DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
2. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 14-20, drawn to non-elected inventions are withdrawn from examination.
Claims 1, 2, 14 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-13 are examined on the merits with elected species, species (factor present in an umbilical cord blood derived macrophage cell population culture medium): apolipoprotein E (APOE), #45 in Table 1, page 44; and prostaglandin reductase 1 (PTGR1), #251 in Table 1, page 45.
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Withdrawn Objections
Claim Objections
4. Claim 12 is no longer objected because the acronym, OPCs reads on the full term, oligodendrocyte precursor cells, see line 2 of the claim on page 3, line 2 of the Listing of the Claims submitted June 30, 2026.
Withdrawn Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The rejection of claims 1-13 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s deletion of the phrase, “[a] composition comprising at least one factor present in an umbilical cord blood derived macrophage cell population culture medium or a biologically active variant(s), derivative(s) or fragment(s) thereof,” on lines 2 and 3 of claim 1 and lines 3 and 4 of claim 2, see Listing of the Claims submitted June 30, 2026, page 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The rejection of claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurtzberg et al., US 2021/0275583 A1 (effective filing date May 21, 2021) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s statement invoking the prior art exception under 35 USC §102(b)(2)(C), see Remarks submitted June 30, 2026, paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7.
7. The rejection of claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 6-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurtzberg et al., US 11,278,575 B2 (filed July 12, 2019) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s statement invoking the prior art exception under 35 USC §102(b)(2)(C), see Remarks submitted June 30, 2026, paragraphs 1 and 2 on page 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The rejection of claim(s) 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtzberg et al., US 2021/0275583 A1 (effective filing date May 21, 2021), and further in view of Pereira et al. (PLoS ONE 9(11): e113769, pages 18-31, published online November 25, 2014) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s statement invoking the prior art exception under 35 USC §102(b)(2)(C), see Remarks submitted June 30, 2026, paragraph (para.) bridging pages 6 and 7; and page 8, last para.
9. The rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over copending Application No. 11,278,575 (filed July 12, 2019) which has a common assignee, inventor and/or applicant with the instant application and further in view of Kurtzberg et al., US 2019/0343882 A1 (published November 14, 2019/ IDS reference B1 submitted September 1, 2023) and Pereira et al. (PLoS ONE 9(11): e113769, pages 18-31, published online November 25, 2014) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s statement invoking the prior art exception under 35 USC §102(b)(2)(C), see Remarks submitted June 30, 2026, full paragraphs (paras.) 1 and 2 on page 7; and page 9, 1st paragraph.
Maintained Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
11. The rejection of claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurtzberg et al., US 2019/0343882 A1 (published November 14, 2019/ IDS reference B1 submitted September 1, 2023) is maintained.
Applicant argues “[i]n contrast to the claimed invention which recites culture medium, Kurtzberg US 2019/0343882, describes a composition comprising a cell product, more particularly a DUOC-01 cell product.”, see Remarks submitted June 30, 2026, page 6, 4th paragraph (para.). Applicant continues arguments stating “…Kurtzberg US 2019/0343882 does not teach a composition comprising at least one factor present in "culture medium" the reference does not anticipate claim 1.”, see Remarks submitted June 30, 2026, page 6, 4th and 5th paragraphs (paras.).
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but fail to persuade.
As Applicant’s claims are written, the invention is a composition comprising at least one factor that is also present in an umbilical cord blood [UCB] derived macrophage cell population culture medium, as well as at least one excipient.
Kurtzberg clearly discloses APOE and LPL are transcripts expressed by DUOC-01 cells, amongst others, see page 15, section 0122. Moreover, DUOC-01 cells over-express several transcripts including PTGR1, see page 15, section 0122. “DUOC-01 [are] cells derived from genetically normal umbilical cord blood donors…”, see page 1, section 0005.
Absent evidence to the contrary, these transcripts are one and the same as the factors listed in claim 5. Accordingly, the disclosed composition including the DUOC-01 cells and/or DUOC-01 cell product also contains the disclosed factors, see page 1, section 0002. These factors are also the same as the factors present in an UCB blood derived macrophage cell population cell medium. Hence, the rejection is maintained.
Kurtzberg discloses “…compositions including DUOC-01 cell product, derived from banked human umbilical cord blood (CB) mononuclear cells with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, see abstract; page 1, sections 0002, 0007 and 0011; page 5, section 0054 and 0055; and claims spanning pages 18 and 19. The DUOC-01 cells express an array of transcripts including [#45 within Table 1 on page apolipoprotein E] APOE, “APOC1 and COLEC112: lipid uptake receptors LRP5, LRP11 and LRP12; and lipid degrading LPL.”, as well as “(PTGDS, HPGDS, PTGES, PTGFRN, [#251 within Table 1 on page 45, prostaglandin reductase 1] PTGR1 and PTGR2)”, see page 15, section 0122. These transcripts are one and the same as factors.
The motile, phagocytic cells in DUOC-01 express CD45, CD11 b, CD14, CD16, CD206, ionized calcium binding adaptor molecule 1 (Iba1), HLA-DR, and iNOS, secrete IL-10 and IL-6”, see page 1, sections 0005, 0007; page 2, section 0013; page 4, section 0044; and claims on page 1.
The disclosed composition can be administered intrathecally, intrathecally (e.g., an administration into the spinal canal, or into the subarachnoid space, or into space under the arachnoid membrane of the brain), see page 1, section 0005; page 5, section 0050.
Once administered the disclosed composition is able to promote myelination of a neuron in presence of a primary oligodendrocyte precursor cell (OPCs) and treats a demyelination condition, see abstract; page 1, sections 0005, 0007, 0011; page 4, sections 0040, 0042; and claims spanning pages 18 and 19. Demyelinating conditions include is multiple sclerosis, leukodystrophies, spinal cord injury, peripheral nerve disease, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Alzheimer's disease, see page 1, sections 0009, 0010; page 2, section 0015; and page 4, sections 0042, 0043. It also natural flows that with the administration of the disclosed composition, myelination of a neuron in the presence of a primary oligodendrocyte precursor cell (OPC), a demyelination condition is reduce, reversed, treated and can drive the differentiation of an OPC to mature myelin basic protein expressing oligodendrocytes.
“[D]ata suggest that DUOC-01 cells express and secrete factors known to promote remyelination by several mechanisms and enhance oligodendrocyte precursor proliferation and differentiation.”, see last sentence in 2nd column on page 10. The proliferated and differentiated OPCs were within in vitro assays.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. The rejection of claim(s) 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtzberg et al., US 2019/0343882 A1 (published November 14, 2019/ IDS reference B1 submitted September 1, 2023), and further in view of Pereira et al. (PLoS ONE 9(11): e113769, pages 18-31, published online November 25, 2014) is maintained.
Applicant asserts “[c]laim 1 and dependent claims thereof are directed to a composition comprising a subset of cellular factors secreted into culture medium”, Remarks submitted June 30, 2026, page 7, last paragraph (para.). Applicant further asserts the prior art reference does not “…teach a composition comprising at least one factor present in…’culture medium’”., see page 7 of the Remarks, last para.
Applicant argues “US 2019/0343882 [Kurtzberg] teaches DUOC-01 cells and gene expression analysis of DUOC-01 cells. This reference fails to teach a composition comprising at least one factor present in 'culture medium'. mRNA gene transcripts identified in an expression assay are not the equivalent of a composition of secreted
factors in media. The preparation and administration of cells as a medicament vs. secreted protein factors is arguably more challenging. One of skill in the art would not consider a cell preparation as an equivalent to composition comprising secreted factors. Notably, one of skill would not have been motivated by the cited references (Kurtzberg & Pereira) to achieve, with a reasonable expectation of success, the presently claimed composition comprising at least one factor present in an umbilical cord blood derived macrophage cell population culture medium.”, see page 7 of the Remarks, last para.
Applicant states the secondary reference, Pereira reads on “…MSC culture medium [which] is not the same as the DUOC-01 cell medium used in the present invention.”, see page 8, 2nd para.
In conclusion, Applicant avers “neither Kurtzberg nor Pereira individually or when considered together teaches the instantly claimed composition, a composition comprising at least one factor present in an umbilical cord blood derived macrophage cell population culture medium, and at least one excipient, wherein the composition promotes myelination of a neuron in presence of primary oligodendrocyte precursor cells (OPCs).”, see page 8 of the Remarks, 3rd para.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully considered, but fail to persuade.
The claimed invention is directed to a composition comprising at least one factor present in an umbilical cord blood derived macrophage cell population culture medium and not the medium itself. As stated in the pending 102 rejection, “[a]s Applicant’s claims are written, the invention is a composition comprising at least one factor that is also present in an umbilical cord blood [UCB] derived macrophage cell population culture medium, as well as at least one excipient.
Kurtzberg clearly discloses APOE and LPL are transcripts expressed by DUOC-01 cells, amongst others, see page 15, section 0122. Moreover, DUOC-01 cells over-express several transcripts including PTGR1, see page 15, section 0122. “DUOC-01 [are] cells derived from genetically normal umbilical cord blood donors…”, see page 1, section 0005.
Absent evidence to the contrary, these transcripts are one and the same as the factors listed in claim 5. Accordingly, the disclosed composition including the DUOC-01 cells and/or DUOC-01 cell product also contains the disclosed factors, see page 1, section 0002. These factors are also the same as the factors present in an UCB blood derived macrophage cell population cell medium.
Furthermore, as defined in Applicant’s Specification, factors are not limited to proteins, see section 00045 bridging pages 8 and 9. “[T]he conditioned media may also comprise other factors, including small molecules, nucleic acids and lipids.”, see page 9, 1st full sentence.
Secondary reference, Pereira teaches together, CM and hUCBP have therapeutic applications in treatment and provide important growth factors, see entire document. Hence, the modification of the primary reference in light of the secondary reference is proper because the applied references are so related that the appearance of features shown in one would suggest the application of those features to the other. See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 213 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1982); In re Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 213 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1982), and In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956). Further, it is noted that case law has held that a designer skilled in the art is charged with knowledge of the related art; therefore, the combination of old elements, herein, would have been well within the level of ordinary skill. See In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168,170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971) and In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 211 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1981). The combination of references would not change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, hence the teachings of the references are sufficient to render the claims
prima facie obvious. For the reasons of record and cited herein, the rejection is maintained.
Kurtzberg teaches “…compositions including DUOC-01 cell product, derived from banked human umbilical cord blood (CB) mononuclear cells with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, see abstract; page 1, sections 0002, 0007 and 0011; page 5, section 0054 and 0055; and claims spanning pages 18 and 19. The DUOC-01 cells express an array of transcripts including [#45 within Table 1 on page apolipoprotein E] APOE, “APOC1 and COLEC112: lipid uptake receptors LRP5, LRP11 and LRP12; and lipid degrading LPL.”, as well as “(PTGDS, HPGDS, PTGES, PTGFRN, [#251 within Table 1 on page 45, prostaglandin reductase 1] PTGR1 and PTGR2)”, see page 15, section 0122. These transcripts are one and the same as factors.
The motile, phagocytic cells in DUOC-01 express CD45, CD11 b, CD14, CD16, CD206, ionized calcium binding adaptor molecule 1 (Iba1), HLA-DR, and iNOS, secrete IL-10 and IL-6”, see page 1, sections 0005, 0007; page 2, section 0013; page 4, section 0044; and claims on page 1.
The taught composition can be administered intrathecally, intrathecally (e.g., an administration into the spinal canal, or into the subarachnoid space, or into space under the arachnoid membrane of the brain), see page 1, section 0005; page 5, section 0050.
Once administered the taught composition is able to promote myelination of a neuron in presence of a primary oligodendrocyte precursor cell (OPCs) and treats a demyelination condition, see abstract; page 1, sections 0005, 0007, 0011; page 4, sections 0040, 0042; and claims spanning pages 18 and 19. Demyelinating conditions include is multiple sclerosis, leukodystrophies, spinal cord injury, peripheral nerve disease, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Alzheimer's disease, see page 1, sections 0009, 0010; page 2, section 0015; and page 4, sections 0042, 0043. It also natural flows that with the administration of the disclosed composition, myelination of a neuron in the presence of a primary oligodendrocyte precursor cell (OPC), a demyelination condition is reduce, reversed, treated and can drive the differentiation of an OPC to mature myelin basic protein expressing oligodendrocytes.
“[D]ata suggest that DUOC-01 cells express and secrete factors known to promote remyelination by several mechanisms and enhance oligodendrocyte precursor proliferation and differentiation.”, see last sentence in 2nd column on page 10. The proliferated and differentiated OPCs were within in vitro assays.
Kurtzberg does not teach the disclosed composition comprises Remy-Macs.
However, Pereira teaches “…autologous [human umbilical cord plasma] hUCBP as a culture medium supplement in the cryopreservation process of isolated [human mesenchymal stem cells] hMSCs or of the [umbilical cord tissue] UCT, and in in vitro proliferation of hMSCs”, see page 4, last 11 lines of page. The culture media is enriched with growth factors produced by these hMSCs in expansion (Conditioned medium-CM) and “CM derived from hMSCs was demonstrated to contain factors that promote recruitment of macrophages and endothelial cells into the wound…[and] CM alone also has substantial effects on migration, proliferation, and overall wound”, see Abstract on page 1; and page 22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Kurtzberg and Periera to utilize products of infused umbilical cord blood MSCs because of the high preponderance “…that the CM where these cells [hMSCs] grow and expand in culture (CM) could be an appropriate therapeutic product rich in growth factors comparable to hMSCs local application” and “…the secretome of the unfused umbilical cord (UCB) MSCs can modulate the action of central nervous system (CNS) cells, which could be important in tissues with…low regenerative potential”, see page 2, last 6 lines of the page; page 5, lines 2-5; and both references in their entirety. And “the ex vivo expansion of hMSCs for therapeutic applications concerning cell therapies is necessary in almost every clinical case” and “in vitro expansion is necessary before performing clinical studies”, see page 18, last 5 lines; and sentence bridging pages 19 and 20.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so
with a reasonable expectation of success by the teachings of both references, “evidence suggests that CM obtained from the in vitro culture and expansion of hMSCs and hematopoietic stem cells (CD34+ cells) or hUCBP are probably better therapeutic options compared to the in vivo transplantation of these stem cells. This is because the regenerating tissues can benefit from the local tissue response to the secreted molecules without the difficulties and complications associated to the engraftment of the allo-transplanted or xeno-transplanted cells”, see page 22.
Moreover, “hMSCS have been used in several clinal trials in children and adults over a wide range of pathologies and diseases”, see page 19, lines 3 and 4. hMSCs are one of the most promising types of stems cells for cell-based therapies” because hMSCs are “one of the most promising types of stem cells for cell-based therapies… based on their differentiation capacity, hematopoietic support as well as their immunomodulatory and pro-regenerative properties”, as well as “have been tested in a large number of clinical trials for treatment of several pathologies like…”brain paralysis, SCI, cardiovascular diseases and myocardial infarction, type I diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, bone fractures, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in bone marrow transplantation, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis “, see in particular, Pereira, page 2; page 3, 1st full paragraph (para.); and both references in their entirety.
Double Patenting
14. 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.
15. The provisional rejection of claims 1-13 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 18 and 22 of copending Application No. 16/477,167 (filed July 10, 2019) is maintained.
“Applicant submits that filing a terminal disclaimer at this stage would be premature and would not be an admission that the rejection is proper. Applicant reserves the right to address the rejection by amendment, argument, cancellation, or terminal disclaimer [TD] if and when the claims are otherwise in condition for allowance. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection, or alternatively deferral of final resolution until the relevant claims are otherwise allowable.”, see Remarks submitted June 30, 2026, page 9, 3rd paragraph (para.).
This argument has been fully considered, but found unpersuasive.
This rejection is not withdrawn and will be held in abeyance until Applicant further amends or cancels the claim(s), submits a persuasive argument or files an acceptable TD. Hence, the rejection is maintained.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims read a composition comprising a DUOC-01 cell product expressing macrophage and/or microglia markers and secrete IL-6 and IL10 with at least one excipient. The said composition is able to treat demyelinating conditions and administered intrathecally.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
16. The provisional rejection of claims 1-13 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8, 13-15, 18-20 of copending Application No. 17/328,749 (May 24, 2021) is maintained.
“Applicant submits that filing a terminal disclaimer at this stage would be premature and would not be an admission that the rejection is proper. Applicant reserves the right to address the rejection by amendment, argument, cancellation, or terminal disclaimer [TD] if and when the claims are otherwise in condition for allowance. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection, or alternatively deferral of final resolution until the relevant claims are otherwise allowable.”, see Remarks submitted June 30, 2026, page 9, 5th paragraph (para.).
This argument has been fully considered, but found unpersuasive.
This rejection is not withdrawn and will be held in abeyance until Applicant further amends or cancels the claim(s), submits a persuasive argument or files an acceptable TD. Hence, the rejection is maintained.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims read a composition comprising a DUOC-01 cell product expressing macrophage and/or microglia markers and secrete IL-6 and IL10 with at least one excipient. The said composition is able to treat demyelinating conditions and administered intrathecally.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
17. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-13 are as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-11, 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,278,575 B2 (issued March 22, 2022) is maintained.
“Applicant respectfully traverses the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection [.] Applicant respectfully requests that final resolution of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection be deferred until the claims in the present application are otherwise in condition for allowance, at which time Applicant will reconsider whether further action, including argument, amendment, cancellation, or terminal disclaimer [TD], is appropriate.”, see Remarks submitted June 30, 2026, page 10, 1st paragraph (para.).
This argument has been fully considered, but found unpersuasive.
This rejection is not withdrawn and will be held in abeyance until Applicant further amends or cancels the claim(s), submits a persuasive argument or files an acceptable TD. Hence, the rejection is maintained.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims read a composition comprising a DUOC-01 cell product expressing macrophage and/or microglia markers and secrete IL-6 and IL10 with at least one excipient. The said composition is able to treat demyelinating conditions and administered intrathecally.
Conclusion
18. 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.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ALANA HARRIS DENT whose telephone number is (571)272-0831. The Examiner works a flexible schedule, however she can generally be reached 8AM-8PM, Monday through Friday.
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, Julie Wu can be reached at 571-272-5205. 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.
ALANA HARRIS DENT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1643
17 August 2026
/Alana Harris Dent/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1643
Prosecution Insights