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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, & 14-18 filed on 07/06/2026 are pending. Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. The cancellation of claims 2, 7, & 8 in the reply filed 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. All the amendments and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed but are deemed insufficient to place this application in condition for allowance. The following rejections are either newly applied, as necessitated by amendment, or are reiterated. They constitute the complete set being presently applied to the instant application. Response to Applicant’s argument follow. This action is FINAL.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Any rejection not reiterated is hereby withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4, & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (Zheng et al.; Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 90 , pages 13459-13466, October 2018), as cited on the IDS dated 02/29/2024, in view of Liu (Liu et al.; Nature Communications, Vol. 4, pages 1-5, July 2013), as cited in the IDS dated 02/29/2024.
Regarding amended claim 1, Zheng teaches a DNA tweezer that comprises two arms to switch between “open” and “closed” states, a pair of FRET fluorophores (a FRET pair), and a cholesterol to anchor the DNA tweezer nanosensor into the cell membrane (a lipid conjugated DNA tweezer) in which the DNA tweezer is anchored into the cell membrane (intramembrane portion) and forms an portion outside of the cell membrane (extramembrane portion) (lipid conjugated DNA tweezer is configured to traverse a lipid bilayer (cell membrane) to form an extramembrane portion and an intramembrane portion) (abstract lines 3-9; pg. 13459-13460 paragraph bridging pg. 13459 & 13460 lines 1-13; pg. 13460 column 1 1st full paragraph lines 1-19; pg. 13461 column 1 1st full paragraph lines 1-14; Figure 1).
Zheng does not teach that the DNA tweezer comprises a hairpin loop complementary to a target polynucleotide trigger strand.
Liu teaches a DNA tweezer nanostructure that transitions between open and closed states in which the DNA tweezer nanostructure comprises two arms and an oligomer that connects the ends of the tweezer arms and has a ‘GCG’ stem-loop hairpin structure that holds the two arms of the tweezer close together and then transitions to an open state when a complementary target strand is hybridized to the hairpin (a hairpin loop complementary to a target polynucleotide trigger strand) (abstract lines 1-4; pg. 2 column 1 3rd full paragraph lines 1-17). Liu also teaches that this method enables real-time monitoring of the opening and closing of the tweezers by labeling the tweezer arms with a FRET pair and that this hairpin structure enables the DNA tweezer nanostructure to switch between open and closed states while maintaining its structural integrity (pg. 3-4 paragraph bridging pg. 3 & 4 lines 3-10).
Zheng and Liu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of DNA tweezer nanostructures. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmembrane DNA nanosensor device in Zheng to incorporate a hairpin loop structure that holds the two arms of the tweezer close together and is complementary to a target polynucleotide trigger strand as taught in Liu because Liu teaches that doing so would maintain the DNA tweezer nanostructures structural integrity when transitioning to and from open and closed states while enabling real-time monitoring of the open and closed states of the nanosensor with a FRET pair.
Regarding amended claim 4, Zheng teaches a DNA tweezer that comprises two arms comprising DNA (pg. 13460 column 1 1st full paragraph lines 1-19).
Liu teaches a stem-loop hairpin structure that holds the two arms of the tweezer close together and then transitions to an open state when a complementary target strand is hybridized to the hairpin comprises DNA (the target polynucleotide trigger strand is a DNA polynucleotide) (pg. 2 column 1 3rd full paragraph lines 1-17).
Regarding amended claim 6, Zheng teaches the DNA tweezer is anchor to the cellular membrane with cholesterol (lipid is a cholesterol molecule) (pg. 13461 column 1 1st full paragraph lines 1-14).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (Zheng et al.; Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 90 , pages 13459-13466, October 2018), as cited on the IDS dated 02/29/2024, and Liu (Liu et al.; Nature Communications, Vol. 4, pages 1-5, July 2013), as cited in the IDS dated 02/29/2024 as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, & 6 above, and further in view of Langecker (Langecker, Arnaut, List, & Simmel; Accounts of Chemical Research, Vol. 47, pages 1807-1815, May 2014), as cited on the IDS dated 02/29/2024.
The teachings of Zheng and Liu with respect to claim 1 are discussed above.
Regarding amended claim 3, Zheng and Liu does not teach that the lipid bilayer is an exosome membrane.
Langecker teaches DNA nanotechnology and interactions of this DNA nanotechnology with lipid membrane structures to form DNA-lipid hybrid assemblies in which DNA nanostructures attached to or embedded within lipid membranes including in micelles and vesicles (lipid bilayer is an exosome (extracellular vesicle)) (abstract lines 1-20; pg. 1807 column 2 1st full paragraph lines 1-5; pg. 1808 paragraph bridging column 1 & 2 lines 1-25; Figure 2). Langecker also teaches that hybrid assemblies made from DNA nanostructures and lipid bilayer membranes have potential in improving efficiency of DNA-based delivery systems, becoming versatile membrane biosensors, etc. (pg. 1813 column 1 2nd full paragraph lines 1-4; pg. 1813 column 2 1st full paragraph lines 1-13).
Zheng, Liu, and Langecker are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of DNA tweezer nanostructures. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmembrane DNA nanosensor device integrated into a lipid bilayer in Zheng to incorporate integration into an exosome membrane lipid bilayer as taught in Langecker because Langecker teaches that doing so would have potential in improving efficiency of DNA-based delivery systems and in becoming versatile membrane biosensors.
Claim(s) 5 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (Zheng et al.; Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 90 , pages 13459-13466, October 2018), as cited on the IDS dated 02/29/2024, and Liu (Liu et al.; Nature Communications, Vol. 4, pages 1-5, July 2013), as cited in the IDS dated 02/29/2024 as applied to claims 1, 2, 4, & 6 above, and further in view of Sӧderberg (WO 2015/118029 A1).
The teachings of Zheng and Liu with respect to claims 1 & 4 are discussed above.
Regarding amended claims 5 & 9, Zheng and Liu does not teach that the target polynucleotide trigger strand is a microRNA (miRNA) (see claim 5) or that the transmembrane nanosensor comprises an initiator sequence (see claim 9).
Sӧderberg teaches a system comprising proximity probes that interact to from a hairpin structure when the probes are bound in proximity to a target in which one probe may be labelled with a FRET pair such that when bound to a complementary target the FRET pair generates a signal (pg. 4 lines 25-35; pg. 5 lines 1-14; pg. 38 lines 27-34). Sӧderberg also teaches the system comprising the hairpin structure undergoes a chain reaction of hybridization events when a probe comprising an “initiator” nucleic acid molecule enables an open conformation (pg. 4 lines 25-35; pg. 5 lines 1-14 & 19-25; pg. 6 lines 5-17). Sӧderberg also teaches that the analyte may be miRNA (pg. 22 lines 7-10). In addition, Sӧderberg teaches that this system is robust, simple, and easy to use yet is specific and sensitive system to detect analytes with hybridization chain reaction (pg. 4 lines 6-13).
Zheng, Liu, and Sӧderberg are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of DNA sensor detection systems. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmembrane DNA nanosensor device in Zheng to incorporate an initiator sequence and the target polynucleotide trigger strand comprising miRNA as taught in Sӧderberg because Sӧderberg teaches that doing so would provide a simple and easy to use yet specific and sensitive system to detect analytes of interest.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (Zheng et al.; Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 90 , pages 13459-13466, October 2018), as cited on the IDS dated 02/29/2024, in view of Liu (Liu et al.; Nature Communications, Vol. 4, pages 1-5, July 2013), as cited in the IDS dated 02/29/2024, Langecker (Langecker, Arnaut, List, & Simmel; Accounts of Chemical Research, Vol. 47, pages 1807-1815, May 2014), as cited on the IDS dated 02/29/2024, and Yokota (Yokota et al.; PLOS One, Vol. 14, pages 1-13, October 2019).
Regarding amended claim 14, Zheng teaches a DNA tweezer that comprises two arms to switch between “open” and “closed” states, a pair of FRET fluorophores (a FRET pair), and a cholesterol to anchor the DNA tweezer nanosensor into the cell membrane (a lipid conjugated DNA tweezer) in which the DNA tweezer is anchored into the cell membrane (intramembrane portion) and forms an portion outside of the cell membrane (extramembrane portion) (lipid conjugated DNA tweezer is configured to traverse a lipid bilayer (cell membrane) to form an extramembrane portion and an intramembrane portion) (abstract lines 3-9; pg. 13459-13460 paragraph bridging pg. 13459 & 13460 lines 1-13; pg. 13460 column 1 1st full paragraph lines 1-19; pg. 13461 column 1 1st full paragraph lines 1-14; Figure 1).
Zheng does not teach that the DNA tweezer comprises a hairpin loop complementary to a target polynucleotide trigger strand or exosomes bound to a solid surface.
Liu teaches a DNA tweezer nanostructure that transitions between open and closed states in which the DNA tweezer nanostructure comprises two arms and an oligomer that connects the ends of the tweezer arms and has a ‘GCG’ stem-loop hairpin structure that holds the two arms of the tweezer close together and then transitions to an open state when a complementary target strand is hybridized to the hairpin (a hairpin loop complementary to a target polynucleotide trigger strand) (abstract lines 1-4; pg. 2 column 1 3rd full paragraph lines 1-17). Liu also teaches that this method enables real-time monitoring of the opening and closing of the tweezers by labeling the tweezer arms with a FRET pair and that this hairpin structure enables the DNA tweezer nanostructure to switch between open and closed states while maintaining its structural integrity (pg. 3-4 paragraph bridging pg. 3 & 4 lines 3-10).
Langecker teaches DNA nanotechnology and interactions of this DNA nanotechnology with lipid membrane structures to form DNA-lipid hybrid assemblies in which DNA nanostructures attached to or embedded within lipid membranes including in micelles and vesicles (lipid bilayer is an exosome (extracellular vesicle)) (abstract lines 1-20; pg. 1807 column 2 1st full paragraph lines 1-5; pg. 1808 paragraph bridging column 1 & 2 lines 1-25; Figure 2). Langecker also teaches that hybrid assemblies made from DNA nanostructures and lipid bilayer membranes have potential in improving efficiency of DNA-based delivery systems, becoming versatile membrane biosensors, etc. (pg. 1813 column 1 2nd full paragraph lines 1-4; pg. 1813 column 2 1st full paragraph lines 1-13).
Yokota teaches immobilizing extracellular vesicles (exosomes) on a surface to generate a high-density nanoarray in which the nanoarray (exosomal nanoarray) enables the ability to investigate extracellular vesicles inherent properties and morphology (abstract lines 1-7 & 13-17).
Zheng, Liu, Langecker, and Yokota are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of DNA and cellular analysis. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmembrane DNA nanosensor device in Zheng to incorporate a hairpin loop structure that holds the two arms of the tweezer close together and is complementary to a target polynucleotide trigger strand as taught in Liu because Liu teaches that doing so would maintain the DNA tweezer nanostructures structural integrity when transitioning to and from open and closed states while enabling real-time monitoring of the open and closed states of the nanosensor with a FRET pair and it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmembrane DNA nanosensor device integrated into a lipid bilayer in Zheng to incorporate integration into an exosome membrane lipid bilayer as taught in Langecker because Langecker teaches that doing so would have potential in improving efficiency of DNA-based delivery systems and in becoming versatile membrane biosensors and it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the transmembrane nanosensor into an exosomal nanoarray comprising exosomes bound to a solid surface as taught in Yokota because Yokota teaches that doing so would enable the ability to investigate extracellular vesicles inherent properties and morphology.
Regarding claims 15 & 16, Yokota teaches the extracellular vesicles (exosomes) are immobilized on a surface with CD81 (exosomes are bound to a solid surface by an exosome specific antibody CD81) (pg. 2-3 paragraph bridging pg. 2 & 3 lines 1-4).
Regarding claims 17 & 18, Yokota teaches that extracellular vesicles are obtained from breast cancer and kidney cell lines cultured in medium (exosomes are from human (patient) liquid biological sample) (pg. 4 3rd full paragraph lines 1-2; pg. 4 4th full paragraph lines 1-7).
Response to Arguments
The response traverses the rejection. The response asserts that no combination of Zheng and Liu teaches all of the elements recited in claim 1 as amended and that the rejection does not identify where Zheng, Liu, or their combination teaches the lipid conjugated DNA tweezer traverses a lipid bilayer to form an extramembrane portion and an intramembrane portion. Further, the response asserts that Zheng’s cholesterol anchoring is an anchoring mechanism for associating a DNA tweezer nanosensor with a membrane which is different from the presently claimed structure in which the lipid-conjugated DNA tweezer traverses the bilayer and forms two distinct portions located in intramembrane and extramembrane regions. Further, the response asserts that Zheng and Liu do not disclose or suggest the claimed lipid-conjugated DNA tweezer having structural limitations as described herein as Zheng’s cholesterol-anchored tweezer in combination with Liu’s hairpin trigger for opening and closing the tweezer does not amount to a disclosure or suggestion of the claimed single transmembrane molecular device, in which the lipid-conjugated DNA tweezer traverses the lipid bilayer and target binding drives a conformational change in that bilayer-traversing nanosensor. This argument has been thoroughly reviewed but was not found persuasive. First, the amended limitation of “wherein the lipid conjugated DNA tweezer is configured to traverse a lipid bilayer to form an extramembrane portion and an intramembrane portion” in claim 1 as currently amended is broad and is given its broadest reasonable interpretation to comprise a DNA tweezer that comprises a portion inside the lipid bilayer (intramembrane portion) and a portion outside of the lipid bilayer (extramembrane portion) therefore traversing the lipid bilayer with the two portions inside (intramembrane) and outside (extramembrane) of the lipid bilayer. Further, Zheng teaches a DNA tweezer that comprises two arms to switch between “open” and “closed” states, a pair of FRET fluorophores (a FRET pair), and a cholesterol to anchor the DNA tweezer nanosensor into the cell membrane (a lipid conjugated DNA tweezer) in which the DNA tweezer is anchored into the cell membrane (intramembrane portion) and forms an portion outside of the cell membrane (extramembrane portion) (lipid conjugated DNA tweezer is configured to traverse a lipid bilayer (cell membrane) to form an extramembrane portion and an intramembrane portion) (abstract lines 3-9; pg. 13459-13460 paragraph bridging pg. 13459 & 13460 lines 1-13; pg. 13460 column 1 1st full paragraph lines 1-19; pg. 13461 column 1 1st full paragraph lines 1-14; Figure 1). Therefore, Zheng does teach the newly amended limitation as recited in lines 4-5 of claim 1 as currently amended and the combination of Zheng and Liu teaches the lipid-conjugated DNA tweezer traverses the lipid bilayer and target binding drives a conformational change in that bilayer-traversing nanosensor as discussed further above.
The response also asserts that Liu does not cure this deficiency as cited teachings of Liu concern operation of a DNA tweezer hairpin and real-time monitoring using a FRET pair and they do not address membrane assertion, lipid-bilayer traversal, or formation of extramembrane and intramembrane portions and thus Liu does not supply the missing transmembrane device architecture nor does it provide an articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Zheng’s cholesterol-anchored membrane sensor into the specifically claimed membrane-traversing configuration. This argument has been thoroughly reviewed but was not found persuasive as Liu is not relied upon for teachings of lipid-bilayer traversal or formation of extramembrane and intramembrane portions as discussed further above and for the reasons set for above.
The response also asserts that the rejection might explain why one might add Liu’s hairpin to Zhang’s DNA tweezer to maintain structural integrity or monitor tweezer states but it does not articulated why a person of ordinary skill would have modified the cited structure to provide a lipid-conjugated DNA tweezer that traverses a lipid bilayer and forms distinct extramembrane and intramembrane portions nor does the rejection explain why the cited art would have led a skilled artisan to the specification’s stated transmembrane signal-transduction architecture in which target recognition can be mechanically communicated through a bilayer-traversing nanosensor rather than merely detected by a membrane-associated DNA structure. Further, the response asserts that the proposed modification is therefore based on hindsight reconstruction rather than on an articulated reason with a reasonable expectation of success in the cited references. This argument has been thoroughly reviewed but was not found persuasive. First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., transmembrane signal-transduction architecture in which target recognition can be mechanically communicated through a bilayer-traversing nanosensor) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, as discussed above claim 1 as currently amended is broad and is given its broadest reasonable interpretation to comprise a DNA tweezer that comprises a portion inside the lipid bilayer (intramembrane portion) and a portion outside of the lipid bilayer (extramembrane portion) therefore traversing the lipid bilayer with the two portions inside (intramembrane) and outside (extramembrane) of the lipid bilayer. Further, Zheng teaches a DNA tweezer that comprises two arms to switch between “open” and “closed” states, a pair of FRET fluorophores (a FRET pair), and a cholesterol to anchor the DNA tweezer nanosensor into the cell membrane (a lipid conjugated DNA tweezer) in which the DNA tweezer is anchored into the cell membrane (intramembrane portion) and forms an portion outside of the cell membrane (extramembrane portion) (lipid conjugated DNA tweezer is configured to traverse a lipid bilayer (cell membrane) to form an extramembrane portion and an intramembrane portion) (abstract lines 3-9; pg. 13459-13460 paragraph bridging pg. 13459 & 13460 lines 1-13; pg. 13460 column 1 1st full paragraph lines 1-19; pg. 13461 column 1 1st full paragraph lines 1-14; Figure 1). Further, Liu teaches a DNA tweezer nanostructure that transitions between open and closed states in which the DNA tweezer nanostructure comprises two arms and an oligomer that connects the ends of the tweezer arms and has a ‘GCG’ stem-loop hairpin structure that holds the two arms of the tweezer close together and then transitions to an open state when a complementary target strand is hybridized to the hairpin (a hairpin loop complementary to a target polynucleotide trigger strand) (abstract lines 1-4; pg. 2 column 1 3rd full paragraph lines 1-17). Liu also teaches that this method enables real-time monitoring of the opening and closing of the tweezers by labeling the tweezer arms with a FRET pair and that this hairpin structure enables the DNA tweezer nanostructure to switch between open and closed states while maintaining its structural integrity (pg. 3-4 paragraph bridging pg. 3 & 4 lines 3-10). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmembrane DNA nanosensor device in Zheng to incorporate a hairpin loop structure that holds the two arms of the tweezer close together and is complementary to a target polynucleotide trigger strand as taught in Liu because Liu teaches that doing so would maintain the DNA tweezer nanostructures structural integrity when transitioning to and from open and closed states while enabling real-time monitoring of the open and closed states of the nanosensor with a FRET pair.
The response also asserts that Zheng and Liu, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest amended claim 1 and claims 4 and 6 are not obvious at least for the same reasons by virtue of their dependence on claim 1. This argument has been thoroughly reviewed but was not found persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
The response also asserts that Langecker does not cure the above deficiencies as the rejection still does not identify a teaching or suggestion of the amended claim’s architecture in which a DNA tweezer is configured to traverse a lipid bilayer to form an extramembrane portion and an intramembrane portion. This argument has been thoroughly reviewed but was not found persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
The response also asserts that Sӧderberg does not cure the above deficiencies as the rejection still does not identify a teaching or suggestion of the amended claim’s architecture in which a DNA tweezer is configured to traverse a lipid bilayer to form an extramembrane portion and an intramembrane portion or the advantages described in the present specification. This argument has been thoroughly reviewed but was not found persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
The response also asserts that Yakota does not cure the above deficiencies as the rejection still does not identify a teaching or suggestion of the amended claim’s architecture in which a DNA tweezer is configured to traverse a lipid bilayer to form an extramembrane portion and an intramembrane portion and that because independent claim 14 recites an exosomal array comprising the transmembrane nanosensor device of claim 1, claim 14 and its dependent claims 15-18 are patentable at least for the same reasons. This argument has been thoroughly reviewed but was not found persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
For these reasons, and the reasons already made of record and modified to address the claims as currently amended, the rejections are maintained and applied to the newly amended claims.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 3-6 & 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/296,915 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to a transmembrane nanosensor.
Regarding claims 1 & 9, the instant application claims a transmembrane nanosensor device comprising a lipid conjugated DNA tweezer comprising a hairpin loop complementary to a target polynucleotide trigger strand, a fluorophore and a quencher paired to the fluorophore, or a FRET pair, wherein the hairpin loop is bound by the target polynucleotide trigger strand, the DNA tweezer transitions from a closed conformation to an open conformation, the quencher is separated from the fluorophore, and the fluorophore fluoresces and the instant application claims that the transmembrane nanosensor device comprises an initiator sequence. Copending Application No. 18/296,915 claims a cell detection system comprising a transmembrane nanosensor comprising a lipid-conjugated DNA comprising a first hairpin stem-loop comprising a loop comprising a polynucleotide sequence which is complementary to a target polynucleotide, a stem, a fluorophore, a quencher paired to the fluorophore, and a HCR initiator domain and wherein upon the first hairpin stem-loop binding to the target polynucleotide the nanosensor transitions from a closed conformation to an open conformation exposing the initiator domain and allowing for fluorescence the fluorophore without quenching (see claim 1). Copending Application No. 18/296,915 also claims wherein the lipid-conjugated DNA spans a lipid bilayer (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, the instant application claims wherein the lipid bilayer is an exosome membrane. Copending Application No. 18/296,915 claims wherein the lipid bilayer is a cellular outer membrane or episome (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, the instant application claims wherein the target polynucleotide trigger strand is an RNA or a DNA polynucleotide. Copending Application No. 18/296,915 claims wherein the target polynucleotide is an RNA or a DNA (see claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, the instant application claims wherein the target polynucleotide trigger strand in miRNA. Copending Application No. 18/296,915 claims wherein the target polynucleotide is mRNA or miRNA (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, the instant application claims wherein the lipid is a cholesterol molecule. Copending Application No. 18/296,915 claims wherein the lipid comprises a cholesterol molecule (see claim 6).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicants response does not provide any arguments and requests to hold the nonstatutory double patenting rejections in abeyance until allowable subject matter is agreed to by the Office. Therefore, these rejections are maintained, and modified to address the claims as currently amended, from the previous office action.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, & 14-18 are rejected.
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 BAILEY C BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, Winston Shen can be reached on (571) 272-3157. 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.
/BAILEY BUCHANAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1682
/JEHANNE S SITTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights