DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14, 18-21 and 23 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
The objection to claim 18 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
The rejection of claims 1-14, 18-21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s deposit statement and submission of evidence of acceptance of the deposit under the Budapest Treaty.
The rejection of claims 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), fourth 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of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-14, 18-21 and 23 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the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1-14, 18-21 and 23 are 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 rejection is repeated for the reasons of record as set forth in the Office action mailed 18 December 2025. Applicant’s arguments filed 17 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The instant Specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S. Code § 112(a) because it does not provide a description sufficient to conduct an examination, including a complete search of the prior art.
MPEP 2163 (I) states
The written description of the deposited material needs to be as complete as possible because the examination for patentability proceeds solely on the basis of the written description. See, e.g., In re Lundak, 773 F.2d 1216, 227 USPQ 90 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also 54 Fed. Reg. at 34,880 ("As a general rule, the more information that is provided about a particular deposited biological material, the better the examiner will be able to compare the identity and characteristics of the deposited biological material with the prior art.").
The instant Specification fails to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S. Code § 112(a) because it does not provide enough description to be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement.
MPEP 2163(I) states
The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement." Id. at 34,880.) (Quoting the Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) at 34,880).
In the instant application, a full examination cannot be conducted because applicant failed to provide the breeding history for the instantly claimed hybrid cucumber. A hybrid plant is defined by both its genetics (i.e., its parents and breeding method) and its traits. In the instant application, Applicant has only provided a description of the plant traits, as seen in the specification (¶77-92 and Tables 3 and 4). The instant application is silent as to the parents used to produce the claimed plant.
The criticality of a breeding history in assessing the intellectual property rights of a plant is well recognized in the field of plant breeding. With regard to Plant Patents, MPEP 1605 states that a complete detailed description of a plant includes “the origin or parentage”. Other bodies that grant intellectual property protection for plant varieties require breeding information to evaluate whether protection should be granted to new varieties. A breeding history, including information about parentage and breeding methodology, is part of the requirements of Plant Variety Protection (PVP) applications. That information is used to “determine if development is sufficient to consider the variety new” (USDA, “Applying for a Plant Variety Certificate of Protection”, https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/pvpo/application-help/apply, accessed 1 May 2023). Additionally, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) considers breeding history and methodology part of its evaluation of essentially derived plant varieties (UPOV, 2017, Explanatory Notes on Essentially Derived Varieties Under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, see notes 14 and 30). While the USPTO, USDA, and UPOV have different laws governing intellectual property rights, all recognize that a breeding history is an essential part of adequate description of the plant sought to be protected.
The breeding history is also necessary to aid in the resolution of patent infringement by providing information necessary to determine whether differences in plants where genetic differences, differences caused by the environment, or differences within the accepted variation within a variety. Historically, the USPTO has considered breeding history information when determining the patentability of a new plant variety (See Ex Parte C (USPQ 2d 1492 (1992) and Ex Parte McGowen, Board Decision in Application 14/996,093, 2020). In both of these cases, there were many differences cited by the applicant when comparing the prior art and the new plant variety. However, because the breeding history was available, these differences were deemed to be obvious and within the natural variation expected in a backcrossing breeding process. Without a breeding history in these cases, a complete comparison with the prior art could not have been possible.
Moreover, a specification an incomplete breeding history hampers the public’s ability to resolve infringement analysis with plants already in the prior art as well as plants that have not yet been patented. Because the instant specification lacks the breeding history, the public will not be able to fully resolve questions of infringement. Since the breeding history, including the parents, is not known to the public, the public could only rely on the phenotype of the claimed plant for assessing potential infringement.
As seen above in Ex Parte C and Ex Parte McGowan, a trait table is insufficient to differentiate varieties by itself. It has been long established that intracultivar heterogeneity exists in crop species. The assumption that elite cultivars are composed of relatively homogenous genetic pools is false (Haun et al, 2011, Plant Physiol. 155:645-655; see pg 645, left column). Segregation, recombination, DNA transposition, epigenetic processes, and spontaneous mutations are some of the reasons elite cultivar populations will maintain some degree of plant-to-plant variation (pg 645, right column, paragraph 2, to pg 646, left column, paragraph 3). In addition, environmental variation may lead to phenotypic variation within a cultivar. (Großkinsky et al, 2015, J. Exp. Bot. 66:5429-5440; see pg 5430 left column, paragraph 2, and right column, paragraph 2). In view of this variability, a breeding history is an essential and the least burdensome way to provide genetic information needed at adequate describe a newly developed plant.
Thus, an application that does not clearly describe the breeding history does not provide an adequate written description of the invention.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant must amend the specification to provide the breeding history used to develop the instant hybrid. When identifying the breeding history, Applicant should identify any and all other potential names for all parental lines utilized in the development of the instant variety. For example, if Applicant’s breeding history uses proprietary line names, Applicant should notate in the specification all other names of the proprietary lines, especially publicly disclosed or patented line information. If the breeding history encompasses a locus conversion or a backcrossing process, Applicant should clearly indicate the recurrent parent and the donor plant and specifically name the trait or transgenic event that is being donated to the recurrent parent. If one of the parents is a backcross progeny or locus converted line of a publicly disclosed line, Applicant should provide the breeding history of the parent line as well (i.e., grandparents).
Applicant is also reminded that they have a duty to disclose information material to patentability. Applicant should also notate the most similar plants which should include any other plants created using similar breeding history (such as siblings of the instant variety). This information can be submitted in an IDS with a notation of the relevancy to the instant application or as information submitted as described in MPEP 724 (e.g., trade secret, proprietary, and Protective Order).
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges that the requested breeding history information has been submitted to the Office, via priority mail, in a separate document, in which the information is a Trade Secret. Applicant submits that the Trade Secret submission satisfies the requirements of the Office (response pg 10).
This is not found persuasive. A trade secret submission does not satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C 112(a), and thus not the Office.
First, the information regarding the parents of the instantly claimed cucumber plant is not in the specification.
The first 10 words of 35 USC 112 (a) are critical.
(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. (emphasis added)
The strict interpretation of the law is clear: Applicant must provide a written description of the invention in the specification.
Second, a submission of parental information as a trade secret may be expunged from the application, as Applicant has already requested for the submission sent with this response.
Third, a submission of parental information as a trade secret does not inform the public about that parental information. Phenotype and/or parental information provided only as a trade secret does not inform the public about the critical genetic description about the claimed plant.
MPEP 2163(I) states
The description must be sufficient to permit verification that the deposited biological material is in fact that disclosed. Once the patent issues, the description must be sufficient to aid in the resolution of questions of infringement." Id. at 34,880.) (Quoting the Deposit of Biological Materials for Patent Purposes, Final Rule, 54 Fed. Reg. 34,864 (August 22, 1989) at 34,880).
Applicant urges that the requirements of a Plant Patent or Plant Variety Protection Application are not applied to a Utility Application, but submission of breeding history information as a Trade Secret does satisfy the examination requirements of the Office (response pg 10).
This is not found persuasive. Submission of breeding history information as a Trade Secret does not satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C 112(a), and thus not the Office for the reasons discussed above.
Plant Patent and Plant Variety Protection Application were not cited for application of their requirements to a utility application. They, and the other references, were cited to establish that in the plant variety art, a breeding history is part of the description of a plant variety.
The Office has made a finding of fact that for the instant variety the minimum description is the combination of the phenotype and genotype (breeding history). To support this finding of fact, the Office has cited other plant-related intellectual property organizations and relevant court cases dealing with plant varieties in which both the phenotype and genotype are analyzed. The Office did not cite these findings to clarify the law. They are solely to clarify the finding of fact, i.e., what is an adequate written description for the instant plant variety.
Applicant has not provided evidence saying that in the plant variety art the breeding history is not considered part of the description of a plant variety. Applicant has not rebutted the evidence provided in the rejection. Applicant is reminded that exhibits and Declarations will not be considered after final unless Applicant provides a showing of good and sufficient reasons of why they were necessary and not earlier presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102, 103
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.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-14, 18-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sipeyre (2021, US 10,999,990) taken with the evidence of Suelmann (US 2014/0356514), Suelmann (US 2015/0181824), Suelmann (US 2014/0317769), and Shetty (US 2017/0127631).
The rejection is repeated for the reasons of record as set forth in the Office action mailed 18 December 2025. Applicant’s arguments filed 17 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
This rejection is made based solely on the phenotype of 'E23B.2447' and the cucumber variety described in cited art because the parents of 'E23B.2447' are not described in the specification. As detailed in the written description rejection above, the breeding history is incomplete. As the instant specification does not teach the parents of 'E23B.2447', the two varieties can only be compared based on their phenotypes.
This determination was made using the characteristics of cucumber variety Expedition that do not vary under different environmental conditions. Appendix A compares the descriptions of “Expedition” in Suelmann (US 2014/0356514), Suelmann (US 2015/0181824), Suelmann (US 2014/0317769), and Shetty (US 2017/0127631). The characteristics in bold are those that differ among the descriptions. These characteristics are those that are affected by environmental conditions, and plants can only be compared on these characteristics when the plants are grown side-by-side. The characteristics not affected by environmental conditions are those that are not in bold and are those upon which this determination was made.
‘990 teaches hybrid cucumber SVCB2942 (Table 1). Both SVCB2942 and the instantly claimed plant have fresh market as the predominant usage, greenhouse as the predominant culture, parthenocarpy, absence of warts, and white spines (vestiture). All other characteristics are either only reported in one of SVCB2942 and the instantly claimed plant or are affected by environmental conditions, as shown in Appendix A.
Thus, SVCB2942 appears to be the instantly claimed plant. If it is not, it is a plant with essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics of 'E23B.2447'.
‘990 claims seed and plants of SVCB2942 (claims 4, 6) and discloses plant parts, including pollen, ovules, embryos, fruit and cells (column 1, lines 57-64). These would also be seed, plants and plant parts of a plant with essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics of 'E23B.2447'. ‘990 discloses tissue culture of regenerable cells, including from roots, root tips, meristems, cotyledons, pollen, leaves, anthers, pistils, or flowers, of SVCB2942 and plants regenerated therefrom, where the plant is capable of expressing all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of SVCB2942 (column 2, line 50, to column 3, line 2); this would be a method of propagating SVCB2942 from tissue. ‘990 discloses producing SVCB2942-derived seed and plants through multiple rounds of selfing or outcrossing the plant (column 15, line 66, to column 17, line 22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges that did not receive "Appendix A" (response pg 12).
It is attached to this Office action.
Applicant urges that the claims require that the claimed cucumber variety retain all the morphological and physiological characteristics of hybrid cucumber plant 'E23B.2447’; none of the cited refences teach or suggest such a plant (response pg 12).
This is not found persuasive. The rejection is over ‘900, not over Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty. Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty, were all cited as evidence of characteristics that vary due to the environmental conditions that cucumbers are grown in.
Applicant urges that the instant plant differs from that in ‘900, Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty in fruit length and weight. (response pg 12-13).
This is not found persuasive. The rejection is not over Suelmann-1’s "NUN 53009", Suelmann-2’s "NUN 52009", Suelmann-3’s "NUN 53018", or Shetty "SV1096CN". The rejection specifically mentioned the descriptions of “Expedition” in Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty. Each of Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty report a different fruit length and weight of “Expedition”, demonstrating that this trait is affected by the environmental conditions that cucumbers are grown in. Thus, SVCB2942 and the instant plant cannot be compared based on these traits unless they are grown side-by-side.
Claims 1-14, 18-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Suelmann (2020, US 10,716,272) taken with the evidence of Suelmann (US 2014/0356514), Suelmann (US 2015/0181824), Suelmann (US 2014/0317769), and Shetty (US 2017/0127631).
The rejection is repeated for the reasons of record as set forth in the Office action mailed 18 December 2025. Applicant’s arguments filed 17 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
This rejection is made based solely on the phenotype of 'E23B.2447' and the cucumber variety described in cited art because the parents of 'E23B.2447' are not described in the specification. As detailed in the written description rejection above, the breeding history is incomplete. As the instant specification does not teach the parents of 'E23B.2447', the two varieties can only be compared based on their phenotypes.
This determination was made using the characteristics of cucumber variety Expedition that do not vary under different environmental conditions. Appendix A compares the descriptions of “Expedition” in Suelmann (US 2014/0356514), Suelmann (US 2015/0181824), Suelmann (US 2014/0317769), and Shetty (US 2017/0127631). The characteristics in bold are those that differ among the descriptions. These characteristics are those that are affected by environmental conditions, and plants can only be compared on these characteristics when the plants are grown side-by-side. The characteristics not affected by environmental conditions are those that are not in bold and are those upon which this determination was made.
‘272 teaches hybrid cucumber NUN 51024 CUP (Table 1). Both NUN 51024 CUP and the instantly claimed plant have parthenocarpy, absence of warts, and white spines (vestiture). All other characteristics are either only reported in one of NUN 51024 CUP and the instantly claimed plant or are affected by environmental conditions, as shown in Appendix A.
Thus, NUN 51024 CUP appears to be the instantly claimed plant. If it is not, it is a plant with essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics of 'E23B.2447'.
‘272 claims seed plants, and plant parts, including pollen, ovules, fruit and cells, of NUN 51024 CUP (claims 1-3). These would also be seed, plants and plant parts of a plant with essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics of 'E23B.2447'. ‘272 clams tissue culture of regenerable cells, including from roots, root tips, meristems, cotyledons, pollen, leaves, anthers, pistils, or flowers, of NUN 51024 CUP and plants regenerated therefrom, where the plant is capable of expressing all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of NUN 51024 CUP (claims 7-10). ‘272 clams vegetatively propagating NUN 51024 CUP from a plant part, including tissue (claims 11-13). ‘990 discloses producing NUN 51024 CUP-derived seed and plants through multiple rounds of selfing or outcrossing the plant (claim 15; column 13, lines 9-53).
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges that did not receive "Appendix A" (response pg 13).
It is attached to this Office action.
Applicant urges that the claims require that the claimed cucumber variety retain all the morphological and physiological characteristics of hybrid cucumber plant 'E23B.2447’; none of the cited refences teach or suggest such a plant (response pg 13-14).
This is not found persuasive. The rejection is over ‘272, not over Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty. Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty, were all cited as evidence of characteristics that vary due to the environmental conditions that cucumbers are grown in.
Applicant urges that the instant plant differs from that in ‘272, Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty in fruit length, weight, use, and fruit/flowers per node (response pg 14).
This is not found persuasive. The rejection is not over Suelmann-1’s "NUN 53009", Suelmann-2’s "NUN 52009", Suelmann-3’s "NUN 53018", or Shetty "SV1096CN". The rejection specifically mentioned the descriptions of “Expedition” in Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty. Each of Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty report different fruit lengths and weights and flowers per node for “Expedition”, demonstrating that this trait is affected by the environmental conditions that cucumbers are grown in. Thus, "NUN 51024 CUP and the instant plant cannot be compared based on these traits unless they are grown side-by-side.
Claims 1-14, 18-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Swinkels (2018, US 10,098,311) taken with the evidence of Suelmann (US 2014/0356514), Suelmann (US 2015/0181824), Suelmann (US 2014/0317769), and Shetty (US 2017/0127631).
The rejection is repeated for the reasons of record as set forth in the Office action mailed 18 December 2025. Applicant’s arguments filed 17 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
This rejection is made based solely on the phenotype of 'E23B.2447' and the cucumber variety described in cited art because the parents of 'E23B.2447' are not described in the specification. As detailed in the written description rejection above, the breeding history is incomplete. As the instant specification does not teach the parents of 'E23B.2447', the two varieties can only be compared based on their phenotypes.
This determination was made using the characteristics of cucumber variety Expedition that do not vary under different environmental conditions. Appendix A compares the descriptions of “Expedition” in Suelmann (US 2014/0356514), Suelmann (US 2015/0181824), Suelmann (US 2014/0317769), and Shetty (US 2017/0127631). The characteristics in bold are those that differ among the descriptions. These characteristics are those that are affected by environmental conditions, and plants can only be compared on these characteristics when the plants are grown side-by-side. The characteristics not affected by environmental conditions are those that are not in bold and are those upon which this determination was made.
‘311 teaches hybrid cucumber NUN 43003 CUL (Tables 1-3). Both NUN 51024 CUP and the instantly claimed plant have indoor culture, parthenocarpy, absence of warts, and white spines (vestiture). All other characteristics are either only reported in one of NUN 51024 CUP and the instantly claimed plant or are affected by environmental conditions, as shown in Appendix A.
Thus, NUN 43003 CUL appears to be the instantly claimed plant. If it is not, it is a plant with essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics of 'E23B.2447'.
‘311 claims seed plants, and plant parts, including pollen, ovules, fruit and cells, of NUN 43003 CUL (claims 1-3). These would also be seed, plants and plant parts of a plant with essentially all the physiological and morphological characteristics of 'E23B.2447'. ‘311 clams tissue culture of regenerable cells, including from roots, root tips, meristems, cotyledons, pollen, leaves, anthers, pistils, or flowers, of NUN 43003 CUL and plants regenerated therefrom, where the plant is capable of expressing all of the physiological and morphological characteristics of NUN 43003 CUL (claims 4-6). ‘311 claims vegetatively propagating NUN 43003 CUL from a plant part, including tissue (claims 7-9). ‘990 discloses producing NUN 43003 CUL-derived seed and plants through multiple rounds of selfing or outcrossing the plant (claim 11; column 13, lines 54-61; column 14, lines 39-48; column 8, lines 35-57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges that XXXXXXXXXXXXX (response pg ).
This is not found persuasive because XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges that did not receive "Appendix A" (response pg 14).
It is attached to this Office action.
Applicant urges that the claims require that the claimed cucumber variety retain all the morphological and physiological characteristics of hybrid cucumber plant 'E23B.2447’; none of the cited refences teach or suggest such a plant (response pg 15).
This is not found persuasive. The rejection is over ‘311, not over Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty. Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty, were all cited as evidence of characteristics that vary due to the environmental conditions that cucumbers are grown in.
Applicant urges that the instant plant differs from that in ‘311, Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty in fruit length and weigh (response pg 15).
This is not found persuasive. The rejection is not over Suelmann-1’s "NUN 53009", Suelmann-2’s "NUN 52009", Suelmann-3’s "NUN 53018", or Shetty "SV1096CN". The rejection specifically mentioned the descriptions of “Expedition” in Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty. Each of Suelmann-1, Suelmann-2, Suelmann-3, and Shetty report a different fruit lengths and weights of “Expedition”, demonstrating that this trait is affected by the environmental conditions that cucumbers are grown in. Thus, " NUN 43003 CUL” and the instant plant cannot be compared based on these traits unless they are grown side-by-side.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne R. Kubelik, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-0801. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern.
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.
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.
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.
/Anne Kubelik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights