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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 7-42 are pending.
Claims 1, 7-42 are examined herein.
The rejection to Claims 1-19, 22-29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancelations and amendments of the claims.
Claim Interpretation
Paragraphs 0053 and 0188 of the Specification provide as follows:
[0053] As used herein, "locus" is a chromosomal locus or region where a polymorphic nucleic acid, trait determinant, gene, or marker is located. A "locus" can be shared by two homologous chromosomes to refer to their corresponding locus or region. As used herein, "allele" refers to an alternative nucleic acid sequence of a gene or at a particular locus (e.g., a nucleic acid sequence of a gene or locus that is different than other alleles for the same gene or locus). Such an allele can be considered (i) wild-type or (ii) mutant if one or more mutations or edits are present in the nucleic acid sequence of the mutant allele relative to the wild-type allele. A mutant allele for a gene may have a reduced or eliminated activity or expression level for the gene relative to the wild-type allele. For diploid organisms such as corn, a first allele can occur on one chromosome, and a second allele can occur at the same locus on a second homologous chromosome. If one allele at a locus on one chromosome of a plant is a mutant allele and the other corresponding allele on the homologous chromosome of the plant is wild-type, then the plant is described as being heterozygous for the mutant allele. However, if both alleles at a locus are mutant alleles, then the plant is described as being homozygous for the mutant alleles. A plant homozygous for mutant alleles at a locus may comprise the same mutant allele or different mutant alleles if heteroallelic or biallelic.
[0188] In an aspect, a mutant GA20 oxidase_3 or GA20 oxidase_5 allele exhibits an at least 30%, at least 40%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, at least 95%, or 100% reduction of expression or enzymatic activity relative to an unmodified, wild-type GA20 oxidase_3 or GA20 oxidase_5 gene allele. In another aspect, a mutant GA20 oxidase_3 or GA20 oxidase_5 allele comprises a mutation in a sequence region selected from the group consisting of a promoter, 5' UTR, first exon, first intron, second exon, second intron, third exon, 3' UTR, terminator, and any combination thereof. In another aspect, a mutant GA20 oxidase_3 or GA2020 oxidase allele comprises one or more mutation types selected from the group consisting of a nonsense mutation, a missense mutation, a frameshift mutation, a splice-site mutation, and any combination thereof. In another aspect, a mutant GA20 oxidase_3 or GA20 oxidase_5 allele results in one or more of the following: a protein truncation, a non-translatable transcript, a non-functional protein, a premature stop codon, and any combination thereof. In another aspect, a mutant GA20 oxidase_3 or GA20 oxidase_5 allele comprises a mutation selected from the group consisting of a substitution, a deletion, an insertion, a duplication, and an inversion of one or more nucleotides relative to a wild-type GA20 oxidase_3 gene. In another aspect, a mutant GA20 oxidase_3 or GA20 oxidase_5 allele comprises one or more mutations in the first exon. In another aspect, a mutant GA20 oxidase_3 or GA20 oxidase_5 allele comprises one or more mutations in the second exon.
paragraph 0055 provides.
[0055] As used herein, a "wild-type gene" or "wild-type allele" refers to a gene or allele having a sequence or genotype that is most common in a particular plant species, or another sequence or genotype with natural variations, polymorphisms, or other silent mutations relative to the most common sequence or genotype that do not significantly impact the expression and activity of the gene or allele. Indeed, a "wild-type" gene or allele contains no variation, polymorphism, or any other type of mutation that substantially affects the normal function, activity, expression, or phenotypic consequence of the gene or allele.
Regarding Claim 1, “wild-type” genes in the context of maize are challenging to identify, as cultivated maize is not reasonably considered a “wild” or “wild-type” plant. In view of the foregoing, the most reasonable interpretation is that “wild-type” alleles are alleles that are present in any maize variety wherein the allele contains no variation, polymorphism, or any other type of mutation that substantially affects the normal function, activity, expression, or phenotypic consequence of the gene or allele. “Mutant” alleles would therefore exclude any “wild-type” alleles.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 7-42 remain rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. US 10724047 B2 in view of in view of Kusaba, Makoto. "RNA interference in crop plants." Current opinion in Biotechnology 15.2 (2004): 139-143 and Small, Ian. "RNAi for revealing and engineering plant gene functions." Current Opinion in Biotechnology 18.2 (2007): 148-153.
A modified corn plant, or plant part thereof, comprising;(a)_a mutant allele of a GA20 oxidase 3 gene at the GA20 oxidase_3 locus and an expression cassette comprising a transcribable DNA sequence encoding a non-coding RNA for suppressing a GA20 oxidase 5 gene, wherein a wild-type allele of the GA20 oxidase 3 gene encodes a GA20 oxidase 3 protein comprising an amino acid sequence that is at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 9, and wherein the GA20 oxidase 5 gene encodes a GA20 oxidase 5 protein comprising an amino acid sequence that is at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 15,wherein said modified corn plant is heterozygous or homozygous for the mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase 3 locus; or (b)_a mutant allele of a GA20 oxidase 5 gene at the GA20 oxidase_5 locus and an expression cassette comprising a transcribable DNA sequence encoding a non-coding RNA for suppressing one or more of the a GA20 oxidase_3 gene, wherein a wild-type allele of the GA20 oxidase 5 gene encodes a GA20 oxidase 5 protein comprising an amino acid sequence that is at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 15, and wherein the GA20 oxidase 3 gene encodes a GA20 oxidase 3 protein comprising an amino acid sequence that is at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 9, wherein said modified corn plant is heterozygous or homozygous for the mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase 5 locus ;and wherein said modified corn plant has a shorter plant height relative to a wild-type control plant. (Claim 1),
wherein said mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase_3 locus comprises a mutation in a sequence region selected from the group consisting of a promoter, 5' UTR, first exon, first intron, second exon, second intron, third exon, 3' UTR, terminator, and any combination thereof (Claim 7), wherein said mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase_3 locus comprises one or more mutation types selected from the group consisting of a nonsense mutation, a missense mutation, a frameshift mutation, a splice-site mutation, and any combination thereof (Claim 8), wherein said mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase_3 locus results in one or more of the following: a GA20 oxidase_3 protein truncation, a non-translatable GA20 oxidase_3 gene transcript, a non-functional GA20 oxidase_3 protein, a premature stop codon in the GA20 oxidase_3 gene, and any combination thereof (Claim 9), wherein each mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase_3 locus comprises a mutation selected from the group consisting of a substitution, a deletion, an insertion, a duplication, and an inversion of one or more nucleotides relative to a wild-type GA20 oxidase_3 gene (Claim 10), wherein said mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase_3 locus comprises one or more mutations in the first exon of the GA20 oxidase_3 gene (Claim 11), wherein said mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase_3 locus comprises one or more mutations in the second exon of the GA20 oxidase_3 gene (Claim 12), wherein said mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase_5 locus comprises a mutation in a sequence region selected from the group consisting of a promoter, 5' UTR,first exon, first intron, second exon, second intron, third exon, 3' UTR, terminator, and any combination thereof (Claim 13), wherein said mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase_5 locus comprises one or more mutation types selected from the group consisting of a nonsense mutation, a missense mutation, a frameshift mutation, a splice-site mutation, and any combination thereof (Claim 14), wherein said mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase_5 locus results in one or more of the following: a GA20 oxidase_5 protein truncation, a non-translatable GA20 oxidase_5 gene transcript, a non-functional GA20 oxidase_5 protein, a premature stop codon in the GA20 oxidase_5 gene, and any combination thereof (Claim 15), wherein each mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase_5 locus comprises a mutation selected from the group consisting of a substitution, a deletion, an insertion, a duplication, and an inversion of one or more nucleotides relative to a wild-type GA20 oxidase_5 gene (Claim 16), wherein said mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase_5 locus comprises one or more mutations in the first exon of the GA20 oxidase_5 gene (Claim 17), wherein said mutant allele at the GA20 oxidase_5 locus comprises one or more mutations in the second exon of the GA20 oxidase_5 gene (Claim 18).
Applicant further claims the modified corn plant, or plant part thereof, of claim 1, wherein said expression cassette is a recombinant DNA expression cassette, and wherein the transcribable DNA sequence is operably linked to a plant- expressible promoter (Claim 19), the modified corn plant, or plant part thereof, of claim 19,
wherein the non- coding RNA molecule comprises a sequence that is complementary to at least at least 19 consecutive nucleotides of a mRNA molecule encoding an endogenous GA oxidase protein being at least 95%, at least 96%, at least 97%, at least 98%, at least 99%, at least 99.5%, or 100% identical to SEQ ID NO: 9, 12, or 15 (Claim 20), wherein the non- coding RNA molecule comprises a sequence that is complementary to at least 19 consecutive nucleotides of SEQ ID NO: 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, or 14 (Claim 21), wherein the plant- expressible promoter is a vascular promoter (Claim 22), the modified corn plant, or plant part thereof, of claim 19, wherein the plant- expressible promoter comprises one of the following: a sucrose synthase promoter, a sucrose transporter promoter, a Shl promoter, Commelina yellow mottle virus (CoYMV) promoter, a wheat dwarf geminivirus (WDV) large intergenic region (LIR) promoter, a maize streak geminivirus (MSV) coat protein (CP) promoter, a rice yellow stripe 1 (YS 1)- like promoter, or a rice yellow stripe 2 (OsYSL2) promoter (Claim 23), wherein the plant- expressible promoter is a RTBV promoter (Claim 24), wherein the plant- expressible promoter is a leaf promoter (Claim 25), wherein the plant- expressible promoter comprises one of the following: a RuBisCO promoter, a PPDK promoter, a FDA promoter, a Nadh-Gogat promoter, a chlorophyll a/b binding proteingene promoter, a phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPC) promoter, or a Myb gene promoter (Claim 26), wherein the plant- expressible promoter is a constitutive promoter (Claim 27), wherein the plant-expressible promoter comprises one or more constitutive promoters selected from the group consisting of: an actin promoter, a CaMV 35S or 19S promoter, a plant ubiquitin promoter, a plant Gos2 promoter, a FMV promoter, a CMV promoter, a MMV promoter, a PCLSV promoter, an Emu promoter, a tubulin promoter, a nopaline synthase promoter, an octopine synthase promoter, a mannopine synthase promoter, or a maize alcohol dehydrogenase, or a functional portion thereof (Claim 28), wherein the non- coding RNA molecule encoded by the transcribable DNA sequence is a precursor miRNA or siRNA that is processed or cleaved in a plant cell to form a mature miRNA or siRNA (Claim 29).
U.S. Patent No. US 10724047 B2 claims a recombinant DNA construct comprising a transcribable DNA sequence encoding a non-coding RNA molecule, wherein the non-coding RNA molecule comprises a targeting sequence that is: (a) at least 80% complementary to at least 19 consecutive nucleotides of a first mRNA molecule encoding a first endogenous GA oxidase protein in a corn plant or plant cell, the first endogenous GA oxidase protein being at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 9; and (b) at least 80% complementary to at least 19 consecutive nucleotides of a second mRNA molecule encoding a second endogenous GA oxidase protein in the corn plant or plant cell, the second endogenous GA oxidase protein being at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 15; wherein the transcribable DNA sequence is operably linked to a vascular promoter, and wherein the non-coding RNA molecule down-regulates expression of the first and second endogenous GA oxidase proteins in the corn plant or plant cell when expressed in the corn plant or plant cell (Claim 1), wherein the targeting sequence of the non-coding RNA molecule is at least 90% complementary to at least 19 consecutive nucleotides of a sequence selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 7, 8, 13, and 14 (Claim 2), wherein the targeting sequence of the non-coding RNA molecule is at least 90% complementary to at least 19 consecutive nucleotides of the first mRNA molecule encoding the first endogenous GA20 oxidase protein (Claim 3), wherein the targeting sequence of the non-coding RNA molecule is at least 90% complementary to at least 19 consecutive nucleotides of SEQ ID NO: 7 or 8 (Claim 4), wherein the targeting sequence of the non-coding RNA molecule is at least 90% complementary to at least 19 consecutive nucleotides of the second mRNA molecule encoding the second endogenous GA20 oxidase protein (Claim 5), wherein the targeting sequence of the non-coding RNA molecule is at least 90% complementary to at least 19 consecutive nucleotides of SEQ ID NO: 13 or 14 (Claim 6), wherein the vascular promoter comprises one of the following: a sucrose synthase promoter, a sucrose transporter promoter, a Sh1 promoter, Commelina yellow mottle virus (CoYMV) promoter, a wheat dwarf geminivirus (WDV) large intergenic region (LIR) promoter, a maize streak geminivirus (MSV) coat protein (CP) promoter, a rice yellow stripe 1 (YS1)-like promoter, or a rice yellow stripe 2 (OsYSL2) promoter (Claim 7), the recombinant DNA construct of claim 1, wherein the non-coding RNA molecule encoded by the transcribable DNA sequence is a precursor miRNA or siRNA that is processed or cleaved in a plant cell to form a mature miRNA or siRNA (Claim 8), and a transgenic corn plant comprising a recombinant DNA construct comprising a transcribable DNA sequence encoding a non-coding RNA molecule, wherein the non-coding RNA molecule comprises a targeting sequence that is (a) at least 80% complementary to at least 19 consecutive nucleotides of a first mRNA molecule encoding a first endogenous GA oxidase protein in a corn plant, the first endogenous GA oxidase protein being at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 9 and (b) at least 80% complementary to at least 19 consecutive nucleotides of a second mRNA molecule encoding a second endogenous GA oxidase protein in a corn plant, the second endogenous GA oxidase protein being at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 15; and wherein the transcribable DNA sequence is operably linked to a vascular promoter and wherein the non-coding RNA molecule down-regulates expression of the first and second endogenous GA oxidase proteins in the transgenic corn plant when expressed in the transgenic corn plant (Claim 9). The transgenic corn plant of claim 9, wherein the transgenic plant has a shorter plant height relative to a control plant (Claim 10). The transgenic corn plant of claim 9, wherein the height of the transgenic plant is at least 10% shorter than a control plant 9 (Claim 11). The transgenic corn plant of claim 9, wherein the stalk or stem diameter of the transgenic plant at one or more stem internodes is greater than the stalk or stem diameter at the same one or more internodes of a control plant (Claim 12). The transgenic corn plant of claim 9, wherein the transgenic plant does not have any significant off-types in at least one female organ or ear (Claim 13). The transgenic corn plant of claim 9, wherein the stalk or stem diameter of the transgenic corn plant at one or more of the first, second, third, and/or fourth internode below the ear is at least 5% greater than the same internode of a control plant (Claim 14). The transgenic corn plant of claim 9, wherein the level of one or more active GAs in at least one internode tissue of the stem or stalk of the transgenic plant is lower than the same internode tissue of a control plant (Claim 15).
The instant claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of the reference patent because the recited claims of the reference patent recite all the limitations of the rejected claims, differing only in the means by which the GA20 oxidase_3 and GA20 oxidase_5 claims are silenced or disabled. In the reference patent, Applicant claims vectors for silencing GA20 oxidase_3 and GA20 oxidase_5 via RNAi and the instant claims are directed to silencing GA20 oxidase_3 and GA20 oxidase_5 via mutation and RNAi.
Kusaba teaches that mutation and RNAi-suppression are equivalents known for the same purpose of suppression gene function in crop plants, with the methods having advantages over one another depending on practical circumstances. (p. 141 right col. ¶ 2 – 142 right col. ¶ 1).
Small teaches that RNAi often leads to partial knockdown and thus to a range of phenotypes. (Box 2).
It is prima facie obvious to substitute known equivalents when the prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element. RNAi suppression, which often produces a range of gene suppression per the teachings of Small, would be expected to produce the equivalent effect of null mutations in a homozygous and heterozygous state. As taught by Kusaba, mutation and suppression via RNAi were known, obvious equivalents and as such making plants wherein the GA20 oxidase_3 and GA20 oxidase_5 genes are silenced via mutation only, RNAi only or a combination of the two would have been obvious.
Response to Remarks
Applicant urges that the rejection should be withdrawn because the art references and claims of the reference patent do not render obvious the combinatorial approach of mutating and suppressing GA20 oxidases to improve maize performance. Applicant argues that the instant invention combines two different approaches to down-regulating the ZmGA20ox3 or ZmGA20ox5 genes and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized the equivalence between knocking out a gene by mutation and suppressing expression by RNAi-mediated mechanisms. (Remarks p. 10-11).
This is not found persuasive. The prior art teaches mutation as a means by which gene expression is suppressed in a manner very similar, if not often identical to the suppression afforded by transgenic RNAi cassettes as claimed in the reference Patent. The art teaches mutation of the same type of protein as listed in the reference patent and as such, the complexities of altering different parts of the GA-20 oxidase metabolism and catabolism pathways are not germane to the rejection. For the reasons set forth in the rejection, it would have been obvious to substitute the approaches to produce very similar or identical effects with respect to suppression of the target genes. Applicant has not identified any evidence of unexpected or unobvious results conferred by the combinatorial approach over suppression of the target genes by RNAi cassettes that could render the claims unobvious.
Claims 1, 7-21 and 29-42 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7, 10-11, 16-17, 20, 26-27 and 40-43 of copending Application No. 16967039 and further in view of Kusaba, Makoto. "RNA interference in crop plants." Current opinion in Biotechnology 15.2 (2004): 139-143 and Small, Ian. "RNAi for revealing and engineering plant gene functions." Current Opinion in Biotechnology 18.2 (2007): 148-153.
The instant claims have been set forth previously herein.
The instant claims are not patentably distinct from the claims of the reference application because the recited claims of the reference application recite all of the limitations of the rejected claims as species of the generic limitations of the instant claims. For example, copending Application No. 16967039 claims plants that are mutants of both GA20 oxidase_3 or GA20 oxidase_5 genes in a homozygous, heterozygous or a heteroallelic combination or having two identical mutant alleles, claiming specific alleles the various parts of the genes. The species recited in the claims of the reference application anticipate the genera of the instant claims with respect to the limitations regarding mutant alleles in the instant claims.
Copending application No. 16967039 does not teach that the plants further comprise a transcribable DNA sequence encoding a non-coding RNA for suppressing one or more of the GA20 oxidase_3 gene, GA20 oxidase_4 gene and the GA20 oxidase_5 gene.
It would have been prima facie obvious at the time of filing to modify the invention of Copending application No. 16967039 such that the plants further comprise a transcribable DNA sequence encoding a non-coding RNA for suppressing one or more of the GA20 oxidase_3 gene and the GA20 oxidase_5 gene. It is prima facie obvious to substitute known equivalents when the prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element. RNAi suppression, which often produces a range of gene suppression per the teachings of Small, would be expected to produce the equivalent effect of null mutations in a homozygous and heterozygous state. As taught by Kusaba, mutation and suppression via RNAi were known, obvious equivalents and as such making plants wherein the GA20 oxidase_3 and GA20 oxidase_5 genes are silenced via mutation only, RNAi only or a combination of the two would have been obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. It is noted that a notice of Allowance has been issued in the reference application and as such may become an issued patent at any time.
Response to Remarks
Applicant urges that the rejection should be withdrawn because the art references and claims of the reference patent do not render obvious the combinatorial approach of mutating and suppressing GA20 oxidases to improve maize performance. Applicant argues that the instant invention combines two different approaches to down-regulating the ZmGA20ox3 or ZmGA20ox5 genes and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized the equivalence between knocking out a gene by mutation and suppressing expression by RNAi-mediated mechanisms. (Remarks p. 12).
This is not found persuasive. The prior art teaches mutation as a means by which gene expression is suppressed in a manner very similar, if not often identical to the suppression afforded by transgenic RNAi cassettes as claimed in the reference Patent. The art teaches mutation of the same type of protein as listed in the reference patent and as such, the complexities of altering different parts of the GA-20 oxidase metabolism and catabolism pathways are not germane to the rejection. For the reasons set forth in the rejection, it would have been obvious to substitute the approaches to produce very similar or identical effects with respect to suppression of the target genes. Applicant has not identified any evidence of unexpected or unobvious results conferred by the combinatorial approach over suppression of the target genes by RNAi cassettes that could render the claims unobvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The claims appear to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art is Song et
al. (Gene 482.1-2 (2011): 34-42), which teaches homologues of the rice GA20ox2 in
maize. However, Song et al. does not disclose the instant invention in its broadest
embodiments, nor does it teach suppressing the expression of the GA20ox polypeptides
in maize that correspond to the instant SEQ ID NO:9, 12 and 15 by RNAi constructs or mutations.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES A LOGSDON whose telephone number is (571)270-0282. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5:00 pm.
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, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at (571) 270-0305. 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.
/CHARLES LOGSDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662
Prosecution Insights