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 .
Claim Status
The amended claim set filed 24 Feb 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-19 are currently pending. Of those, claims 1, 12, 15-16 are currently amended, and claim 19 is new. No claims are cancelled. Claims 1-19 will be examined on the merits herein.
For clarity of the record, references to the specification herein will use paragraph numbers from the Pre-Grant Publication (US-20240307461-A1; PTO-892).
Response to Arguments
The Applicants’ arguments filed 24 Feb 2024 are acknowledged. For clarity, in this action, said arguments will be referred to as “Remarks” and the Non-Final Office Action mailed 27 Oct 2025 will be referred to as “NFOA.”
The sequence listing filed 24 Feb 2026 is acknowledged, but is defective for the reasons in the CRFD placed in the file wrapper 24 Feb 2026. For questions about the sequence listing, applicant may wish to reach out to the Sequence Help Desk at 571-272-2510 or SequenceHelpDesk@uspto.gov.
The Madempudi declaration filed 24 Feb 2026 is acknowledged and will be addressed in full below.
Priority
In the FAOM (par. 4) it was noted that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202341006683 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 8) that “In view of the objection, the Applicant will submit a certified copy of the priority document, thereby establishing an effective date for searching the art for all claims as 02/02/2023.”
However, a certified copy of the priority document does not appear to have been submitted with the response filed 24 Feb 2026. Therefore, the effective filing date used for searching the art for all claims remains 2 Feb 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 24 Feb 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Copies have not been provided for any of the cited non-patent literature publication.
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency - This application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 because it does not contain a "Sequence Listing" as a separate part of the disclosure and the CRF of the “Sequence Listing” is defective. For questions about the sequence listing, applicant may wish to reach out to the Sequence Help Desk at 571-272-2510 or SequenceHelpDesk@uspto.gov.
Required response - Applicant must provide:
A "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure, as described above in item 1); together with
An amendment specifically directing its entry into the application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.825(a)(2);
A statement that the "Sequence Listing" includes no new matter as required by 37 CFR 1.825(a)(4); and
A statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.825(a)(3)
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) a) or b) above, Applicant must also provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) c) or d) above, Applicant must also provide:
A CRF in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) or 1.821(e)(2) as required by 37 CFR 1.825(a)(5); and
A statement according to item 2) a) or b) above.
Specification
The amendment filed 24 Feb 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The amendments on pg. 28-29 to delete the listed sequences and leave only the sequence descriptor SEQ ID NOs: 1-4 is new matter because the sequence listing was not properly included in the application. As a result, the amendment broadens the specification to being any sequence that could be called SEQ ID NOs: 1-4 instead of being limited to the originally-disclosed sequences. For clarity, the sequence listing must be properly included (see objection above). Once that occurs, the sequences may either be present or absent, at applicant’s discretion.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Rejection(s) Maintained
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-18 remain rejected and claim 19 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Bamola et al. (available online 2 Oct 2022; hereafter Bamola; PTO-892 mailed 27 Oct 2025). The inventors are authors on this paper, but the reference was published more than 1 year before the effective filing date (2 Feb 2024) due to the improper foreign priority. So the reference cannot qualify for a 102(b)(1)(a) exception.
Bamola teaches a method to assess the effect of a probiotic strain Bacillus clausii UBBC-07 on gut microbiota and cytokines in IBD patients (Abstract, see claims 1-2). The subjects were administered probiotic (Bacillus clausii UBBC-07, 2 billion-CFU/capsule) twice a day for 4 weeks (pg. 2 col. 2 “Enrolment of subjects”, see claims 3-6 and 8). The inclusion criteria required that the patients are receiving standard medical treatment (SMT) for IBD (pg. 2 col. 2 “Inclusion criteria”), so the composition is administered as an adjunct (see claim 7). The SMT includes 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) or mesalamine (pg. 2 col. 2 “Subject selection”, see claim 19).
Claim 1 has been amended to state “wherein the administration of the probiotic composition results in survival of the Bacillus clausii in the gastro-intestinal (GI) tract in at least 70% of the patients, thereby modulating the gastrointestinal microbiome and reducing inflammation in the patient.” Also, claims 9-18 recite outcomes of the generic administration step; however, neither the instant claims nor the specification define certain subsets of administrations that are required to achieve the claimed outcomes. MPEP 2111.04 states: “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that these administrations do not limit the claimed administration step because the outcome will occur after any generic administration step (as stated in the claim). As the outcomes do not limit the genus of administration steps that should be performed, they do not limit the claim and Bamola teaches all functional features of claims 1 and 9-18 by teaching the administration step from the method of claim 1.
Additionally, the data collected in Bamola is identical to the data presented in the instant specification. Data on treatment of disease symptoms are presented in Table 2 (pg. 8) and discussed in sections 3.5 and 3.6 (pg. 5 and 7-8, see claims 9-10). Data on microbiome changes are presented in section 3.2 (pg. 4, see claims 11-14 and 17), data on cytokine changes are presented in section 3.3 (pg. 4-5, see claims 15-16), data on B. clausii survival is presented in section 3.1 (pg. 3-4, see claims 1 and 18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 9-10) that Bamola was published on October 2, 2022, which is approximately four months prior to the priority date of the present application (February 2, 2023), and should be excluded as prior art pursuant to the inventor-originated grace period exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A). Applicant argues that Bamola is not a disclosure “by another” and quotes from AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
This argument has been carefully considered but is not persuasive. As discussed in the NFOA (par. 4) and above (par. 7-9), the priority claim is defective because a certified copy of the foreign priority document was not filed. Currently, the application is entitled to an effective filing date of 2 Feb 2024. Bamola was published more than 1 year before the effective filing date and so there is no possible exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A). Applicant is invited to perfect the priority claim and request that this argument be reconsidered.
In the interest of compact prosecution, applicant is notified that one cannot rely upon a certified copy of a non-English language foreign priority application to overcome a rejection unless a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
In the interest of compact prosecution, applicant is notified that the Bamola reference is a disclosure “by another” and will not automatically receive a grace period exception under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(A). The section of 102(a)(1) cited by applicant is not relevant to this rejection because it refers to situations when the reference names only some of the joint inventors and no other authors, but the Bamola reference includes non-inventor authors such as V Deepak Bamola. The exception can be claimed as discussed in MPEP 2155.01. “Where the authorship of the prior art disclosure includes the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application, an unequivocal statement from the inventor or a joint inventor that the inventor or joint inventor (or some combination of named inventors) invented the subject matter of the disclosure, accompanied by a reasonable explanation of the presence of additional authors, may be acceptable in the absence of evidence to the contrary.”
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 10) that claim 1 has been amended.
This argument has been carefully considered but is not persuasive. The amendments to claim 1 were addressed in the updated rejection above.
Claims 1-18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CTRI/2019/11/022087 (last modified 2020; hereafter CTRI; PTO-892 mailed 27 Oct 2025).
CTRI teaches a method to assess the effect of Bacillus clausii UBBC07 on gut microbiota and mucosal immunity in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients (“Brief summary” pg. 4). CTRI teaches the intervention is an oral dose of 2*109 CFU per capsule administered twice daily for 4 weeks (“Intervention” pg. 3, see claims 1-6 and 8). The inclusion criteria required that the patients are visiting or admitted for treatment (“Inclusion criteria” pg. 3), so the composition is administered as an adjunct to standard treatment (see claim 7).
Claim 1 has been amended to state “wherein the administration of the probiotic composition results in survival of the Bacillus clausii in the gastro-intestinal (GI) tract in at least 70% of the patients, thereby modulating the gastrointestinal microbiome and reducing inflammation in the patient.” Also, claims 9-18 recite outcomes of the generic administration step; however, neither the instant claims nor the specification define certain subsets of administrations that are required to achieve the claimed outcomes. MPEP 2111.04 states: “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that these administrations do not limit the claimed administration step because the outcome will occur after any generic administration step (as stated in the claim). As the outcomes do not limit the genus of administration steps that could be performed, they do not limit the claim and CTRI teaches all functional features of claims 1 and 9-18 by teaching the administration step from the method of claim 1.
Additionally, the method of CTRI is identical to the method of the instant examples (see [0159]). MPEP 2112 states: "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)… There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003)”. As the method is identical to the examples, it must inherently produce the same results as in the examples, so the functions in claims 1 and 9-18 are anticipated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 10) that registration in the Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI) is a mandatory regulatory requirement, not a voluntary scientific publication. The primary purpose of such registration is public accountability and regulatory transparency, not dissemination of completed or validated technical knowledge.
The Madempudi declaration argues (Remarks par. 2-3, 6, and 8) that the cited clinical trial registry information was “not for the purpose of publicly disclosing the invention or its technical merits” and “not intended or designed to serve as a public technical disclosure of the invention, its claimed methods, or its inventive technical effects”, “nor do they [clinical trial registry disclosures] constitute an intent to place the invention into the public domain” and “At no time prior to the effective filing date of the present application did I intend for the clinical trial registration, protocol, or regulatory submissions to constitute a public disclosure of the invention or a dedication of the invention to the public.
This argument has been carefully considered but is not persuasive. A reference is 102(a)(1) art if it is “described in a printed publication, … or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention”. The purpose or intent of the disclosure is not relevant under the law, what matters is that the information was actually disclosed before the effective filing date.
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 10-11) that “CTRI registration is expressly prospective in nature. The mission of CTRI is to ensure that all clinical trials are registered "before the enrolment of the first participant." Likewise, any researcher planning to conduct a trial involving human participants "is expected to register the trial in the CTRI before enrollment of the first participant." As a result, CTRI entries necessarily predate the generation of clinical data, experimental results, or demonstrated therapeutic efficacy.”
The Madempudi declaration argues (Remarks par. 4 and 6) that “the information disclosed in the clinical trial registry or protocol was prospective and administrative in nature, reflecting the intent to study a particular intervention rather than validated experimental results, finalized conclusions, or demonstrated therapeutic efficacy” and “clinical trial execution and associated regulatory disclosures are often necessary for regulatory compliance and do not necessarily reflect an invention that is "ready for patenting,"”
The Madempudi declaration argues (Remarks par. 7) that “The clinical trial related disclosures did not teach or enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed invention”
This argument has been carefully considered but is not persuasive. The prospective nature is not relevant to the rejection. “Ready for patenting” is a standard used in 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections involving public use and sales (see MPEP 2152.02(c)-(d)) and in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejections; neither of these are relevant to the 102 rejection here that is over a printed publication that is available to the public before the effective filing date. Instead, see MPEP 2131: “To reject a claim as anticipated by a reference, the disclosure must teach every element required by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation.” (emphasis added). There is no requirement that a disclosed method must have actually been performed. The CTRI reference teaches each step of the method (there is one claimed step: administering in the manner disclosed in the CTRI reference), so the method is anticipated.
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 11) that the information disclosed in a CTRI entry is limited to administrative and design- level details and does not include validated outcomes, technical data, or experimental evidence sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed therapeutic method or achieve the claimed results. Applicant points out the outcome of probiotic survival in the GI tract, the modulation of the GI microbiome, clinical efficacy outcomes, and immunological effects. “At most, the CTR references reflect an unproven hypothesis that Bacillus clausii may be studied in IBD patients, which is legally insufficient to anticipate or render obvious the claimed method.”
The Madempudi declaration argues (Remarks par. 7) “The clinical trial related disclosures did not teach or enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the claimed therapeutic outcomes without undue experimentation.”
This argument has been carefully considered but is not persuasive. As stated in the prior rejection (NFOA par. 15) and above (par. 28): MPEP 2112 states: "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)… There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003)” (emphasis added). As the method is identical to the examples, it must inherently produce the same results as in the examples. Applicant has not provided any arguments or evidence that the administration outcomes do not inherently follow from the disclosed administration protocol.
The Madempudi declaration argues (Remarks par. 5) that “The clinical trial activities were carried out pursuant to a Clinical Trial Agreement executed between Unique Biotech Ltd and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, which is being submitted herewith. This agreement governed the scope, confidentiality, and regulatory purpose of the clinical work and confirms that the trial was conducted as a regulated experimental activity, not as a public dissemination of enabling technical knowledge.”
This argument has been carefully considered but is not persuasive. The rejection of record is not over the clinical trial itself that was performed, the rejection is based on the public disclosure of the clinical trial protocol. The CTRI document was made available to the public online and is not covered by the confidentiality document.
Applicant argues (Remarks pg. 11-12) that “the inventor is voluntarily submitting a declaration affirming that the clinical data were generated and provided solely in connection with the clinical trial and regulatory requirements, and were not intended or designed as a public disclosure of the invention. As noted in expert commentary on clinical trials and patentability, clinical trial executions and related disclosures are often necessary for regulatory compliance and do not necessarily reflect an invention that is 'ready for patenting' or intended as a public technical disclosure. Such regulatory or experimental use data, standing alone, should not be considered an enabling public disclosure that anticipates or renders obvious the claimed invention.”
This argument has been carefully considered but is not persuasive. The arguments from the declaration were addressed above.
New Rejection(s)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CTRI/2019/11/022087 (last modified 2020; hereafter CTRI; PTO-892 mailed 27 Oct 2025) in view of Le Berre et al. (published online 2019; hereafter Le Berre; PTO-892).
The teachings of the CTRI reference were laid out above and anticipate all features of claims 1-18. Of note, the subjects under investigation are Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients (“Brief summary” pg. 4) and the inclusion criteria required that the patients are visiting or admitted for treatment (“Inclusion criteria” pg. 3), so the composition is administered as an adjunct to standard treatment (see claim 7).
CTRI does not teach that the at least one SMT agent is selected from 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) or mesalamine, as in claim 19.
Le Berre teaches “For 30 years, 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) has been the backbone of therapeutic management in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). In the biologic era, it still remains the treatment of choice in mild-to-moderate UC. … Aminosalicylates offer a favorable safety profile compared to that of immunomodulators and biologics. … Expert opinion: In the era of biologics, aminosalicylates remain the first-line therapy in patients with mild UC, and have to be considered in case of moderate UC, given their favorable risk-benefit profile. We suggest that 5-ASA should be used in moderate patients without poor prognostic factors,” (Abstract). Le Berre also teaches that ulcerative colitis is a type of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (pg. 363 col. 1 par. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would consider it prima facie obvious to improve the CTRI therapy by administering 5-ASA as the standard treatment for the IBD patients, thereby arriving at the claimed invention, because it was the “treatment of choice” at the time of filing as taught by Le Berre. Therefore the combination would be desirable because doctors would be familiar with the standard-of-care therapy and its safety and efficacy. See MPEP 2144(II): “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art … that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.”
Additionally, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses that the use of known techniques to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way is obvious because enhancing a particular class of devices, methods, or products has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. In the instant case, CTRI teach a “base” method for treating IBD comprising a generic disclosure of administering standard treatments, and Le Berre teaches a comparable method for treating IBD wherein the use of 5-ASA is taught as advantageous and also as the “treatment of choice” in the art at the time of filing (Le Berre Abstract). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique of Le Berre to the base method taught by CTRI to yield predictable results (i.e. the same advantages). Therefore, the claimed invention is prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art, absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 AMELIA NICOLE DICKENS whose telephone number is (571)272-0381. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:30-4:30, and every other F 8:30-4:30 (EDT/EST).
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, Dan Kolker can be reached at (571) 272-3181. 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.
/AMELIA NICOLE DICKENS/Examiner, Art Unit 1645
/BAO-THUY L NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1677 April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights