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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The newly filed information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 20th, 2026 was considered, initialed, and attached hereto. A signed copy of the list of references cited is included with this Office Action.
Status of Claims
The amendments submitted on March 31st, 2026 have been entered.
New claims 6-10 have been added.
Claims 1-10 are pending in the application and examined in this Office action.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendment to the specification.
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 USC § 112(a) for lack of written description for “70% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO. 1” is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 USC § 112(a) for lack of written description for “pesticidal activity” is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, but remains modified as necessitated by the claim amendments (see Written Description rejection below).
The rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 USC § 103 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. A thorough search of the prior art did not find any sequences with 97% identity to SEQ ID NO. 1 that would have been obvious to use in a recombinant nucleic acid molecule, a vector, or a transformed host cell, wherein the polypeptide has pesticidal activity against one or more coleopteran pests, and wherein the nucleotide sequence encoding the polypeptide is operably linked to a promoter capable of driving expression of the nucleotide sequence in a plant or a plant cell. Therefore, Applicant’s amendment to the claims renders the 103 rejection moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. This is a new rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claims 6-10 recite the method of claim 1, the transformed plant of claim 2, the recombinant nucleic acid molecule of claim 3, the vector of claim 4, and the transformed host cell of claim 5, respectively, wherein the polypeptide has an amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO. 1. An amino acid sequence of a sequence may be anything from a dimer, trimer, or full length of the referenced sequence, therefore broadening the specificity of 97% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO. 1, as recited in the independent claims.
Thus, claims 6-10 fail to further limit the subject matter of preceding claims 1-5. Claims 6-10 fail the infringement test because claims 1-5 would conceivably be infringed by sequences other than the those with 97% identity to SEQ ID NO. 1, which would not infringe upon claim 1-5. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Written Description
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This is a modified rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
The claims are drawn to pesticidal activity against one or more coleopteran pests based on a polypeptide having at least 97% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO. 1. The breadth of the claims is such that the claims encompass the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO. 1 within any transformed plant or a plant cell having resistance against any one or more coleopteran pest.
The instant disclosure describes a method of protecting N. benthamiana leaves from the coleopteran pest SCRW and E. coli cells with pesticidal activity against WCRW with the introduction of a construct comprising SEQ ID NO: 1, as well as the transformation of maize cells with a construct comprising SEQ ID NO: 1 regenerated into maize plants.
The instant disclosure does not describe a method of protection against any one or more coleopteran pest. The instant disclosure does not describe a nucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide having at least 97% identity to SEQ ID NO. 1 introduced into any plant. The instant disclosure does not describe recombinant nucleic acid molecule, vector, or transformed host cell comprising a nucleotide sequence having at least 97% identity to SEQ ID NO. 1, wherein the polypeptide has pesticidal activity against any one or more coleopteran pests, and wherein the nucleotide sequence encoding the polypeptide is operable linked to a promoter capable of driving expression of the nucleotide sequence in any plant or plant cell.
The instant disclosure describes transformation in leaves of N. benthamiana, and plants and cells of maize. Applicant does not provide sufficient data, yet claimed the broad genus of all plants for effective transformation and protection from a coleopteran plant pathogen. The Applicant teaches insecticidal toxicity bioassays with transformed bacterial whole cells expressing SEQ ID NO. 1 protein against WCRW, showing no other insecticidal activity [Example 2 and 3]. The Applicant teaches SEQ ID NO. 1 transiently expressed in N. benthamiana, wherein a synthetic N. tabacum codon-optimized sequence encoding SEQ ID NO. 1 was cloned, the resulting binary plasmids transferred into the Agrobacterium strain GV3101 and used to transiently transform N. benthamiana leaf sectors with agro-infiltration. These leaf discs prepared from the agro-infiltrated portion of N. benthamiana were used in SCRW feeding assays [Example 6]. A plant binary construct was produced to drive expression of GUN0040A maize codon-optimized sequence for the production of SEQ ID NO. 1 in one inbred maize species [Example 7]. The Applicant states that the constructs comprising the maize optimized sequence for production of SE ID NO: 1 in maize cells was transformed into maize inbred B104 as described by Frame, B. et al. (2006, “Improved Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of three maize inbred lines using MS salts”, Plant Cell Rep, 25, 1024–1034; as cited in IDS filed 04/02/2025). Frame teaches generation of transgenic plants and progeny from maize inbred lines using an Agrobacterium-mediated standard binary vector system to target maize immature embryos, which were then regenerated from transgenic callus [Abstract; pg. 1030, col. 2, ¶2]. The plants grown from transgenic cells of the instant application were tested with infestation of WCRW eggs.
Fig. 2 shows the activity of GUN0040 A expressed in recombinant e. coli against WCRW and Table 1 shows insecticidal activity of whole recombinant E. coli culture expressing GUN0040 A. Figs. 6A and B depict Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression of GUN0040A in N. benthamiana leaf tissue showing higher pesticidal activity against larvae with expression of GUN0040A. Although Example 7 provides the methodology for introducing GUN0040A to maize plants and testing efficacy of GUN0040A against WCRW, yet the Applicant does not appear to provide data on the actual efficacy of GUN0040A in maize plants against coleopteran pests. Thus, Applicant only reduces to practice portions of leaves of N. benthamiana agro-infiltrated with the construct comprising SEQ ID NO: 1 having higher larval mortality in SCRW larval insect feeding assays [Example 6] and E. coli culture expressing SEQ ID NO: 1 having insecticidal activity against WCRW [Example 3].
As stated in the prior office action (Non-Final Rejection filed 01/27/2026; pg. 6, ¶2), the art suggests not all plants are readily transformable and may depend on the method of transformation, the regeneration capacity, and the plant’s own genetic makeup and defense mechanisms for efficacy of transformation [National Academies Press (US); 2004. Ch. 2, Methods and Mechanisms for Genetic Manipulation of Plants, Animals, and Microorganisms.]. For example, it is known that recalcitrant species such as legumes have posed a challenge in genetic transformation, displaying low transformational efficiency (Nivya, V. et al. 2023. “Recalcitrance to transformation, a hindrance for genome editing of legumes”. Front Genome Ed. 5:1247815. doi: 10.3389/fgeed.2023) [Abstract]. Nivya reports 100% transformation efficiency in Nicotiana tabacum leaves, but only 4.2 and 1.49% efficiency in Vigna radiata cotyledonary nodes and shoot tips, respectively [Table 1], demonstrating the variability in transformation within the broad genus claim of plants and regenerative material.
Thus, significant experimentation would be required to confirm if GUN0040A (SEQ ID NO: 1) could be introduced into any plant for the desired effect of resistance against one or more coleopteran pests as the Applicant does not provide sufficient variety of species to reflect the variance within the genus of GUN0040A in an actual transformed plant with pesticidal activity against one or more coleopteran pests. Applicant has not reduced to practice the large genus comprised in the method of protecting any plant from infection against one or more coleopteran pests.
As shown in Examples 1-7, the Applicant teaches use of the GUN0040A protein for pesticidal activity against two coleopteran pests, WCRW and SCRW. As cited in the prior office action (Non-Final filed 01/27/2026; last paragraph of pg. 4 & pg. 5), Crickmore et al. (2021, “A structure-based nomenclature for Bacillus thuringiensis and other bacteria-derived pesticidal proteins,” 186:107438, as cited in the IDS filed 01/07/2026) teaches that Cry-related pesticidal proteins (i.e., GUN0040A) are categorized by a group (Cry1, Cry 2…) where toxins share less than 45% amino acid identity with proteins from another group, a capital letter (Cry1A, Cry1B etc) is given when they share less than 78% identity, a small letter (Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab etc) when toxins share more than 70% but less than 95% identity [pg. 1, col. 2 ¶1]. Crickmore teaches that this hierarchy is preferred over previously used nomenclature, where proteins were classified according to their insecticidal activity, as a limitation of this system was that proteins that shared sequence homology often had different insecticidal specificities, requiring them to be put in different primary classification group [pg. 1, col. 1 ¶1].
Further, Bravo notes that the Cry proteins have evolved similar modes of action but different insect specificity [pg. 19, col. ¶2] (2012, Microbial Biotechnology, 6(1):17-26). Additionally, receptor recognition by Cry toxins has been recognized as a key step of Cry toxicity that is fundamental for insect specificity [pg. 19, col. 2, ¶1]. The effectivity of pesticidal activity on different pests varies greatly with the Cry-related protein based on the sequence, mode of action, and insect specificity. This has been shown in the case of Cry3Aa that has insecticidal activity against coleopteran larvae like Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata), but shows very low toxicity against Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) [pg. 20, col. 1, ¶2]. The Colorado potato beetle is within the coleoptera order, demonstrating that there is required specificity of insecticidal proteins within the claim of coleopteran pests.
Additionally, coleoptera is a large order. In fact, the largest order in the animal kingdom, with approximately 400,000 described species representing nearly 40% of all known insects and 25% of all animal life1. Even within coleopteran superfamily, Chrysomeloidea, bioassays performed with Cry8Ha1 protoxin showed that it was toxic to both larvae and adult stages of Holotrichia parallela, also to Holotrichia oblita adults and to Anoplophora glabripennis larvae, but was not toxic to larval stages of H. oblita or Colaphellus bowringi (Shu C., et al. “Characterization of Two Novel Bacillus thuringiensis Cry8 Toxins Reveal Differential Specificity of Protoxins or Activated Toxins against Chrysomeloidea Coleopteran Superfamily”. Toxins (Basel). 2020 Oct 5;12(10):642. doi: 10.3390/toxins12100642) [Abstract].
With the exception of N. benthamiana leaves transformed with a construct comprising a nucleic acid molecule encoding a polypeptide having full length sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1, wherein the polypeptide has pesticidal activity against WCRW and SCRW, the Applicant has not reduced to practive a method of protecting any plant from infection by any coleopteran pest by introducing into the plant and expressing a nucleic acid molecule encoding a polypeptide having at least 97% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1. A sufficient number of examples are not provided to adequately describe the broad genus of any plant or any coleopteran pest as currently claimed, thus, the claims do not meet the written description requirement.
Scope of Enablement
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a method of protecting transformed N. benthamiana leaves with a nucleic acid molecule encoding SEQ ID NO. 1, wherein the polypeptide has pesticidal activity against the coleopteran species Western corn rootworm (WCR) and Southern Corn Rootworm (SCR), does not reasonably provide enablement for protecting any plant against pesticidal activity of one or more of any coleopteran pests. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
This is a new rejection necessitated by the claim amendments.
In re Wands lists a number of factors for determining whether or not undue experimentation would be required by one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention. These factors are: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary; (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (3) the presence or absence of working examples of the invention; (4) the nature of the invention; (5) the state of the prior art; (6) the relative skill of those in the art; (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; (8) the breadth of the claim. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The nature of the invention is such that all claims are drawn to pesticidal activity against one or more coleopteran pests based on a polypeptide having at least 97% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO. 1. The breadth of the claims is such that the claims encompass the polypeptide of SEQ ID NO. 1 within any transformed plant or a plant cell having resistance against any one or more coleopteran pest.
The Applicant teaches in the instant disclosure that SEQ ID NO. 1 was generated by isolating DNA samples from the bacteria Aneurinibacillus migulanus from a public sequence collection [Example 1]. These were aligned using BLASTP against a Gpp34 protein sequence with demonstrated insecticidal activity. SEQ ID NO. 1, GUN0040A, had 42% identity to the Gpp34 protein sequence selected (SEQ ID NO. 2) and is designated as a Gpp (Cry) 34-like insecticidal protein in the sequence listing of the instant application. GUN0040A was cloned and harvested for recombinant protein purification for insect larval activity assays [Example 2]. Transformed bacterial whole cells expressing GUN0040A protein were used to evaluate efficacy against the coleoptera species Western corn rootworm (WCR), displaying greater WCR larval mortality and growth inhibition compared to negative controls [Example 3]. The GUN0040A protein alone showed that it acts as a single protein toxin in an artificial diet-overlay bioassay, not requiring another toxin to display control coleopteran [Example 4]. GUN0040A was transiently expressed in N. benthamiana and evaluated for phytotoxicity with Southern Corn Rootworm (SCR) [Example 6]. The Applicant states that Western Corn Rootworm efficacy was tested with transformed maize cells regenerated into transgenic plants, yet does not provide pesticidal efficacy data [Example 7].
The Applicant does not teach a method of protection against any one or more coleopteran pest. The Applicant does not teach a nucleotide sequence encoding a polypeptide having at least 97% identity to SEQ ID NO. 1 introduced into any plant. The Applicant does not teach a recombinant nucleic acid molecule, vector, or transformed host cell comprising a nucleotide sequence having at least 97% identity to SEQ ID NO. 1, wherein the polypeptide has pesticidal activity against any one or more coleopteran pests, and wherein the nucleotide sequence encoding the polypeptide is operable linked to a promoter capable of driving expression of the nucleotide sequence in any plant or plant cell.
Regarding applicability of the method and compositions in any plant or plant cell, the Applicant provides only the example of transformation in leaves of N. benthamiana, and plants and cells of maize. Applicant does not provide sufficient data, yet claimed the broad genus of all plants for effective transformation and protection from a coleopteran plant pathogen. The Applicant teaches insecticidal toxicity bioassays with transformed bacterial whole cells expressing SEQ ID NO. 1 protein against WCRW, showing no other insecticidal activity [Example 2 and 3]. The Applicant teaches SEQ ID NO. 1 transiently expressed in N. benthamiana, wherein a synthetic N. tabacum codon-optimized sequence encoding SEQ ID NO. 1 was cloned, the resulting binary plasmids transferred into the Agrobacterium strain GV3101 and used to transiently transform N. benthamiana leaf sectors with agro-infiltration. These leaf discs prepared from the agro-infiltrated portion of N. benthamiana were used in SCRW feeding assays [Example 6]. A plant binary construct was produced to drive expression of GUN0040A maize codon-optimized sequence for the production of SEQ ID NO. 1 in maize cells and transformed into one inbred maize species to produce transgenic maize [Example 7]. These plants were tested with infestation of WCRW eggs.
Fig. 2 shows the activity of GUN0040 A expressed in recombinant e. coli against WCRW and Table 1 shows insecticidal activity of whole recombinant E. coli culture expressing GUN0040 A. Figs. 6A and B depict Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression of GUN0040A in N. benthamiana leaf tissue showing higher pesticidal activity against SCRW larvae with expression of GUN0040A. Although Example 7 provides the methodology for introducing GUN0040A to maize plants and testing efficacy of GUN0040A against WCRW, the Applicant does not appear to provide data on the actual efficacy of GUN0040A in maize plants against coleopteran pests.
Not all plants are readily transformable and may depend on the method of transformation, the regeneration capacity, and the plant’s own genetic makeup and defense mechanisms for efficacy of transformation [National Academies Press (US); 2004. Ch. 2, Methods and Mechanisms for Genetic Manipulation of Plants, Animals, and Microorganisms.]. Indeed, the state of the art teaches that it is known that recalcitrant species such as legumes have posed a challenge in genetic transformation, displaying low transformational efficiency (Nivya, V. et al. 2023. “Recalcitrance to transformation, a hindrance for genome editing of legumes”. Front Genome Ed. 5:1247815. doi: 10.3389/fgeed.2023) [Abstract]. Nivya reports 100% transformation efficiency in Nicotiana tabacum leaves, but only 4.2 and 1.49% efficiency in Vigna radiata cotyledonary nodes and shoot tips, respectively [Table 1], demonstrating the unpredictability in transformation within the broad grouping of plants.
Thus, undue experimentation would be required to determine if GUN0040A could be introduced into any plant for the desired effect of resistance against one or more coleopteran pests as the Applicant does not provide sufficient working examples of GUN0040A in an actual transformed plant with pesticidal activity against one or more coleopteran pests.
Regarding the clause of any one or more coleopteran pest, as shown in Examples 1-7, the Applicant teaches use of the GUN0040A protein for pesticidal activity against two coleopteran pests, WCRW and SCRW. Crickmore et al. (2021, “A structure-based nomenclature for Bacillus thuringiensis and other bacteria-derived pesticidal proteins,” 186:107438, as cited in the IDS filed 01/07/2026) teaches that Cry-related pesticidal proteins (i.e., GUN0040A) are categorized by a group (Cry1, Cry 2…) where toxins share less than 45% amino acid identity with proteins from another group, a capital letter (Cry1A, Cry1B etc) is given when they share less than 78% identity, a small letter (Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab etc) when toxins share more than 70% but less than 95% identity [pg. 1, col. 2 ¶1]. Crickmore teaches that this hierarchy is preferred over previously used nomenclature, where proteins were classified according to their insecticidal activity, as a limitation of this system was that proteins that shared sequence homology often had different insecticidal specificities, requiring them to be put in different primary classification group [pg. 1, col. 1 ¶1].
Further, Bravo notes that the Cry proteins have evolved similar modes of action but different insect specificity [pg. 19, col. ¶2] (2012, Microbial Biotechnology, 6(1):17-26). Additionally, receptor recognition by Cry toxins has been recognized as a key step of Cry toxicity that is fundamental for insect specificity [pg. 19, col. 2, ¶1]. The effectivity of pesticidal activity on different pests varies greatly with the Cry-related protein based on the sequence, mode of action, and insect specificity. This has been shown in the case of Cry3Aa that has insecticidal activity against coleopteran larvae like Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata), but shows very low toxicity against Western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) [pg. 20, col. 1, ¶2]. The Colorado potato beetle is within the coleoptera order, demonstrating that there is required specificity of insecticidal proteins within the claim of coleopteran pests.
Additionally, coleoptera is a large order. As detailed above, coleoptera is the largest order in the animal kingdom. Even within coleopteran superfamily, Chrysomeloidea, bioassays performed with Cry8Ha1 protoxin showed that it was toxic to both larvae and adult stages of Holotrichia parallela, also to Holotrichia oblita adults and to Anoplophora glabripennis larvae, but was not toxic to larval stages of H. oblita or Colaphellus bowringi (Shu C., et al. “Characterization of Two Novel Bacillus thuringiensis Cry8 Toxins Reveal Differential Specificity of Protoxins or Activated Toxins against Chrysomeloidea Coleopteran Superfamily”. Toxins (Basel). 2020 Oct 5;12(10):642. doi: 10.3390/toxins12100642) [Abstract].
Thus, there is vast unpredictability in the order of coleoptera with regard to the specificity of insecticidal properties of proteins while only WCRW and SCRW were provided for working examples in the instant application. A significant quantity of experimentation would be required to ensure that the instant invention is applicable to a coleopteran pest other than WCRW or SCRW.
Therefore, given the breadth of the claims; the lack of guidance and working examples; the unpredictability in the art; and the state of the at as discussed above, undue experimentation would be required to make and use the claimed invention, and therefore, the invention is not enabled throughout the broad scope of the claims.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed March 3rd, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 USC § 103 have been carefully considered but are moot in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim claims 1-5 under 35 USC § 11(a) Written Description have been considered. With regard to the sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 1, the arguments are moot in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claim.
With regard to the genus claim of “pesticidal activity”, the arguments are moot because the new ground of rejection made in view of the amendment for “pesticidal activity against one or more coleopteran pests” does not rely on matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant contends that the instant specification demonstrates that the GUN0040A polypeptide (SEQ ID NO: 1) exhibits effective pesticidal activity against “multiple” coleopteran pests, including SCRW and WCRW, but does not provide any other species within the genus claim of coleopteran pests. Thus, the rejection is modified necessitated by amendments to the claims.
Additionally, Examiner notes that although Applicant asserted that they traversed the 112(a) rejection with the amendments and the arguments, Applicant did not address in the arguments or in the claim amendments the genus claim of all plants as rejected in the previous Non-Final (filed January 1, 2026; see pg. 6, ¶2-3). This rejection is therefore maintained but modified.
Summary
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Applicants’ 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY K. JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 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.
/EMILY K JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Units 1661 & 1662
1 Coleoptera, (order Coleoptera), insect order comprising more than 400,000 species of beetles and weevils. It is the largest order of insects, representing about 40 percent of the known insect species, and the largest animal order (https://www.britannica.com/animal/Coleoptera).
Prosecution Insights