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 .
Election/Restrictions
[Copied from Nonfinal 30March2026 → ] Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 20, 50, 51, and 66) in the reply filed on 10December2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14, 16, 22-23, 28, 34-35, 38, 41, 46, 52, 55, 70, 76, 86 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10December2025.
Status of the Claims
The amendments filed 10July2023 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 3-5, 7, 9-10, 13, 15, 17-19, 21, 24-27, 29-33, 36-37, 39-40, 42-45, 47-49, 53-54, 56-65, 67-69, 71-75, 77-85, 87-89 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 11-12, 14, 16, 20, 22-23, 28, 34-35, 38, 41, 46, 50-52, 55, 66, 70, 76, 86 are pending. Claims 14, 16, 22-23, 28, 34-35, 38, 41, 46, 52, 55, 70, 76, 86 remain withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11-12, 20, 50, 66 are currently amended. Claim 51 was previously presented. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 20, 50, 51, and 66 are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) [US provisional 63335470 filed 27April2022] is acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 20, 50, 51, and 66 maintain an effective filing date of 27April2022.
Withdrawn Objections and/or Rejections
Objections and/or rejections made of record in the nonfinal office action dated 30March2026 that are not otherwise discussed herein are withdrawn. In particular:
RE ¶¶ 6-8: The objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments thereto (all of which are consistent with what was suggested by the Office).
RE ¶ 10: The indefiniteness rejection of claim 50 is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
RE ¶ 11: The indefiniteness rejection of claim 66 is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
RE ¶ 12: The Utility rejection of claims 1, 2, and 66 is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments and Remarks 06June2026 (pages 16-17). Please note that claim 1 (to which claim 2 parts a-c and claim 66 refer) is now amended to require at least a dicamba monooxygenase coding sequence and one or both of a 5’ and 3’ junction sequence (at part (a) this is via SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 10 comprising a dicamba monooxygenase coding sequence and SEQ ID NO: 10 comprising 5’ and 3’ junction sequence; see the Claim Interpretation section below). This amendment is consonant with suggestion (ii) from the Office at least because dicamba monooxygenase is a well-known herbicide resistance gene/protein in the art and widely utilized in agriculture. Please also note that, with respect to part (c) of claim 1, Applicant’s Remarks indicate that the claimed subject matter encompasses complements of all of the molecules of claim 1 part (a) or all of the molecules of claim 1 part (b). This is material to the interpretation of the claim because parts (a), (b), and (c) of claim 1 are separated by an “or” (= a broader interpretation of part (c) may mean that the entirety of claim 1 only requires that the recombinant DNA molecule comprise, for example, a complement of a “dicamba monooxygenase coding sequence”, which would be anticipated and/or obvious over the prior art). Please see the objection to claim 1 part (c) below and a proposal for how to clarify the explicit claim language regarding “complements”. Applicant’s Remarks provide the following at pages 16-17:
PNG
media_image1.png
746
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
542
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant is reminded that if the Office is now misinterpreting the scope of claim 1 part (c); at least Applicant’s ongoing “Duty of Disclosure, Candor, and Good Faith” (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 and MPEP § 2001) necessitates clarification of the record by Applicant. Applicant should also be mindful of disclaimer: “the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer ensures that claims are not construed one way [by Applicant] in order to obtain their allowance and in a different way against accused infringers” (SandBox Logistics LLC v. Proppant Express Invs. LLC, 813 F. App'x 548, at 556 (Fed. Cir. 2020)) and, to that end, “[Applicant’s] failure to challenge the Examiner’s understanding amounts to a disclaimer” (SandBox v. Proppant infra at 554; citing Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090, at 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).
Claim Interpretation
Further to the withdrawal of the Utility rejection discussed above, claim 1 part (a) is now amended to require a nucleotide sequence with at least 90% sequence identity to the full length of SEQ ID NO: 9 or 10. As shown in FIG. 1, both of these sequences comprise the full Gm_CSM63714 insert (with SEQ ID NO: 10 additionally comprising 5’ and 3’ junction sequences). So, as stated at part (b) of claim 1 and claim 50; part (a) of claim 1 also requires at least a dicamba monooxygenase coding sequence. This means that, based on a review of the specification (including FIG. 1), a person with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret part (a) of claim 1 as having an herbicide resistance function even though part (a) does not explicitly recite a function. Claim 1 part (a) is interpreted as conferring herbicide resistance (i.e., having a function) and this interpretation is the reason part (a) does not trigger a utility issue (hence, the Utility rejection of record is withdrawn above and not maintained as to part (a)).
Deposit
[Copied from Nonfinal 30March2026 → ] For the sake of a clear record, a Deposit Rejection (see the language of claim 2) would have been made but-for the information provided at ¶215 on pages 81-82 of the specification. The statements there appear to be in compliance with 37 CFR §§ 1.801-1.809.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: (1) at part (b) “a nucleotide sequence” should be amended to “the [[a]] nucleotide sequence” and (2) at part (c) (and further to the comments above regarding withdrawal of the utility rejection at ¶12 of the nonfinal 30March2026) it is understood that Applicant intends for the “full complete complement” language at part (c) to mean a complement of the entirety of the sequences recited in part (a) or of the entirety of the sequences recited in part (b); but the Office wonders whether adding the “or a complement thereof” language up into parts (a) and (b) (= delete part (c)) would be in alignment with Applicant’s intention and clearer? Please note that “complement” language is already used in this manner elsewhere in the claims (e.g., part (b) of claim 8). To be clear, the Office understands that Applicant would like to explicitly claim complementary sequences (and that is fine), but the use of “or” between the parts of claim 1 opens claim 1 opens part (c) up to a very broad (and unintentional?) interpretation. To that end, it is believed that reciting “complement” language directly within part (a) and within part (b) of claim 1 (+ canceling part (c)) would achieve the goal of claiming complements while also prohibiting the broad interpretation issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 (part a) is objected to because of the following informalities: please amend part (a) to recite “… commodity product produced therefrom comprising …” (please note that this language is already used in part (b) of claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is (therefore, also claims 2 and 6 which refer thereto are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As amended, claim 1 part (b) says that the recombinant DNA molecule comprises four coding sequences (those corresponding to the coding sequences recited in claim 50) and at least one of junction sequences SEQ ID NOs: 1-8 or full length insert sequence SEQ ID NO: 10. Please note that the reference to SEQ ID NO: 9 was removed with the amendments filed 05June2026. It is unclear whether SEQ ID NO: 10 was left in the claim due to an oversight. Nonetheless, the inclusion of SEQ ID NO: 10 within part (b) makes the claim(s) indefinite because it suggests that the four coding sequences may be duplicated (present in two copies since SEQ ID NO: 10 already comprise one copy of all four) with junction sequences (via the content of SEQ ID NO: 10 that would not be at the 5’ and 3’ ends of the first coding sequence copies. It is confusing to recite SEQ ID NO: 10 within part (b) of claim 1. Please either delete the reference to SEQ ID NO: 10 or explain how part (b) should be interpreted.
Claim 2 REMAINS rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Part (b) REMAINS, and part (a) is now also indefinite because part (b) still says, and part (a) now says, that the claimed DNA molecule “is comprised in a” soybean plant/part (or now optionally within a genome of a soybean plant/part). It is not clear from this claim language whether claim 2 is actually directed toward a DNA molecule or it if is directed toward a soybean plant/part comprising the DNA molecule.
As amended, part (c) is indefinite. The newly added phrase “comprises a junction sequence between a heterologous nucleic acid molecule and the genomic DNA of a soybean plant or soybean cell” adds indefiniteness because this phrase suggests that a “junction sequence” is completely independent from (in this case) the genomic DNA and heterologous insert nucleic acid. The art would generally interpret “junction sequence” here to mean that it comprises both a part of the genomic DNA and the heterologous insert nucleic acid. As written, however, a “junction sequence” may be “between” the genomic DNA and heterologous insert nucleic acid and, therefore, completely independent from both the genomic DNA and heterologous insert nucleic acid. Also, the “is formed by” language in part (c) causes indefiniteness for the same reasons as said of record for part (a) (the “derived from” language which is now removed from part (a)): does “is formed by” limit the claim scope? If a third party synthetically generates the DNA molecule, would part (c) of claim 2 read on the third party’s DNA molecule? Please clarify what part (c) of claim 2 adds to the claimed subject matter and please clarify the manner in which it is being claimed.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant says that claim 2 was amended as suggested and that, therefore, the rejection may be withdrawn (Remarks at page 15).
That is not persuasive (the claim amendments did not address the issues at part (b) and, in any event, the claim still has indefiniteness issues as explained above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Failure to Further Limit
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11, to which claim 12 refers, is now amended to say that the “amplicon comprises SEQ ID NO: 1 or SEQ ID NO: 2”. Claim 12 still says (at part (b)) that “the amplicon comprises a nucleotide sequence” selected from a list of sequences (SEQ ID NOs: 1 and 2 having been removed, but fragments of SEQ ID NO: 1 and/or 2 are still recited). As currently written, claim 12 says that the amplicon may comprise a sequence other than SEQ ID NO: 1 and 2 and may otherwise comprise a fragment of SEQ ID NO: 1 or 2 which is a broader recitation of sequence structures than what is now recited in claim 11 (to which claim 12 refers). Please clarify claim 12 (perhaps by saying at part (b) that the amplicon “further comprises the [[a]] nucleotide sequence selected from” AND remove fragments of SEQ ID NO: 1 or 2 from the claim).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 8, 11, 12, 20 REMAIN rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 part (d) is removed from this rejection due to the claim amendments and Remarks dated 05June2026. Materially, claim 2 refers back to claim 1 and claim 1 is now amended in a manner that is commensurate with the Office suggestion (ii). Please see the reasons for withdrawing the Utility rejection of claim 1 above for a more detailed explanation (the reasons set forth above also applying to the removal of claim 2 part (d) from this Written Description rejection). Part (iv) of claim 6 is also removed from this rejection because it is now deleted from the claim. Part (c) of claim 20 is also removed from this rejection because it is now deleted from the claim.
[ ↓ The following is copied from the Nonfinal 30March2026, but updated to reflect the claim amendments 05June2026 and explain why those amendments are not sufficient to overcome the Written Description issue(s) ↓ ]
These claims recite a breadth of sequences (or combinations of sequences) with the stated function of being “diagnostic for” the presence of the Gm_CSM63714 event (or some variation of such language). Based on the specification and the knowledge within the art, a skilled artisan would not reasonably recognize that Applicant could actually use the full breadth of sequences being claimed to “diagnose” the presence of Gm_CSM63714 event. For at least that reason, these claims are rejected for a lack of Written Description. In an effort to keep the record clear (including what amendments to what claims are being requested), the claims are considered individually below.
RE Claim 6 parts (i) and (ii): similar to what was said above with respect to claims 1 and 2, a person would either need (1) the presence of both 5’ and 3’ junction sequences or (2) the presence of either a 5’ or 3’ junction sequence and an herbicide resistance phenotype to determine whether the Gm_CSM63714 event is present. This is because recombination or another deletion (such as a CRISPR/Cas gene editing technique) may remove all or a portion of the insert, but leave either the 5’ or 3’ junction sequence intact. This means that, looking at claim 6, it would be remedial of this Written Description issue to say that both a 5’ junction sequence (part i) and a 3’ junction sequence (part ii) are being used to diagnose “the presence of soybean event Gm_CSM63714 in the sample”. This specification only describes a small number of structures/sequence which may be used to diagnose “the presence of soybean event Gm_CSM63714” in a sample: (i) certain junction sequences (SEQ ID NOs: 1-8 which, when used in pairs comprising a 5’ and a 3’ sequence, are sufficient to identify the presence of this event or when present alone in combination with specific herbicide resistance traits would be sufficient to indicate to a skilled artisan that the event is present), (ii) the primer pair of SEQ ID NOs: 20 and 15 (specific for the 5’ and 3’ flanking sequences of the insert, respectively, per ¶¶135, 267 of the specification), and (iii) full length sequences (SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 10). Please amend claim 6 to be commensurate with (i), (ii), and/or (iii).
RE Claim 8: it is not clear on the record what exactly SEQ ID NO: 16 is (based on FIG. 1, SEQ ID NO: 16 does not appear to include junction sequence and, in any event, it would only identify the 3’ end of the insert) and it is not clear how, if at all, SEQ ID NO: 16 relates to SEQ ID NOs: 14 or 15. Nonetheless, as is said of record; it is clear from the knowledge in the art and the specification that use of just one probe would not be sufficient to diagnose “the presence of soybean event Gm_CSM63714” (← recited in claim 6). Please amend claim 8 in alignment with what is suggested above for claim 6 (to which claim 8 refers)
RE Claim 11: this claim asserts that any two fragments of SEQ ID NO: 10 may be used “to produce an amplicon diagnostic for soybean event Gm_CSM63714 in a sample”. As amended 05June2026, claim 11 now says that the amplicon comprises 5’ sequence SEQ ID NO: 1 or 3’ sequence SEQ ID NO: 2. This amendment is not remedial because of the continued recitation of “or”. The continued recitation of a “fragment” of SEQ ID NO: 10 (or a complement thereof) remains a problem for the reasons stated of record: based on FIG. 1, Table 1, and ¶61 of the specification, it is understood that SEQ ID NO: 10 is the full insert sequence (SEQ ID NO: 9) as well as soybean genomic sequence on the 5’ and 3’ ends (corresponding to SEQ ID NO: 11 and 12, respectively). What constitutes a “fragment” sufficient to generate one such amplicon is not provided, therefore, the claim asserts that any fragment of SEQ ID NO: 10 may be used for the stated purpose. As has been discussed hereinabove, a skilled artisan would not recognize any fragment (or subsequence) of SEQ ID NO: 10 as being useful to specifically identify event Gm_CSM63714 at least because, like SEQ ID NO: 9, SEQ ID NO: 10 comprises several popular herbicide resistance transgenes such as the S. maltophilia DMO sequence. Use of the DMO sequence, as an example, would not specifically identify the claimed event because it would also identify other events (such as MON 87708 (US Pat. No. 8501407)) which comprise an S. maltophilia DMO sequence. This specification only describes a small number of structures/sequences which may be used to diagnose “the presence of soybean event Gm_CSM63714” in a sample: (i) certain junction sequences (SEQ ID NOs: 1-8 which, when used in pairs comprising a 5’ and a 3’ sequence, are sufficient to identify the presence of this event or when present alone in combination with specific herbicide resistance traits would be sufficient to indicate to a skilled artisan that the event is present), (ii) the primer pair of SEQ ID NOs: 20 and 15 (specific for the 5’ and 3’ flanking sequences of the insert, respectively, per ¶¶135, 267 of the specification), and (iii) full length sequences (SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 10). Because full length sequences ((iii) SEQ ID NOs: 9 and 10) are generally not utilized in amplification reactions, it is recommended that this claim be amended to specify (i) and/or (ii).
RE claim 12: Part (a) of claim 12 states that the primer pair SEQ ID NO: 14 and 15 may be used to produce an “amplicon diagnostic for soybean event Gm_CSM63714 in a sample”, but this is not supported by either the specification or general knowledge within the art. As an initial matter, SEQ ID NOs: 14 and 15 are both specific for the 3’ end of the event insert (see FIG. 1). Also, the specification explains that SEQ ID NO: 20 is used with SEQ ID NO: 15 to generate one such amplicon (not SEQ ID NO: 14) (SEQ ID NO: 20 being specific for the 5’ flanking sequence at the insert) (¶¶135, 267 of the specification). Please amend part (a) of claim 12 so specify that SEQ ID NO: 20 and SEQ ID NO: 15 are used. RE Part (b) of claim 12 states that the amplicon comprises “a nucleotide sequence” found within any one of SEQ ID NOs: 3-10 (noting that “a nucleotide sequence” reads on any two or more consecutive nucleotides found within SEQ ID NOs: 3-10) and that the amplicon may otherwise comprise any “fragment” that is at least 15 nucleotides in length including nucleotides 1,000-1,001 or 11,196-11,197 of SEQ ID NO: 10 (i.e., including the two nucleotides that define the 5’ junction of the insert or the two nucleotides that define the 3’ junction of the insert per ¶123 at page 40 as captured below).
PNG
media_image3.png
396
918
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Because no two consecutive nucleotides found within SEQ ID NOs: 3-10 can produce an amplicon that is “diagnostic for” the claimed event, “comprises a nucleotide sequence selected from” should be changed to “comprises the nucleotide sequence selected from”. Furthermore, analogous to issues raised hereinabove with other recitations of “fragments”, the “fragment” language in part (b) of claim 12 is problematic because it reads on a 15 nucleotide sequence within the insert sequence (such as within SEQ ID NO: 10) that also includes the two nucleotide sequences at either end (1,000-1,001 or 11,196-11,197 of SEQ ID NO: 10 ). Without more information, it is not believed that only two nucleotides (at either end of a primer) would be sufficient to generate an amplicon that may specifically identify the presence of the Gm_CSM63714 (or any event, for that matter). So, to that end, and without more information please amend the “fragment” clause at the end of part (b) of claim 12 to specify that the “1,000-1,001 or 11,196-11,197 of SEQ ID NO: 10” are not at the end of the sequence (those nucleotides should be roughly in the middle, but the Office defers to Applicant as to how such claim language may be drafted to capture that concept). For context, the specification states that SEQ ID NOs: 20 and 15 may be used to generate one such amplicon and SEQ ID NOs: 20 and 15 are 27 and 26 nucleotides long, respectively. For further context, SEQ ID NOs: 1-8 are 30, 30, 60, 60, 100, 100, 1050, and 1050 nucleotides long, respectively.
RE claim 20: The language of part (a) is flawed for the same reason as is discussed above with respect to claim 11 (the breadth of DNA primers being claimed would not actually generate an “amplicon diagnostic for soybean event Gm_CSM63714”). Please amend claim 20(a) in a manner that is commensurate to claim 11. The language at part (b) of claim 20 is flawed for the same reasons as claim 6 (the breadth of DNA primers being claimed could not actually be “diagnostic for the presence of soybean event Gm_CSM63714” in a sample). Please amend claim 20(b) in a manner that is commensurate with claim 6.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks:
(1) With respect to claims 6 and 8, Applicant relies up on the claim amendments to overcome this rejection and acknowledges that the claims still encompass utilizing only of a 5’ junction sequence or 3’ junction sequence (page 19 of the Remarks 05June2026).
This remains unpersuasive for the reasons stated of record and again hereinabove.
(2) With respect to claim 8 and SEQ ID NO: 16, Applicant simply says that “the specification also expressly identifies SEQ ID NO: 16 as an illustrative DNA molecule useful as a probe for detecting soybean event Gm_CSM63714 and flanking soybean genomic DNA.” (Remarks at page 19).
This is insufficient to explain what exactly SEQ ID NO: 16 is and to contradict the Office’s assertion that, based on the specification including drawings, SEQ ID NO: 16 would not be sufficient to achieve the stated function (more, such as a second sequence, would be needed). Applicant should please explain how the Office is incorrect or amend the claims.
(3) With respect to claims 11 and 12, Applicant relies upon the claim amendments to overcome this rejection (Remarks at page 20).
This is not effective for the reasons stated hereinabove. Please note that multi-part claims are rejected for multiple reasons and, therefore, amendment of one part does not necessarily overcome all issues with the entirety of the claim.
(3) With respect to claim 20, Applicant relies upon the claim amendments to overcome this rejection (Remarks at page 20).
This is not effective for the reasons stated hereinabove. Please note that multi-part claims are rejected for multiple reasons and, therefore, amendment of one part does not necessarily overcome all issues with the entirety of the claim.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rebecca STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30-4:30.
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, Amjad ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-7058. 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.
/REBECCA STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/MATTHEW R KEOGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights