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 .
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been thoroughly reviewed and considered. Claim 59 has been canceled. Claim 66 has been added. Claims 53, 56, and 58 remain withdrawn. Claims 41-44, 47, 51-52, 54-55, 57, and 60-66 are pending and are examined on the merits herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Applicant’s Amendments
Claim Objections
Claims 47 and 59 were objected to due to minor informalities. In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted 3/10/2026, the objection for claim 47 has been withdrawn. Claim 59 has been canceled, so this rejection has been rendered moot.
35 USC 112(b) Rejections
Claim 61 was rejected to for an indefiniteness issues. In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted 3/10/2026, this rejection has been withdrawn.
35 USC 103 Rejections
Claims 41-44, 47, 51-52, 54-55, 57, and 59-65 were rejected as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2014/0034497 A1), in view of Goto et al. (WO 2021/124468 A1), and in view of Gershow et al. (US 2009/0136958 A1).
In light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims submitted 3/10/2026, these rejections have been withdrawn for all currently pending claims, but see new grounds of rejection and “Response to Applicant’s Arguments” below. Claim 59 has been canceled, and so this rejection has been rendered moot.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 103 Rejections, Applicant argues that the references do not teach steps (c)(1) or (c)(2), nor the newly amended wherein clause associated with these steps. Davis and Goto are argued to only teach passing a nucleic acid through a nanopore, and Gershow is argued to teach a nucleic acid that entirely passes through a nanopore before it is translocated back through said nanopore (Remarks, pages 8-9).
In the newly amended claim 41, the amendment to step (b) does not fundamentally add a new concept to the claim, as it simply further narrows the hybridizing of the primer to the nucleic acid molecule in a way that is still taught by Davis (see Figure 13). The newly added wherein clause now requires that the second movement occur after the first movement (so the movements and their generated signal may not be simultaneous) and that both movements occur before the portion of the growing strand that is detected in (c)(1) and (c)(2) is translocated through said nanopore.
In the instant specification, there does not appear to be any specific definition for the word “translocate” or for “translocation through a/the nanopore.” However, based on guidance of paras. 151 (“The tag may continue to be detected until the tag translocates through the nanopore…”), 231 (“measuring one or more electrical signals from the sensor (e.g., nanopore sensor) while a polymerized product of the enzyme (e.g., growing strand coupled to the primer) is directed into or flowing/translocating through the nanopore…” ), and 246 (“the stopper moiety (e.g., streptavidin) can be coupled to the coupling unit when at least a portion of the non-complementary region has translocated to the trans chamber.”) and the meaning of the phrase as is typically used in the art (see Gershow, Abstract for example), these terms will be taken to mean, in the context of the instant claims, that the portion of the growing strand from which the first and second signal are detected must not pass entirely through the nanopore before the generation of said signals. As to how big the portion of said growing strand that generates the first and second signals must be, there is no specific definition for how big a “portion” must be in the instant claims. Therefore, said portion can be as few as one or more nucleotides. As the claim only discusses the translocation of the portion of the growing strand and not the entirety of the growing strand, the claim encompasses embodiments in which some of the growing strand does exit the nanopore on the side opposite the entry of the growing strand before said second movement occurs.
Applicant’s arguments center around how the teachings of each individual reference do not meet the limitations of the instant claims. In response to 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). The 35 USC 103 Rejections presented in the Non-Final Rejection are based on a combination of the teachings of Davis, in view of Goto, and in view of Gershow. Applicant also only cites one or two paragraphs from each reference in their Remarks, which cannot be said to capture the full depth of the teachings of each reference.
Specifically in the Non-Final Rejection, regarding claim 41, Davis is used to teach movement of nucleic acids in nanopores, where a primer may be extended as it is being fed into said nanopore in order to sequence a target (see para. 20 of the Non-Final Rejection). Para. 21 of the Non-Final Rejection notes paras. 166-167 of Davis, which discuss trapping a nucleic acid molecule in a nanopore to prevent the nucleic acid from passing completely through the nanopore (via an anchoring component, for example), and then reversing the direction that the nucleic acid molecule is traveling in. Relating this to steps (b) and (c) of previous claim 41, the Non-Final Rejection stated that, “the reference does not teach that the reversal of movement through the nanopore is associated with any additional signal or detection.” Goto is used to teach the use of a nanopore introduction sequence, which, in Davis in view of Goto, reads on the final wherein clause of previous and instant claim 41. Gershow is then used to teach reversal of the movement of a nucleic acid molecule through a nanopore, re-translocation, and taking multiple measurements of a portion of a nucleic acid strand (i.e. measurements during forward and reverse movement). In the rejection of previous claim 41, para. 26 of the Non-Final Rejection does specifically state that in Davis, in view of Goto, and in view of Gershow, the nucleic acid molecule is re-translocated through the nanopore, which would indicate that it has passed fully through the nanopore before re-entering. This combination would thus not encompassed by the currently claimed invention.
However, previous and instant claims 64-65 concern the use of stopper moieties, and these claims were also rejected by Davis, in view of Goto, and in view of Gershow. The stopper as claimed (in claim 64) prevents the growing strand from completely exiting the nanopore (and thus, prevents full translocation of the entirety of the growing strand). These claims are addressed in para. 32 of the Non-Final Rejection. The anchoring of Davis is noted, though this anchoring would be on the opposite end of the growing strand from the stopper as claimed. The stoppers of Gershow are then recited (see paras. 78-82 of the reference), where said stoppers can be a nucleic acid molecule/chemical group or molecules that can be greater than the diameter of the nanopore. Gershow further teaches anchoring methods that would tether a nucleic acid molecule//chemical group or molecule to the initial entrance side of the nanopore so that the strand “cannot escape the vicinity of the nanopore.” In para. 32 of the Non-Final Rejection, the following conclusion is reached, “Though such anchoring is shown/suggested to be on the end of the nucleic acid that enters the nanopore last (i.e. the end opposite the primer in the instant claims), in the method of Davis, in view of Goto, and in view of Gershow, primer extension occurs as the strand is moving through the nanopore. Thus, the end of the nucleic acid opposite the primer end would not be created until after the primer end was already through the nanopore. Because Davis and Gershow teach that anchoring provides the benefit of preventing the nucleic acid from moving all the way through the nanopore, and thus would also provide such a benefit in the method of Davis, in view of Goto, and in view of Gershow, the ordinary artisan would recognize that this would allow for less loss of the nucleic acids generally, and using ordinary creativity, would reach the conclusion that the non-complementary primer end of the nucleic acid could be bound to a stopper nucleic acid that is attached to the nanopore on the side opposite the initial entry of the nucleic acid. This would stop the extended nucleic acid from completely leaving the nanopore, which would lead to more efficient recapture and re-translocation, less loss of nucleic acids, as well as more sequencing data, which would lead to more accurate results.”
Applicant does not address this combination of teachings and the resulting conclusions in their Remarks, and so this rejection is considered proper with regard to the Non-Final Rejection. These teachings are relevant to the newly amended claim 41 and are utilized below.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments are generally not considered persuasive to obviate the use of the previously cited references. However, due to Applicant’s amendments to the claims, new grounds of rejection are required below, where the relevant portions of the previous rejections have been reiterated. Additional teachings from the references and information clarifying the Examiner’s position have also been provided below.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that in newly amended claim 41, while the first signal and second signals must be “usable for analyzing said nucleic acid molecule,” this limitation does not recite or require an actual analyzing step.
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 41-44, 47, 51-52, 54-55, 57, and 60-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2014/0034497 A1), in view of Goto et al. (WO 2021/124468 A1), and in view of Gershow et al. (US 2009/0136958 A1).
It is noted that any citations to particular portions of the Goto reference refer to those taught in the English Machine Translation.
Davis teaches methods of sequencing nucleic acid molecules using nanopore sensors (Abstract). One such method involves rolling circle nanopore sequencing and is shown in Figure 13. A nucleic acid polymerase (1301) is attached to a nanopore (1302) as a fusion protein (para. 209, and para. 80 also notes that the nanopore can be a protein; instant claims 42, 44, and 55). A circular nucleic acid molecule (1304) is provided, along with a primer (1303) that has a dashed portion that does not anneal to the circular nucleic acid molecule (paras. 209 and 211; instant claim 57). The primer is then extended from end 1305, and the primer can be passed through the nanopore as extension is occurring (para. 210 and 1306). This is done through the addition of nucleotides to the extended strand (para. 208), and the extended primer is sequenced as it passes through the nanopore (para. 210). This can continue until the sequence of the circular nucleic acid is determined (para. 210). As seen in Figure 13, the complementary region of the primer is flanked by the non-complementary region (the dashed line) and the growing (i.e. extended) end. As also shown by Figure 13, the non-complementary region of the primer is the first portion directed through the nanopore and sequenced (paras. 210-211; instant claim 47).
However, Davis does not teach that the non-complementary region of the primer is inserted into the nanopore prior to the generation of the extended primer. Additionally, Davis does teach methods for anchoring nucleic acids in order to either trap a nucleic acid in a nanopore or to prevent a nucleic acid from going completely through a nanopore. In such instances, Davis teaches that the direction of movement of a nucleic acid through a nanopore can be reversed (paras. 166-167). Figure 5 and paras. 168-170 show examples of such anchoring. However, the reference does not teach that the reversal of movement through the nanopore is associated with any additional signal or detection.
Goto teaches methods related to sequencing (Abstract). These methods can involve the use of nanopores. Figure 3 shows the use of a nanopore introduction sequence that is guided into a nanopore before any extension or nanopore sequencing occurs (para. 31). The nanopore introduction sequence is linked to a primer sequence that can be used to create a sequence complementary to a target (para. 26 and Figure 3). Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate that this can be done with circular target nucleic acids. Figure 4 shows the nanopore introduction sequence as reference character 114 (see paras. 44 and 46). Para. 34 of Goto explains that the mechanism of action of Figure 5 is the same as that of Figure 3 (i.e. where the nanopore introduction strand enters the nanopore before extension begins).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Goto to include a specific nanopore introduction sequence in the method of Davis. This could be added onto the non-complementary portion of the primer of Davis, and would act to guide the primer into the nanopore before primer extension began. By positioning the primer into the nanopore before extension occurs, this ensures proper placement of the growing strand (i.e. making sure the growing strand actually enters the nanopore) and could shorten sequencing time, as there would be no delay between the start of the extension reaction and signals received from the nanopore sequencing. MPEP 2143 I A states, “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Both nanopore introduction sequences and rolling circle nanopore sequencing were known in the art, as evidenced by Goto and Davis, and by adding this introduction sequence to the non-complementary portion of the primer of Davis, no portion of the sequencing itself would be modified or affect – the primer would simply be partially in the nanopore at the start of extension. As Goto teaches that this introduction sequence can be added to a primer sequence, and notes exemplary compositions of such an introduction sequence (e.g. paras. 50 and 53), there would also be a reasonable expectation of success.
However, Goto does not teach the reversal of movement through the nanopore, either generally or in association with any additional signal or detection.
Gershow teaches a molecular analysis system involving nanopores and translocation of molecular species through them. Particularly, the molecular species may be moved through the nanopore multiple times to generate data for analysis (Abstract). By capturing and then recapturing molecular data for a species of interest, this can provide “knowledge of a molecule's position at a nanopore at both ends of a measured time interval, and provides knowledge of the forces applied to the molecule during that time interval, enabling an evaluation of the molecule's path in solution,” (paras. 6-7). This data can also be used for sequencing, and the translocating and re-translocating can be done via changes in control signal produced by the system (paras. 6 and 11). Figure 1 shows how a molecule may move through the nanopore multiple times in a forward and reverse direction (see also paras. 25-30). The molecule can be a DNA strand (para. 35). Gershow also notes that this translocation and re-translocation has advantages such as increased accuracy for signal detection for particular molecules, where the additional signal verification can reduce errors in measurement, correct for measurement signal noise, and lessen required statistical and chemical examinations of a particular molecule (para. 62). This method also allows for a large number of measurements to be obtained in a short period of time (para. 63).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Gershow to add reverse movement methods of the target nucleic acid into the method of Davis in view of Goto. Gershow teaches many benefits and advantages of utilizing this method that would be of interest to the ordinary artisan when sequencing nucleic acids in nanopores. Davis teaches methods of altering currents (paras. 138-140), and, as noted above, also teaches an embodiment in which a nucleic acid can be reversed through a nanopore. Thus, the teachings of Gershow simply further these teachings and provide reasonings for using such reversible movement in a nanopore analysis method. By employing this method, each section of the growing strand that enters and produces a signal in the nanopore would have signals associated with at least two movements through the nanopore in a forward and reverse direction (instant claims 62-63). There would be a reasonable expectation of success in performing this forward and reverse movement as Gershow is almost entirely focused on such techniques, showing that they are known in the art and can be successfully employed.
However, these teachings of Davis, in view of Goto, and in view of Gershow described above alone do not specifically teach limitation (B) in instant claim 41, where the second movement must occur prior to the translocation of a portion of the growing strand through the nanopore. It is noted that though (B) states this second movement must occur before translocation, no such translocation is actually required by claim 41 or any of the dependent claims.
As noted above, Davis teaches various methods for anchoring a nucleic acid to a nanopore (Figure 5 and paras. 168-170). This anchoring is done by anchoring one end of the nucleic acid to either a protein, membrane, or the nanopore itself. However, this anchoring is not done on the primer end of the extended nucleic acid molecule. Gershow teaches attaching chemical groups or molecules to ends of nucleic acid strands that are of an opposite electrical charge to the target DNA strand or greater diameter than said strand in order to slow down or stop movement of the nucleic acid through the nanopore (paras. 76-82). As shown in Figure 4B, these molecules can be another nucleic acid strand. Gershow teaches that such an inclusion would prevent the nucleic acid from completely leaving the nanopore, which would lead to easier recapture and re-translocation (paras. 80-82). Specifically, Gershow teaches that such stopping attachments can be attached to structures adjacent to the nanopore (para. 82).
Though such anchoring is shown/suggested to be on the end of the nucleic acid that enters the nanopore last (i.e. the end opposite the primer in the instant combination of references), in the method of Davis, in view of Goto, and in view of Gershow, primer extension occurs as the strand is moving through the nanopore. Thus, the end of the nucleic acid opposite the primer end would not be created until after the primer end was already through the nanopore. Because Davis and Gershow teach that anchoring provides the benefit of preventing the nucleic acid from moving all the way through the nanopore, and thus would also provide such a benefit in the method of Davis, in view of Goto, and in view of Gershow, the ordinary artisan would recognize that this would allow for less loss of the nucleic acids generally (as anchoring would ensure the nucleic acids remained near the nanopore and were not lost in solution), and using ordinary knowledge, skill, and creativity, would reach the conclusion that the non-complementary primer end of the growing strand nucleic acid could be bound to a stopper nucleic acid or small chemical group/molecule that is attached to the nanopore on the side opposite the initial entry of the nucleic acid (thus, the stopper would not attach to the non-complementary primer end until said end was already in the nanopore). This would stop the extended nucleic acid from completely leaving the nanopore, which would lead to more efficient forward and reverse movement through said nanopore, with less loss of nucleic acids and more sequencing data, which would lead to more accurate results and would bolster the advantages described by Gershow above (instant claims 64-66). There would be a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings as each aspect is taught by Davis and/or Gershow, particularly the attachment of chemical groups to nanopore membranes and the use of stoppers.
In this combination of references, as the growing strand would not completely exit the nanopore due to the presence of the stopper, upon reversal of the direction of strand motion, a significant portion of the growing strand would be examined twice (with measurements in the forward and reverse directions), without said portion ever exiting the nanopore. Thus, this combination meets each limitation of instant claim 41.
Thus, claims 41-42, 44, 47, 55, 57, and 62-66 are rejected as being obvious over Davis, in view of Goto, and in view of Gershow.
Regarding claims 43 and 54, the instant specification states that, “In some cases, contacting of the NA complex by the binding moiety (e.g., the enzyme) may be sufficient to effect the flowing of a portion of the complex (e.g., the additional region of the primer NA molecule) into the pore of the sensor…Without wishing to be bound by theory, the additional, non-complementary region of the primer NA molecule may be attracted towards the pore of the sensor due at least in part to the close proximity between the additional, non-complementary region of the primer NA molecule and the pore of the sensor,” (para. 89). Thus, the directing described by claim 43 can be due to the proximity of the non-complementary primer region and the nanopore. Davis teaches that nanopores can have electrodes that produce electrical stimuli (para. 138). Electrodes are primarily taught as being neutral or positively charged (paras. 175 and 177-178). Davis then teaches that in primers with capture regions, which are also non-complementary to a circular target sequence, “The capture region extending from the primer can be constructed of any molecule including abasic nucleic acids, PEG molecules, or any other of a variety of man-made polymers that are optimized to be captured into a nanopore. The capture region may be highly negatively or positively charged for example depending on the particular nanopore set-up or the type of sample being processed,” (para. 199). This charging of the capture region can be optimized for particular methods (para. 199). Thus, Davis teaches that methods of making negatively charged sequences in primer sequences would be known to the ordinary artisan, and could be utilized based on the specific target molecule and nanopore parameters being used. If positively charged electrodes on nanopores are met with negatively charged primer regions, then the primers will be drawn to said nanopores. This is in-line with Davis’ later teachings that an electrical field can be used to insert a capture region into a nanopore (para. 203). Because this capture region of the primer of Davis is non-complementary to a target and functions similarly to the non-complementary region of the primer shown in Figure 13 of Davis, it would be prima facie obvious to the ordinary artisan that said non-complementary region in Figure 13 could also be made to be negatively charged. Additionally, it would then be prima facie obvious to have the associated nanopore be positively charged in order to ensure that the non-complementary region of the primer is appropriately directed into the nanopore.
Regarding claims 51-52, Goto teaches exemplary nanopore introduction sequences that are over 10 nucleotides long (see para. 51 and Table 1, as well as para. 50 which states that the introduction sequence is the poly(T) sequence of primer A. A similar design is shown and explained in paras. 53 and 55 and Table 2). It would be prima facie obvious for the ordinary artisan to use the nanopore introduction sequence already taught by Goto in the method of Davis, in view of Goto, and in view of Gershow, as this sequence has been shown to be successful. Thus, the non-complementary primer region would be at least the length of the poly(T) sequence shown in Goto (i.e. over 10 bases long).
Regarding claim 61, the instant specification teaches that “an impedance or impedance change may be detected by applying a constant voltage (e.g., a sinusoidal voltage perturbation) while measuring a current (e.g., a change in the current),” (para. 101). Davis teaches that the electrodes of their invention can be part of nanopores and are capable of sensing changes in current (paras. 138 and 177), and that the passage of single-stranded nucleic acid molecules through nanopores can generate detectable current changes (para. 220). Davis also contemplates methods of applying a particular voltage and measuring a response (para. 257), and states that nanopores may apply voltages in order to perform current measurements (para. 129). Finally, the reference teaches that the bases A, G, T, C, and/or U can affect the current flowing through the nanopore (para. 254). Because the entirety of the extended primer (i.e. the complementary and non-complementary portions) is moving through the nanopore in the method of Davis, in view of Goto, and in view of Gershow described above in the rejection of claim 41 (at least far enough to produce a single sequencing measurement), it would be prima facie obvious to use the current detection and measurement methods of Davis during this process to sequence the primers. These methods would involve applying a voltage across a nanopore while measuring current, and as each signal generating nucleotide of the growing strand produces a signal in the nanopore (in the forward and reverse directions), noting the change in current (i.e. measuring impedance signals). Davis teaches that the sequencing methods of their invention are highly accurate (Abstract, paras. 4, 92, and 95), motivating the ordinary artisan.
Regarding claim 60, Davis also teaches in the embodiments illustrated by Figure 13 that “At least part of the sequence of the primer may indicate the sample from which the circular nucleic acid originated,” (para. 211). In para. 199, Davis states that different primers can be given unique signals to designate the origin of a sample, and that multiple samples can have different unique barcodes. Thus, it would be prima facie obvious to the ordinary artisan that in the embodiment of Davis shown in Figure 13 and used in the method of Davis, in view of Goto, and in view of Gershow, the primer could contain a barcode in order to indicate sample origin, as Davis teaches the use of barcodes for this purpose. This would aid in more accurately identifying particular sequences that belong to particular samples, which would be helpful in laboratory and clinical settings.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art references that are considered relevant to the claims but are not cited in the prior art rejections above are noted:
Davis et al. (US 8,845,880 B2) – This reference teaches the use of bulky structures and speed bumps (e.g. Figures 3, 4, 9, and 13-14) that are capable of stopping and/or slowing DNA passage through a nanopore (see figure descriptions in columns 1-2, column 3, para. 3, and column 4, para. 9). Column 6, para. 2 and column 14, para. 4 (step (B10)) also notes the reversal of direction of DNA in a nanopore. These methods do not recite a primer or extension reactions, however.
Biesemans et al. (Nano Letters, 2015) – This reference teaches methods of trapping targets in nanopores via the use of two protein stoppers at each end of a target sequence. A target can move into a nanopore in forward and reverse directions without moving all the way through said nanopore (see Abstract). However, the target sequence described in this reference is a protein sequence (see Figure 1).
Conclusion
No claims are currently allowable.
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 FRANCESCA F GIAMMONA whose telephone number is (571)270-0595. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7-5pm.
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, Gary Benzion can be reached at (571) 272-0782. 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.
/F.F.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1681
/ANGELA M. BERTAGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681
Prosecution Insights