DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed 05/29/2026 in which claims 3 – 5, 7 – 10, and 12 – 19 were amended has been entered.
Claims 1 – 19 are under examination on the merits.
Drawings
(Previous objection, withdrawn) The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Applicant has submitted black and white drawings.
Claim Objections
(Previous objection, withdrawn) Applicant has amended claims 3 – 5, 7 – 10, and 12 – 19. Thus claims 4 – 19 and are no longer in improper form and were examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
(New rejection, as necessitated by amendments) Claims 10 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre -AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claims 10 – 13 is a relative term which renders the claim
indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
• Claim 10 recites “from about 250 nm to about 700 nm”
• Claim 11 recites “of about 460 nm to about 510 nm”
• Claim 12 recites “of about 520 nm to about 570 nm”
• Claim 13 recites “of about 640 nm to about 680 nm”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
(Previous rejection, maintained and modified as necessitated by amendments) Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LentiviewTM Lentivirus Analysis Kits (White paper, 2022 hereinafter, "Lentiview"), in view of Daaboul et al. (US20220113313A1, hereinafter, "Daaboul") as evidenced by Light Science (Retrieved 2021, hereinafter, “Light Science”), Thermo Fischer (Retrieved 2021, hereinafter, “Thermo Fischer”), and Ibidi (Retreived 2021, hereinafter, “Ibidi”).
Regarding claim 1 Lentiview teaches the use of a microarray chip that uses several antibodies to capture lentiviral particles to determine whether the particle is carrying a full payload or an empty payload through the use of fluorescent agents composed of an antibody and a fluorescent label. This is done by contacting a population of lentivirus vectors that can be fully loaded, partially loaded, or empty on a substrate comprised of anti-envelope protein antibodies, with at least one portion of the substrate being the first binding molecule anti-vesicular stomatitis virus-G protein (VSV-G) antibodies (Section: Introducing LentiView™, Figure 2). The captured lentiviral vectors bind with at least two fluorescent agents comprised of a fluorescent label and an antibody that binds to the envelope protein of the lentiviral vector. The captured lentiviral vectors are then illuminated with light resulting in excitation of the fluorescent agents (Section: Introducing LentiView™). The change in excitation is detected through wavelength emission and then characterized through data analysis (Figure 9.2). Lentiview teaches the use of three different fluorescent probes using three different wavelengths, with one of these probes being dedicated to VSV-G protein, and one that can be used to detect p24 protein (Figure 8, Section: Introducing LentiView™).
Lentiview fails to teach the third fluorescent label binding a payload of the lentiviral vector.
However, Daaboul teaches a known and effective method for identifying the contents of the payload using nucleic acid dyes, which can include permeant nucleic acid dyes, after a payload is bound by antibodies on a microarray. This is done through the detection of payloads within particles, including viruses (¶0002), by contacting the particle on a substrate comprised of a binding probe and contacting the payload with a fluorescent nucleic acid dye that can be used to stain for RNA and DNA in and/or on the particle (¶0210, 0211) followed by the detection and characterization of wavelength emission.
Regarding claim 2, Lentiview teaches the use of anti-VSV-G antibodies to bind the lentivirus to the substrate (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Lentiview teaches the use of fluorescent anti-VSV-G antibodies to bind to the lentivirus (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Lentiview teaches the use of fluorescent anti-p24 antibodies to bind to the lentivirus (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Daaboul teaches a fluorescent dye that binds to nucleic acid (¶0210, 0368).
Regarding claim 7, Lentiview teaches measuring the fluorescent signal of VSV-G (green), p24 (red), and both VSV-G and p24 (yellow) to determine the ratio of empty and full lentiviruses i.e. containing an envelope and capsid (Figure 3, Figure 4, Section: Full vs Empty Quantification Col. 2). Daaboul teaches also teaches measuring the fluorescent signal of labeled biomolecules and using this measurement to quantify/ detect (Figure 1A, ¶0202 – 0207).
Regarding claim 8, Lentiview teaches the substrate is a microarray chip (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Lentiview teaches the transduction of full virus and virus fragments in Table 3. In the context of Table 3, full virus is defined as a viral particle with an envelope, capsid, and payload (Section: Predictive lentivirus characterization using NanoView’s LentiView™, Figure 6). As evidenced by Ibidi, transduction “is used to describe a virus-mediated transfer of nucleic acids into cells. In contrast to transfection of cells with foreign DNA or RNA” (¶1). Therefore, Lentiview teaches a full virus is comprised of DNA or RNA and can transduce cells.
Regarding claim 10 – 13, Lentiview teaches a blue, red, and green fluorescent probe (Figure 8). As evidenced by Light Science, blue light is in a range of 460 nm to 510 nm and green light is in a range of 520 nm and 570 nm (Section: 440-500 nm Blue light, 510-610 nm Green light). Daaboul teaches the fluorescent probe for detecting cargo (e.g. protein, DNA, or RNA as defined in ¶0006) can be comprised of red fluorescent compositions such as Alexafluor680 (¶0368). As evidenced by Thermofisher, Alexa Fluor 660 is in the range of 640 nm and 680 nm (Figure 1.3.3).
Regarding claim 14, Lentiview teaches measuring the fluorescent signal of VSV-G (green), p24 (red), and both VSV-G and p24 (yellow) to determine the ratio of empty and full lentiviruses i.e. containing an envelope and capsid (Figure 3, Figure 4, Section: Full vs Empty Quantification Col. 2). Daaboul teaches also teaches measuring the fluorescent signal of labeled biomolecules and using this measurement to quantify/ detect (Figure 1A, ¶0202 – 0207).
Regarding claim 15, Lentiview teaches contacting the first and second fluorescent agent at the same time (Figure 3). Daaboul teaches contacting multiple fluorescent agents at the same time (¶0039 – step (c))
Regarding claim 19, Daaboul teaches permeabilizing the virus prior to contacting with the fluorescent agents (¶0014 – step (b)).
Lentiview and Daaboul are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of detecting and characterizing particles and their payloads. Lentiview teaches a microchip array that can detect the composition of lentiviruses using up to 4 different channels, with two channels that can be used for VSV-G and p24 measurement (Figure 2, Figure 3 Section: Introducing LentiView™). Daaboul teaches the use of nucleic acid dyes to characterize the payload of a virus (¶0014). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the art-recognized method use the nucleic acid dye taught by Daaboul as a third fluorescent probe in the method taught by Lentiview because doing so would advantageously allow one to detect and characterize not only whether a lentiviral particle is full, empty, or somewhere in between but also if the payload contains nucleic acid. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in using a nucleic acid dye on a substrate that binds lentiviral particles given that this method is well known, has been successfully demonstrated, and commonly used in the prior art.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(New rejection, as necessitated by amendments) Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Lentiview and Daaboul as applied to claims 1 – 5, 7 – 15, and 19 above, and in further view of Abcam (Retrieved 2015, hereinafter, “Abcam”), as evidenced by Racaniello (Detection of antigens or antibodies by ELISA, 2010, hereinafter, “Racaniello”).
As discussed above, claims 1 – 5, 7 – 15, and 19 were rendered prima facie obvious by the teachings of Lentiview and Daaboul.
Lentiview teaches a microchip array that can detect the composition of lentiviruses using up to 4 different channels, with two of them being dedicated to VSV-G and p24 measurement. Daaboul teaches the use of nucleic acid dyes to characterize the payload of a virus. The references do not teach using a reverse transcriptase antibody to characterize the payload of lentiviruses.
However, Abcam teaches a catalog of lentiviral antibodies and proteins (see document). Abcam teaches these antibodies, which include p24 antibodies, can be used in ELISAs (HIV antibodies). Abcam also teaches reverse transcriptase antibodies can be used in ELISAs as well. As evidenced by Racaniello, an ELISA can comprise of a virus capture antibody attached to a substrate, which also has a secondary indicator antibody that targets viral proteins (see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
189
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Abcam teaches several antibodies targeting lentiviral reverse transcriptase that can be used for ELISA (HIV Antibodies).
Lentiview, Daaboul, and Abcam are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of detecting and characterizing particles and their payloads. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an anti-reverse transcriptase antibody taught by Abcam as a third fluorescent probe in the method taught by Lentiview and Daaboul because doing so would advantageously allow one to detect and characterize not only whether a lentiviral particle is full, empty, or somewhere in between but also if the payload contains payload proteins. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in using an anti-reverse transcriptase antibody on a substrate that binds lentiviral particles given that the use of anti-reverse transcriptase is well known, has been successfully demonstrated, and commonly used in the prior art.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(New rejection, as necessitated by amendments) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Lentiview and Daaboul as applied to claims 1 – 5, 7 – 15, and 19 above, and in further view of Goodell et al (J Exp Med, 10.1084/jem.183.4.1797, 1996, hereinafter, “Goodell”).
As discussed above, claims 1 – 5, 7 – 15, and 19 were rendered prima facie obvious by the teachings of Lentiview and Daaboul.
Lentiview teaches a microchip array that can detect the composition of lentiviruses using up to 4 different channels, with two of them being dedicated to VSV-G and p24 measurement. Daaboul teaches the use of nucleic acid dyes to characterize the payload of a virus. The references do not first contacting with a fluorescent agent directed towards the payload followed by fluorescent probes directed towards the envelope or capsid.
However, Goodell teaches staining murine bone marrow cells with Hoechst 3342 (Abstract). Goodell uses a staining method to isolate the cells to further characterize the properties of the cells (Abstract). Goodell also teaches that Hoechst binds to DNA (¶2).
Regarding claim 16, Goodell teaches first staining cells with Hoechst followed by the staining of antibodies with a cocktail that include CD4, CD8, CD5, B220, Mac-1, and Gr-1 (Section: Preparation of Bone Marrow Cells for FACS).
Lentiview, Daaboul, and Goodell are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of detecting and characterizing nucleic acids and proteins. Lentiview teaches a microchip array that can detect the composition of lentiviruses using up to 4 different channels, with two channels that can be used for VSV-G and p24 measurement (Figure 2, Figure 3 Section: Introducing LentiView™). Daaboul teaches the use of nucleic acid dyes to characterize the payload of a virus (¶0014). Goodell teaches first staining cells with Hoechst followed by the staining of antibodies (Section: Preparation of Bone Marrow Cells for FACS).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the art-recognized method of first contacting a fluorescent probe directed towards a nucleic acid followed by the targeting of proteins with antibodies, as taught by Goodell, in the method taught by Lentiview and Daaboul because doing so would advantageously ensure a higher likelihood of nucleic acid detection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in first incubating a probe directed towards a nucleic acid followed by the targeting of proteins with antibodies given that this order of labeling is well known, has been successfully demonstrated, and commonly used in the prior art.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(New rejection, as necessitated by amendments) Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Lentiview and Daaboul as applied to claims 1 – 5, 7 – 15, and 19 above, and in further view of Takara Bio (Lenti-X™ p24 Rapid Titer Kit User Manual, Retrieved March 2022, hereinafter, “Takara Bio”).
As discussed above, claims 1 – 5, 7 – 15, and 19 were rendered prima facie obvious by the teachings of Lentiview and Daaboul.
Lentiview teaches a microchip array that can detect the composition of lentiviruses using up to 4 different channels, with two of them being dedicated to VSV-G and p24 measurement. Daaboul teaches the use of nucleic acid dyes to characterize the payload of a virus. The references do not teach incubating samples with the fluorescent agents for at least 15 minutes.
However, Takara Bio teaches a method of detecting the amount of lentivirus in a sample (Introduction). Takara Bio teaches measuring the titer of lentiviral supernatant using standard “sandwich” ELISA methods (Introduction). Takara Bio teaches wells are coated with p24 capture antibody, which quantitatively binds the lentiviral p24 in samples (Introduction). The bound lentivirus is detected using a biotinylated anti-p24 secondary antibody, a streptavidin-HRP conjugate, and a color producing substrate (Figure 2). The color intensity is measured using a spectrophotometer to indicate the level of p24 in the samples (Introduction). The p24 values can then be correlated to virus titer of packaging cell supernatants (Introduction).
Regarding claim 17, Takara Bio teaches incubating lentivirus with p24 antibody for at least 55 minutes (Section: Protocol: Assaying Your Lentiviral Supernatants, Step 7 -8).
Lentiview, Daaboul, and Takara Bio are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of detecting and characterizing particles and their payloads. Lentiview teaches a microchip array that can detect the composition of lentiviruses using up to 4 different channels, with two channels that can be used for VSV-G and p24 measurement (Figure 2, Figure 3 Section: Introducing LentiView™). Daaboul teaches the use of nucleic acid dyes to characterize the payload of a virus (¶0014). Takara Bio teaches an incubation time for p24 antibodies for at least 55 minutes (Section: Protocol: Assaying Your Lentiviral Supernatants, Step 7 -8).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the art-recognized method of incubating the fluorescent probes for at least 15 minutes, as taught by Takara Bio, in the method taught by Lentiview and Daaboul because doing so would advantageously ensure a long enough duration for proper binding of the fluorescent probes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in incubating samples with the fluorescent agents for at least 15 minutes given that incubating fluorescent probes for at least 15 minutes is well known, has been successfully demonstrated, and commonly used in the prior art.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(New rejection, as necessitated by amendments) Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Lentiview and Daaboul as applied to claims 1 – 5, 7 – 15, and 19 above, and in further view of Shibata et al (Aquatic Microbial Ecology, 10.3354/ame043223, 2006, hereinafter, “Shibata”).
As discussed above, claims 1 – 5, 7 – 15, and 19 were rendered prima facie obvious by the teachings of Lentiview and Daaboul.
Lentiview teaches a microchip array that can detect the composition of lentiviruses using up to 4 different channels, with two of them being dedicated to VSV-G and p24 measurement. Daaboul teaches the use of nucleic acid dyes to characterize the payload of a virus. The references do not teach the use of a permeant nucleic acid dye.
However, Shibata teaches using SYBR® dyes to enumerate bacteria and viruses (Abstract). Shibata teaches that SYBR® dyes detect double and single stranded DNA and RNA (Introduction ¶2). Shibata teaches applying SYBR® dyes onto a filtered sample of bacteria and viruses for 15 minutes before imagine the sample with epifluorescence microscopy (Section: Counts of bacteria and viruses). Importantly, Shibata teaches the stain works without lysing the cells (Section: Counts of bacteria and viruses).
Regarding claim 18, Shibata teaches the use of SYBR® Green I and SYBR® Gold to stain, visualize, and quantify viruses (Abstract, Section: Counts of bacteria and viruses, Figure 1).
Lentiview, Daaboul, and Shibata are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of detecting and characterizing particles and their payloads. Lentiview teaches a microchip array that can detect the composition of lentiviruses using up to 4 different channels, with two channels that can be used for VSV-G and p24 measurement (Figure 2, Figure 3 Section: Introducing LentiView™). Daaboul teaches the use of nucleic acid dyes to characterize the payload of a virus (¶0014). Shibata teaches the use of permeant nucleic acid dyes to stain, visualize, and quantify viruses (Abstract, Section: Counts of bacteria and viruses, Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a permeant nucleic acid dye, as taught Shibata, in the method taught by Lentiview and Daaboul because doing so would advantageously ensure the penetration of the dye into the virus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in incubating samples with the permeant nucleic acid fluorescent agents given that incubating samples with the permeant nucleic acid fluorescent agents is well known, has been successfully demonstrated, and commonly used in the prior art.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive.
Applicant contends on page 7 of the Remarks: that black and white drawings were submitted.
In response: The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant contends on page 7 of the Remarks: the claims have been amended and are no longer in improper dependent form.
In response: The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant contends on page 8 of the Remarks: that Lentiview does not teach a partial payload as defined by paragraph [0028] of the instant application.
In response: The Examiner has fully considered the argument, but does not find the argument persuasive. The argument does not overcome the prior art.
The applicant defines a fully loaded lentiviral vector as “a vector that includes envelope proteins formed as a lentiviral envelope, capsid proteins formed as a lentiviral capsid, and also includes one or multiple copies of a payload that are sufficient for payload delivery”. The applicant defines a partially loaded lentiviral vector refers as “a vector that includes envelope proteins (either formed as an envelope or partial envelope) and capsid proteins (either formed as a capsid or partial capsid), but only has fragments of the payload or host cell DNA or RNA.” The applicant defines an empty lentiviral vector refers as “a vector that includes envelope proteins (either formed as an envelope or partial envelope) and capsid proteins (either formed as a capsid or partial capsid) but is substantially lacking the payload.”
Lentiview defines a full or empty lentivirus by the presence of a capsid. However, Lentiview also shows an illustration of distinguishing an empty viral particle from a viral particle. The illustration shows the defining feature between an empty particle and a full particle as the presence of a payload (see below). Because the genetic material is located in the capsid one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude the absence of the capsid is correlated to the absence of the genetic material. Thus, determining if there is or is not a payload as defined by the Applicant.
PNG
media_image2.png
227
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Lentiview teaches VSV-G probes are detected in the blue channel while p24 probes are detected in the red channel, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that an exclusively blue signal is the detection of an envelope in the absence of a capsid, an exclusively red signal is the detection of a capsid in the absence of an envelope, and an overlapping blue and red signal is the detection of the envelope and capsid. Together, Lentiview teaches a clear method of characterizing lentiviruses as full or empty as defined by the applicant.
Additionally, claim 1 recites, inter alia, “providing a sample comprising a lentiviral vector population comprising a fully loaded lentiviral vector, a partially loaded lentiviral vector, and/or an empty lentiviral vector” (Bold and underline added for emphasis). Therefore, the claims are broadly drawn to include providing a sample comprising a combination of fully loaded, partially loaded, or empty lentiviral vectors, a sample comprising two conditions from the group consisting of fully loaded, partially loaded, or empty lentiviral vectors, or sample comprising only one condition the group consisting of fully loaded, partially loaded, or empty lentiviral vectors. As such, the claim is limited to the inclusion or detection of a partially loaded lentiviral vector.
Applicant contends on page 8 of the Remarks: That Lentiview does not use three different florescent probes using three different wavelengths.
In response: Lentiview teaches in “Introducing LentiView™” that each microarray chin is configured for sensitive 4 color fluorescence detection (see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
600
425
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lentiview teaches that at least two open channels can be used for custom staining (figure 2). Furthermore, in Lentiview’s section titled “Pseudotype and Full/Empty Characterization”, Lentiview teaches the use of a blue channel, red channel, and green channel to characterize a lentivirus (see below). Particularly, Figure 8 shows the use of three different wavelength with three different probes. Therefore, not only does Lentiview teach the use of three different channels to characterize lentiviruses, Lentiview teaches a further fourth channel can be used as well.
PNG
media_image4.png
625
807
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant contends on page 8 and 10 of the Remarks: Daaboul does not teach three different wavelengths and only teaches using floresecent labels to detect and/or quantify nucleic acid. And that the Office is “engaging in improper hindsight bias by working back from the success of the claim inventions instead of only taking into account the knowledge within the level of a POSA at the time the claimed invention was made.” And on Page 8, Applicant argues that the Office has not provided a proper reason to combine the cited references, with a reasonable expectation of success, and this has not established a prima facie case of obviousness.
In response: Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image5.png] [img-media_image6.png]
Top is Lentiview, Bottom is instant application)]Lentiview teaches a method of detecting a payload that is identical to the first two panels of Figure 2 of the instant application. Both Lentiview and the instant application teach the binding of the lentivirus with VSV-G capture antibody, followed by the probing of fluorescent anti-VSV-G and anti-p24 antibodies. While Daaboul does not teach the use of three different wavelengths, Daaboul does teach a surface with binding probes and fluorescent lipid probes and nucleic acid probes and teaches that this method can be used to characterize the payload of viruses (¶0210,0211, 0319). As discussed above and previously, Lentiview teaches a microarray with customizable channels. Both Lentiview and Daaboul are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of detecting and characterizing particles and their payloads. Lentiview teaches the motivation of characterizing lentiviral preparations to determine the quality of the preparation and estimate the quantity of vector that is required for transduction (Section: Measuring Lentivirus Titer). Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to characterize a lentivirus as empty, partial, or full using an open channel of the Lentiview microarray with the nucleic acid stain of Daaboul because doing so would allow one to ascertain the presence of genomic material within the capsid and better help with tittering the lentivirus.
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 Danyal H Alam whose telephone number is (571)272-1102. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am - 5pm.
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, Thomas J. Visone can be reached at 571-270-0684. 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.
/DANYAL HASSAN ALAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1672
/THOMAS J. VISONE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1672
Prosecution Insights