherapy agent, such as an antibody administered to a subject. The identification of TILs can only be achieved by mathematical calculation because it must be done by comparing the tumor gene expression levels from a tumor to reference gene expression levels. For example, it is very common practice in clinical laboratory operations to gather a sample of body fluids, and cells (including cancer cells obtained from biopsies) from a patient to determine the presence of disease(s) or metabolite(s) used as reference (biomarkers) for a condition or disease, and also add stimulatory compounds that are needed to process the sample. For example, some cells are not able to proliferate or differentiate in absence of a specific chemical signalization. Gathering data by processing samples to be able to generate numerical data is usually used for determination of a condition/disease and the method of treating the patient, such as an anti-cancer antibody to increase the production of immune cells and anti-inflammatory molecules or even as a way of blocking a chemical pathway associated with cancer development in patients.
Therefore, claims 1-6 stand rejected.
Applicant argues at pg. 6-8 of the Response (filed 20 July 2026) that “The Examiner has alleged that Magliocco teaches methods of obtaining cells from a tumor, determining expression levels of the twelve chemokines, comparing those levels to reference levels, and administering an immunotherapy comprising an anti-cancer antibody. Office Action, page 7. The Examiner has conceded that Magliocco "does not teach administering to the subject an effective amount of a composition comprising an anti-CD40 antibody." Office Action, page 8. To supply this element, the Examiner has relied on Liu, which discloses that administration of an agonistic anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody along with IL-2 can expand adoptively transferred T cells and boost their antitumor response in vivo. The Examiner has alleged that it would have been obvious to substitute the anti-CD40 antibody of Liu for one of the antibodies disclosed in Magliocco under MPEP 2144.06 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), because both are "antitumoral antibodies" and the substitution would yield predictable results. Office Action, pages 8-9. The Examiner's simple-substitution rationale fails to account for the specific context in which each reference uses anti-CD40 and, critically, never addresses the TIL-production and ex vivo expansion steps recited in claim 1. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established for claims 1-6”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the examiner had already pointed out in the office action mailed in 04/20/2026 that Magliocco does teach that profiling gene signatures predicts the presence of infiltrating immune cells, and expression levels of these genes can be used to assign a prognosis and select or optimize treatment in subjects with tumors. Magliocco teaches the 12-chemokine signature. Magliocco teaches that tumor-induced, host immune response has been described in breast, lung, ovarian, and CRC among other solid tumor types and that this response may include fibrosis, lymphocytic or neutrophilic infiltration, and other reactive changes within the tumor and/or in the surrounding tissue. Magliocco teaches “determining levels of the chemokine genes in a sample, then administering one or more doses of the treatment, then determining levels of the chemokine genes to determine whether the treatment has increase immune infiltration of the tumor. An increase in chemokine gene levels (or chemokine gene score, if calculated) indicates that the treatment was effective”. Magliocco teaches immunotherapy, anti-cancer antibody, e.g., an immune checkpoint blockade agent. The examiner recognizes that Magliocco does not explicitly teach the use of anti-CD40 antibody in the method of producing therapeutic tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). However, the applicant should note that Magliocco does teach administration of antibody doses and the method of using the 12- chemokine biomarkers for identification of immunotherapies, such as antibodies able to stimulate/induce the production of TILs, and that the presence of TILs is an advantage for treating cancer patients. Thus it is obvious that it can be used as a therapeutic approach to treat cancer. Regarding CD-40 antibody, Liu does teach anti-CD40 and that the use of anti-CD40 antibody leads to the expansion of adoptively transferred T cells and enhances antitumoral activity and enhanced antitumoral response in vivo. The examiner must remind the applicant that T cells are a specific type of lymphocytes. See rejection 103 above. In addition, even if one argues that Liu does not explicitly teaches anti-CD40 added to an ex vivo culture to expand TILs isolated from a tumor, Hooren teaches that systemic delivery of αCD40 in preclinical glioma models induces the formation of tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) in proximity of meningeal tissue. In treatment-naïve glioma patients, the presence of TLS correlates with increased T cell infiltration and the pleiotropic effects of αCD40 therapy in glioma and reveals that immunotherapies can modulate TLS formation in the brain, opening up for future opportunities to regulate the immune response. Hooren teaches that to assess T cell functionality ex vivo, brain-infiltrating CD45+ immune cells were isolated on day 22 of post-tumor implantation (three days after the last αCD40 treatment on day 19) and were co-cultured with GL261 cells expressing luciferase at a 7:1 ratio (immune cells: tumor cells. Finally, Hooren teaches that αCD40 antibodies are currently in clinical development for numerous solid tumors.
It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Motivation for combining the references is clear from the teachings as each reference teaches methods of using the anti-CD40 antibody to stimulate the production of TILs, since it is useful for treating cancer and can be detected by the biomarkers of Magliocco. While there is not a single reference that includes all the limitations of the claims, the various aspects of the claims are contained in multiple references and it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings as stated above to arrive at the claimed invention with an expectation of success for the reasons provided, it would have been obvious to substitute these known equivalents; see MPEP 2144.06.
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). Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that “the Examiner's simple-substitution rationale fails to account for the specific context in which each reference uses anti-CD40 and, critically, never addresses the TIL-production and ex vivo expansion steps recited in claim 1. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established for claims 1-6”, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon straightforward evidences. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute an immunotherapy selected by the expression levels of the 12 biomarkers of Magliocco based on its ability to induce the production of TILs by the anti-CD40 antibody of Li and Hooran, because the anti-CD40 antibody has been shown to efficiently stimulate/induce the production of TILs, which is useful for treating cancer.
***
Response to Amendments
Applicant does not offer further arguments regarding the above directed to laws of nature and abstract ideas without significantly more directed to laws of nature and abstract ideas without significantly more to a judicial exception and obviousness rejections beyond what was set forth with regard to the 35 U.S.C 101 and 35 U.S.C 103 rejections above. To extend the Applicant is merely repeating their previous argument, the Examiner contends that those issues were adequately addressed in above sections, which are incorporated in their entireties herein by reference.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed. Claims 1-6 remain rejected.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in the Office action. 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.
Advisory Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRICILA HAUK TEODORO whose telephone number is (571) 272-2784. The examiner can normally be reached 6:15-3:00.
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.
/PRICILA NMN HAUK TEODORO/Examiner, Art Unit 1645
/HEATHER CALAMITA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights