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 .
Application Status
In response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on 04/09/2026, applicants' response, arguments and amendments filed on dated 08/10/2026 is acknowledged; in said response applicants’ have amended claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11-12 and 14-19, canceled claim 2 and added new claims 20-21. Thus, amended claims 1 and 3-21 are pending in this application and is now under consideration for examination. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office action are hereby withdrawn.
Maintained-Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicants’ claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/127138 filed on 10/28/2021 and claims the priority date of China application 202111146751.0 filed on 09/28/2021; however, no English translation of said foreign priority application has been provided. Therefore, the priority date for instant claims under consideration is deemed to be the filing date of 371 of PCT/CN2021/127138 filed on 10/28/2021.
Withdrawn-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(a)
Previous rejection of claims 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for written-description and enablement, is being withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Withdrawn-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 101
Previous rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, is being withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Maintained-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) and disclose wild-type/parental transaminase comprising an amino acid sequence having 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application obtained from Chromobacterium violaceum and mutants of said wild-type/parental transaminase comprising the following amino acid residue substitutions V379L, V379M, C418Q (see Abstract; col. 3, lines 16-28; col. 6, lines 46-56; and entire document), including immobilized enzyme (col. 5, lines 47-67); method of synthesizing chiral amine (col. 4, lines 14-62; reproduced below):
PNG
media_image1.png
600
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the reference of Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) is deemed to anticipate claims 1, 3-6 and 10-13 as written and when given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicants have traversed the above 35 U.S.C. 102 with the following arguments: (see pages 19-20 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 08/06/2026).
Applicants argue: “…D1 employs a wild-type transaminase (SEQ ID NO: 1, derived from Chromobacterium violaceum) as its starting parent sequence. In contrast, the starting parent sequence of the present application is TA-Cv-1 (SEQ ID NO: 1, specifically comprising R416T+T7C+S47C+R405E+K90G+A95P+K304D+Q380LHI297L, derived from CN108384767B, see paragraph [0036] of the specification of the present application). This parent is already an engineered transaminase bearing 9 mutation sites obtained through multiple rounds of directed evolution, exhibiting activity and stability significantly higher than wild-type enzymes. The present application further modifies this high-performance parent. The alignment between SEQ ID NO: 1 of the present application and SEQ ID NO: 1 of D1 is shown in the figure below. The discrepancy corresponds precisely to the aforementioned "R416T+T7C+S47C+R405E+K90G+A95P+K304D+Q380LH1297L' mutations… The remaining claims of the present application are independent or dependent claims that directly or indirectly reference amended claim 1. Based on amended claim 1 being novel, the remaining claims are also novel.”
Reply: Applicants' arguments have been considered but are found to be non-persuasive for the following reasons. Examiner continues to maintain the rejection for reasons stated on record (dated 04/09/2026) and additionally for the following reasons. Applicants arguments are directed at limitations not recited in the claims, the claim language of the instant application does not distinguish or differentiate the instant invention from the cited prior art. As a ready reference examiner is reproducing the instant invention claims and the claims of the allowed patent:
Instant application; single mutants “C418Q, C418W, V379W, V379L, V379M,”
and double mutants “V379W+C418Q, V379W+C418W, V379L+C418Q, V379L+C418W, V379M+C418Q” reads on allowed patent US 11,952,632
PNG
media_image2.png
726
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowed patent US 11,952,632
PNG
media_image3.png
144
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner also would like to point out: “Although the claims are examined in the light of the specification, specification cannot be read into the claims, i.e., the limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims (see MPEP 2111 R-5)”). Examiner also requests the applicants to refer to the original specification as filed for support i.e., cite the page number, paragraph and lines form the original application, as opposed to citing the paragraphs of PGPUB.
Maintained-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 10-13 see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above) and further in view Hong2 et al., (US 11,359,219 B2; priority 02/05/2018).
Regarding claims 1, 3-6 and 10-13, the disclosure of Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) disclose wild-type/parental transaminase comprising an amino acid sequence having 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application obtained from Chromobacterium violaceum and mutants of said wild-type/parental transaminase comprising the following amino acid residue substitutions V379L, V379M, C418Q (see Abstract; col. 3, lines 16-28; col. 6, lines 46-56; and entire document), including immobilized enzyme (col. 5, lines 47-67); method of synthesizing chiral amine.
However, Hong1 et al., is silent regarding wherein the immobilized transaminase is a cross-linked immobilized enzyme aggregate of the transaminase mutant; preferably, the cross-linked immobilized enzyme aggregate is an immobilized enzyme aggregate cross-linked by glutaraldehyde… wherein the immobilized transaminase is an immobilized enzyme formed by binding the transaminase mutant to a carrier; said carrier is a cross-linked polymer resin carrier; said resin carrier comprises adsorption resin sphere, an amino resin sphere or an epoxy resin sphere; said adsorption resin sphere has a matrix of polystyrene; said adsorption resin sphere having a polymethacrylic acid matrix (as in claims 7-9 and 14-21).
Regarding claims 7-9 and 14-21, Hong2 et al., (US 11,359,219 B2; priority 02/05/2018) provide structural and functional elements of the instant invention; said reference discloses disclose wild-type/parental transaminase comprising an amino acid sequence having 100% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 of the instant application obtained from Chromobacterium violaceum and mutants of said wild-type/parental transaminase (see provided sequence alignment) and wherein the immobilized transaminase is a cross-linked immobilized enzyme aggregate of the transaminase mutant; preferably, the cross-linked immobilized enzyme aggregate is an immobilized enzyme aggregate cross-linked by glutaraldehyde… (col. 3, lines 26-67 to col. 4, lines 1-10; col. 14, lines 44-55); wherein the immobilized transaminase is an immobilized enzyme formed by binding the transaminase mutant to a carrier; preferably, the carrier is a cross-linked polymer resin carrier; preferably, the resin carrier comprises a macroporous adsorption resin sphere, an amino resin sphere or an epoxy resin sphere; preferably, the macroporous adsorption resin sphere has a matrix of polystyrene; more preferably, the macroporous adsorption resin sphere comprises NKA9, LXEP120,AB-8, ECR8806 (col. 5, lines 5-15; col. 16, Adsorption Immobilization Method of Transaminase; col. 18-19, Metal Ion Chelating Immobilization Method and TABLE 11; and entire document).
Therefore, using the indications of Hong2 et al., as a reference, it would have been easy for a person skilled in the art to immobilize transaminase and is a cross-linked immobilized enzyme aggregate of the transaminase mutant; preferably, the cross-linked immobilized enzyme aggregate is an immobilized enzyme aggregate cross-linked by glutaraldehyde… wherein the immobilized transaminase is an immobilized enzyme formed by binding the transaminase mutant to a carrier; preferably, the carrier is a cross-linked polymer resin carrier; preferably, the resin carrier comprises a macroporous adsorption resin sphere, an amino resin sphere or an epoxy resin sphere; preferably, the macroporous adsorption resin sphere has a matrix of polystyrene; more preferably, the macroporous adsorption resin sphere comprises NKA9, LXEP120,AB-8, ECR8806 as and modify the teachings of Hong1 et al., and to generate a immobilized transaminase and is a cross-linked immobilized enzyme aggregate of the transaminase mutant; preferably, the cross-linked immobilized enzyme aggregate is an immobilized enzyme aggregate cross-linked by glutaraldehyde, depending on the experimental need. As such, disclosures of Hong1 et al., and Hong2 et al., provide the structural and functional elements in the claimed compositions of mutant transaminases and method of use as claimed in the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success, since basic strategy for immobilizing mutant transaminases and a method of use are well known in the art. Therefore, the above reference renders claims 1 and 3-21 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 10-13 see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above) and further in view Hong2 et al., (US 11,359,219 B2; priority 02/05/2018).
Applicants’ have traversed the above 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection following claim amendments (see pages 20-21of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 08/06/2026).
Applicants’ argue : “…D1 never approached the extreme condition tolerance (60-70°C, 70% DMSO, 45% MeOH) achieved herein. It would not have been foreseeable to the person skilled in the art which further mutations could yield such extreme-condition tolerance. Second, the parent TA-Cv-1 of the present application already carries the "R416T+T7C+S47C+R405E+K90G+A95P+K304DHQ380LHI297L" mutations relative to D1's SEQ ID NO: 1, including the R416T mutation. While Table 8 of D1 shows R416T achieving 40.25% relative residual activity (a decent level in D1), the parent TA-Cv-1 in the present application still fails to tolerate more extreme conditions. This indicates that even if the person skilled in the art attempted to develop extreme-condition-tolerant transaminases based on D1, achieving such technical results would have been difficult. Third, D2 (US11,359,219B2) provides no teachings suggesting how to engineer transaminases with resistance to extreme reaction conditions. In conclusion, based on the foregoing analysis, amended claim 1 is non-obvious over D1 and D2, and involves an inventive step. The present application achieves extreme-condition tolerance through systematic directed evolution. Such a solution and its associated technical effects would not have been obvious to the person skilled in the art in view of D1 and D2. Amended claim 1 thus meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 103.”
Reply: Applicants' arguments have been considered but are found to be non-persuasive for the following reasons. Examiner continues to maintain the rejection for reasons stated on record (dated 04/09/2026) and additionally for the following reasons. Applicants arguments are directed at limitations not recited in the claims, the claim language of the instant application does not distinguish or differentiate the instant invention from the cited prior art. As a ready reference examiner is reproducing the instant invention claims and the claims of the allowed patent:
Instant application; single mutants “C418Q, C418W, V379W, V379L, V379M,”
and double mutants “V379W+C418Q, V379W+C418W, V379L+C418Q, V379L+C418W, V379M+C418Q” reads on allowed patent US 11,952,632
PNG
media_image2.png
726
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowed patent US 11,952,632
PNG
media_image3.png
144
356
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner also would like to point out: “Although the claims are examined in the light of the specification, specification cannot be read into the claims, i.e., the limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims (see MPEP 2111 R-5)”). Examiner also takes the position that structure and function are inseparable and the mutants disclosed in allowed patent US 11,952,632 inherently possess all the biochemical properties of the mutants of the instant invention.
Maintained-Double patenting rejection
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1 and 3-21 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-6 of reference patent Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) and in view of Hong2 et al., (US 11,359,219 B2; priority 02/05/2018). An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims, because the examined claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over reference claims. 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).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 1 and 3-21 of the instant application as interpreted are directed to “any transaminase mutant, wherein the transaminase mutant comprising: a protein having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 with a mutation of one or more amino acids, wherein the mutation comprises any one or more of the group consisting of: C418Q, C418W, W60Y, Y168A,… alternatively, the amino acid sequence of the transaminase mutant has a mutation site in the mutated amino acid sequence, and has more than 99% of identity with the mutated amino acid sequence, and has the transaminase activity (genera of polypeptides, as in claims 1, 3 and 6-9); encoding polynucleotides (as in claim 4-5); method of making and method of use (as in claims 10-21)”.
Claims 1 and 3-6 of reference patent Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) are directed to “a transaminase mutant, wherein the amino acid sequence of the transaminase mutant is the mutated amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1, and wherein the mutated amino acid sequence comprises mutations at one or more of amino acids selected from a group consisting of P243E, F89Y/W, K193E, V234I, I262V, Q280K, V379L/M/T, R416A/C/H/Q/T/S, A417S and C418A/Q/S, wherein “/” stands for “or”, and wherein the mutations at one or more of amino acids must comprise V379 and a method for synthesizing a chiral amine, comprising a step of performing a catalytic transamination reaction on a ketone compound and an amino donor with a transaminase, wherein the transaminase is the transaminase mutant”. Furthermore, the preferred embodiment in said reference patent Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) is also directed to the following method:
PNG
media_image1.png
600
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, regarding claims 7-9 and 14-21, the following reference Hong2 et al., (US 11,359,219 B2; priority 02/05/2018) provides teaching, suggestion and motivation to modify the allowed claims 1 and 3-6 of reference patent Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017), for details see 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection above.
Hence, examiner also takes the position that the instant claims 1 and 3-21 are obvious variation of allowed claims 1 and 3-6 of reference patent Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) and in view of reference patent Hong2 et al., (US 11,359,219 B2; priority 02/05/2018).
Therefore, claims 1 and 3-21 of the of the instant application cannot be considered patentably distinct over 1 and 3-6 of reference patent Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) and in view of Hong2 et al., (US 11,359,219 B2; priority 02/05/2018) when there is specifically disclosed embodiment in the reference patent Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2) that supports claims 1 and 3-6 of that patent and falls within the scope of the claims 1 and 3-21 herein i.e., “any transaminase mutant, wherein the transaminase mutant comprising: a protein having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 with a mutation of one or more amino acids, wherein the mutation comprises any one or more of the group consisting of: C418Q, C418W, W60Y, Y168A,… alternatively, the amino acid sequence of the transaminase mutant has a mutation site in the mutated amino acid sequence, and has more than 85% of identity with the mutated amino acid sequence, and has the transaminase activity (genera of polypeptides, as in claims 1, 3 and 6-9); encoding polynucleotides (as in claim 4-5); method of making and method of use (as in claims 10-21)”, because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify claims 1 and 3-6 of reference patent Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) and in view of Hong2 et al., (US 11,359,219 B2; priority 02/05/2018) by selecting a specifically disclosed embodiment that supports those claims of the reference patent. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because that embodiment is disclosed as being preferred embodiment within claims 1 and 3-6 of the allowed patent and hence 1 and 3-21 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-6 of reference patent Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) and in view of Hong2 et al., (US 11,359,219 B2; priority 02/05/2018).
Applicants have traversed the above ODP rejection with the following arguments: (see page 20 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 08/06/2026).
Applicants argue: “…First, the scope of protection of amended claim 1 of the present application differs from the claims of D1. As discussed in the novelty section, there are substantial differences between amended claim 1 of the present application and the disclosures of D1. Second, amended claim 1 of the present application is patentably distinct over D1 due to the following substantial differences: (1) Difference in Technical Problem: D1 addresses the problem of improving ©-transaminase activity under conventional reaction conditions. Amended claim 1 of the present application addresses the problem of improving 0- transaminase tolerance to extreme conditions (high temperature, high pH, high concentrations of organic solvents) to enable industrial continuous transamination reactions. (2) Difference in Technical Solution: As discussed above, amended claim 1 of the present application overlaps with no subject matter disclosed in D1. The substantive differences constitute protection for entirely distinct mutants. (3) Difference in Technical Effect: As argued under the non-obviousness section, amended claim 1 of the present application successfully achieves transaminase tolerance to extreme conditions, a result not attained by D1. Therefore, amended claim 1 of the present application and D1 do not constitute non- statutory obviousness-type double patenting. It is submitted that all claims are now allowable. Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.”
Reply: Applicants' arguments have been considered but are found to be non-persuasive for the following reasons. Examiner continues to maintain the rejection for reasons stated on record (dated 04/09/2026) and additionally for the reasons cited for maintaining 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103(a) also applies to the ODP rejection.
Summary of Pending Issues
The following is a summary of issues pending in the instant application.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017).
Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 10-13 see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) above) and further in view Hong2 et al., (US 11,359,219 B2; priority 02/05/2018).
Claims 1 and 3-21 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-6 of reference patent Hong1 et al., (US 11,952,575 B2; priority 11/15/2017) and in view of Hong2 et al., (US 11,359,219 B2; priority 02/05/2018).
Conclusion
None of the claims are allowable. Claims 1 and 3-21 are rejected for the reasons identified in the Rejections and Summary sections of this Office Action. Applicants must respond to the rejections in each of the sections in this Office Action to be fully responsive for prosecution.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Regarding filing an After Final amendment, Applicants are directed to MPEP 714.13, which states:
II. ENTRY NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT
It should be kept in mind that applicant cannot, as a matter of right, amend any finally rejected claims, add new claims after a final rejection (see 37 CFR 1.116) or reinstate previously canceled claims. Except where an amendment merely cancels claims, adopts examiner suggestions, removes issues for appeal, or in some other way requires ONLY A CURSORY REVIEW by the examiner (e.g., typographical errors), compliance with the requirement of a showing under 37 CFR 1.116(b)(3) is expected in all amendments after final rejection. An affidavit or other evidence filed after a final rejection, but before or on the same date of filing an appeal, may be entered upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116(e). See 37 CFR 41.33 and MPEP § 1206 for information on affidavit or other evidence filed after appeal. (Examiner's emphasis) If more than a cursory review is required, Applicants are referred to CFR §1.114.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5pm 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, Robert Mondesi can be reached on 408-918-7584. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights