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 .
THIS IS A TRACK ONE APPLICATION.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II in the reply filed on 9/4/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant elected Group I, claims 1-7.
Applicant elected the following species:
R1 – hydrogen
Each of Y1 and Y2 – absent
R2 – NH2
The Z peptide is GGSMTFSPRL (SEQ ID NO:1) as recited in claim 1, and stated that these elections read on claims 1-7.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/4/25.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 7-15 are pending.
Claim 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 15 are pending and under examination.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 15 are rejected.
Claims 15 is objected to.
Priority
The instant application, filed 04/16/2025 is a Divisional of 18492058 , filed 10/23/2023, now U.S. Patent # 12302908 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner has considered the reference(s) provided in the 12/26/25 Information Disclosure Statement, and provides a signed and dated copy of such herewith.
Also, the listing of references in the specification, on pages 53-54, is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper.” Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 12/26/25, and claim amendments, with respect to the objections to claims 1 and 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 1 and 3 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an issue identified in new claim 15.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9 a “the” is needed immediately before “synergist.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claims where R1 is indicated as hydrogen, this including claim 5 wherein this is indicated as “[Hy]”, this is interpreted to be one of the two hydrogens attached to the amino group of the N-terminus amino acid. When Y1 is absent, this hydrogen is interpreted to be one of the two hydrogens of the N-terminus glycine of Z’s SEQ ID NO:1. To interpret this another way would conflict with the normal valency of N-terminus amino groups.
Per para 270, page 42 of the specification, “Adjuvants may enhance product performance, for example, by increasing the efficiency of the delivery of active ingredients, reducing the level of active ingredient required, or extending the spectrum of effectiveness.” A solvent, carrier or diluent that enhances product performance such as by increasing the efficiency of the delivery of active ingredient therefore also is an adjuvant.
Based on para 291, page 46, of the specification, where it states, “The composition may comprise one or more synergists, i.e. compounds which increase the efficacy of insecticides against their targets, often by inhibiting an insect's ability to metabolise the active agent,” and notwithstanding the second sentence, “Common synergists include piperonyl butoxide and MGK-264 (n-octyl bicycloheptane dicarboximide), or peptidase inhibitors,” a solvent, carrier or diluent which increases the efficacy of insecticides against their targets therefore also is a synergist.
Based on the above, the examiner interprets compound class terms such as adjuvants and synergists to be encompassed, depending on a particular fact or circumstance, by other class terms, such as carrier, diluent and solvent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 12/26/25, and claim amendments, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, indefiniteness rejection of claims 1-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, indefiniteness rejection of claims 1-7 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 states in part, as to the agricultural composition of claim 1, “wherein the dispersant is in an amount that increases spray retention, spreading, foliar uptake, and penetration enhancement of the insecticidal compound or improve stability of the insecticidal compound.”
Apart from generic listings that include the word dispersants, the specification on page 43 states the following regarding dispersants:
PNG
media_image1.png
234
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There is no support in the application as filed for claim 15’s stating that the dispersant, which per the above may be aqueous or non-aqueous, increases spray retention, spreading, foliar uptake, and penetration enhancement because the only reference to any formulation that achieves any one or more of these is for an oil dispersion (OD) formulation. There is no support for what is claimed “…increases spray retention, spreading, foliar uptake, and penetration enhancement” for an aqueous dispersant, nor any other dispersant-comprising system or formulation, such as in an oil-in-water emulsion formulation, see Stepan, Concentrated Emulsions fact sheet, 4 pages, 2022 (note that some block copolymers are stated to be used as emulsifier and dispersant). Nor is there explicit support for “increases spray retention” given that para 277 states, only for OD formulations, “better spray retention;” in this art field what is better spray retention may not necessarily always be an increase in spray retention.
With regard to dispersant improving stability of the insecticidal compound, the examiner only finds support for this for aqueous dispersants, see para 279, and here, this only states, “to improve stability in the spray tank after dilution in water.” Based on the ordinary and customary meaning of a dispersant, something that aids in dispersion, this para 279 phrase appears to be related to improving the stability of the suspension, solution or mixture in a tank that comprises one or more insecticidal compounds, and not to improving the stability of the insecticidal compound itself.
Additionally, the examiner does not find explicit nor inherent nor inferred support for the specific claim 15 limitation, “wherein the emulsifying agent is in an amount that emulsifies a continuous oil phase into water.”
From page 43:
PNG
media_image2.png
237
795
media_image2.png
Greyscale
There is no reference in the latter claim 15 limitation to the limiting extent of the emulsifying - of an oil dispersion (OD) formulation when being diluted prior to being sprayed, so what is claimed extends beyond that for which there is support in the application as filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner acknowledges the 12/26/25 amendments to claim 1, including to convert the claim to be directed to an agricultural composition comprising an insecticidal compound in admixture with one or more adjuvant, preservative, dispersant, emulsifying agent, or synergist, the insecticidal compound having the formula or a salt or solvate thereof: GGSMTFSPRL (SEQ ID NO:1). However, in contrast to the 35 USC 101 Eligibility Guidelines Examples 2 and 44, the amounts of the one or more adjuvant, preservative, dispersant, emulsifying agent, or synergist is/are not provided. Claim 2 of Example 44, for example, claims a particular ratio of two compounds where the background makes it clear that this ratio is required to achieve the markedly different characteristics relied on for eligibility. In the instant claims, there is no indication of the amount of the additional component(s), which, as opposed to the effective amount in 35 USC 101 Eligibility Guidelines Example 2, could be in a trace amount, or an amount insufficient to impact the function of the composition as whole, and therefore considering the broadest reasonable interpretation to include such amounts the claim fails to demonstrate a markedly different characteristic relative to the peptide alone.
Regarding the claims rejected below under this section, applicant may consider additional amendment, if supported by the application as filed, that set forth particular amount(s) and/or ratios of other components to make clear that the resulting agricultural composition as a whole has a markedly different characteristic than the natural peptide.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural product without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) SEQ ID NO:1, the peptide GGSMTFSPRL, which when regarding the claim 1 formula (I) R1 is hydrogen per the above interpretation this is a hydrogen of the amino group of the N-terminus asparagine (N), and when Y1 and Y2 are absent, and when R2 is NH2, the resulting peptide is found in nature.
This rejection is based on the teachings of Lee and Boo, Peptides 26 (2005) 2404–2411 (“Lee”), previously provided, where on page 2407 this sequence, GGSMTFSPRL, is identified as γ-NP, standing for gamma-neuropeptide, one of several distinct neuropeptides identified by this reference. Lee also teaches that for activity these peptides are amidated at the C-terminus, see Abstract on page 2404, last sentence on page 2404, and also page 2408.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because this natural compound is encompassed by the claim 1 formula (I) genus, and the additional components of the agricultural composition of claim 1 may be present in trace amounts or other small amounts insufficient to impact the function of the composition as whole, so the claim fails to demonstrate a markedly different characteristic relative to the peptide alone. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because claim 2 also allows for R1 to be hydrogen, so as interpreted to result in the natural product having the sequence GGSMTFSPRL and be C-terminally amidated as taught by Lee, claim 2 also includes the natural product without more. The same analysis as to whether the claim includes the natural product without more applies to claim 3 (also allowing R1 to be hydrogen), to claim 4 when Y1 is absent and R2 is NH2, and to claim 5 which only claims the natural product. These claims clearly do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no recited additional elements. As to claim 7 as amended 12/26/25, the designations of the claim 1 agricultural composition being either “an insect control composition or an plant protection composition” does not change the analysis applied to claim 1 that the claim fails to demonstrate a markedly different characteristic relative to the peptide alone. This is because the naturally occurring peptide of Lee when combined with trace or other small amount(s) of the one or more of the claim 1 additives that are insufficient to result in a markedly different characteristic of the composition relative to the peptide alone nonetheless would reasonably serve as an insect control composition or a plant protection composition based on the natural characteristic of the naturally occurring peptide.
The following sets forth the analyses of all claims:
Step 1: YES: Claims 1-5 and 7 are directed to agricultural compositions comprising the formula (I) peptide and one or more additional components, so all claims are to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: YES: All claims comprise a natural product, the gamma-neuropeptide, see above.
Agricultural composition claim 1 on its face recites the gamma-neuropeptide natural product, albeit admixed with one or more other components of the composition all of which can be present in trace or insignificant amounts. Claims 2-5 do not alter the fact that the claims encompass a natural product, and although claim 7 further defines the claim 1 agricultural composition as either an insect control composition or a plant protection composition, this does not alter the fact that the claim, depending from claim 1, still recites the gamma-neuropeptide natural product.
Per MPEP 2106.04(c), as part of Step 2A Prong 1, a markedly different characteristics analysis is conducted, and for a composition-type product claim the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied to the resultant nature-based combination, rather than its component parts.
Because the addition of one or more claim 1 admixtured components can include components that are merely present in a trace amount, or an amount insufficient to impact the function of the composition as whole, then claim 1 fails to demonstrate a markedly different characteristic relative to the gamma-neuropeptide alone.
Claims 2-5 and 7 do not substantially alter this conclusion of no markedly different characteristic relative to the gamma-neuropeptide alone by further requiring additional respective limitations. None of the claims 2-5 and 7 modifications reasonably set forth a resultant agricultural composition that as a whole is markedly different from the gamma-neuropeptide alone.
Also please note that water is encompassed by dispersant, absent evidence to the contrary,
and water also is a natural product so is also rejected in this step for claims 1-5 and 7. Because water would not change the properties of the gamma-neuropeptide, this peptide would not be markedly different from itself in nature in such composition, so in this sense claims 1-5 and 7 also do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 2: NO: Claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This is because, as noted above, the claim 1 admixtured components can include components that are merely present in a trace amount, or an amount insufficient to impact the function of the composition as whole. Accordingly, claim 1 as a whole does not integrate the gamma-neuropeptide judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. The additional limitations of claims 2-5 and 7 do not substantially alter this conclusion: none of these claims’ additional limitations integrate the gamma-neuropeptide into a practical application of that exception at least because the additional limitations, claims 2 and 3 each limiting R1 in different ways but retaining hydrogen among it alternatives, claim 4 limiting Y1 and Y2 and allowing for R2 to be NH2 (so amidating the peptide C-terminus, known by Lee to be found in nature, i.e., a natural product), claim 5 narrowing the claim 1 formula to be the amidated gamma-neuropeptide taught by Lee to be a natural product), and claim 7 naming the type of agricultural composition as either “an insect control composition or an plant protection composition”, do not set forth a practical application distinguishable from the judicial exception Overall these claims’ compositions remain directed to the gamma-neuropeptide judicial exception.
Further to this analysis, the claim 1 naming of the agricultural composition, as well as the claim 7 further naming as either an insect control composition or a plant protection composition, is merely generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: NO: Claims 1-5 and 7 encompass embodiments in which the claim 1 admixed components can be present in trace amounts, this including where claim 7’s an insect control composition or a plant protection composition sub-classifying claim 1’s agricultural composition, do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Based on the above analyses, claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under this section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 10/26/25, and substantial claim amendments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee and Boo (“Lee”), Peptides 26 (2005) 2404–2411 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee and Boo, Peptides 26 (2005) 2404–2411 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 12/26/25, and substantial claim amendments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Boo (“Lee”), Peptides 26 (2005) 2404–2411 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martins, Insect Molecular Biology (2012) 21(4), 414–421 (Martins) and WO 95/24423, inventors Duve et al., published 9/14/1995 (Duve) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the substantial claim amendments, necessitating a new search and examination.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Korean J. Appl. Entomol. 61(1): 15-28 (2022) (“Choi”) in view of Martins, Insect Molecular Biology (2012) 21(4), 414–421 (“Martins”), previously provided, and Boerjan et al., Peptides 32 (2011) 1536-1539 (“Boerjan”).
Claim 1 has been substantially amended to the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
658
702
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Choi teaches discovery and a number of Pheromone Biosynthesis Activating Neuropeptides (PBANs) in insects, which regulate various physiological functions, such as fat body homeostasis, feeding, digestion, excretion, circulation, reproduction, metamorphosis, and behavior throughout all life stages, and in which the PRXamide peptide family (X, a variable amino acid) is a well-characterized neuropeptide component with a common amino acid sequence, PRXamide (NH2), at the C-terminal end conserved across Insecta, Title, Abstract.
Choi teaches that such neuropeptides are being investigated and developed through modifications for use in pest management, pages 20-21, and being “involved in various important biological processes during all developmental stages and in adults,” concludes that the “manipulation of insect neuropeptides to control pest population has great potential to be developed as target-specific, and biologically based tool in next-generation pest management,” Conclusions page 21. Further, in discussing what it considers the most popular and conventional approach, using NP analogs and mimics, Choi states that, “Various structural modifications of PK/PBAN/DH peptides, such as backbone cyclization, enable to increase hydrophobicity and stability from the natural peptide ligands and delivery into insects,” page 20.
From its listing of various insect neuropeptides, see Fig. 1 page 17, Choi identifies five neuropeptides for P. xylostella (relevant portion copied):
PNG
media_image4.png
19
743
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Please note that the far-right P. xylostella neuropeptide is GGSMTFSPRL, which is identical to instant SEQ ID NO:1 of instant claim 1.
The level of ordinary skill in the art is high, and the person of ordinary skill in the art has an advanced degree in chemistry, biology, or biochemistry, and many such persons have training and/or education in insect pest management techniques.
While Choi lists the P. xylostella neuropeptide GGSMTFSPRL in Fig. 1, Choi does not provide a particular or specific motivation to select this, versus any other neuropeptide, for use and/or further development and modification(s) for pest management practices and as an insecticidal compound in an agricultural composition for use in pest management.
However, as to selecting which insect may be of great commercial value when developing a neuropeptide-based insecticidal compound for providing in an agricultural composition, Martins, Abstract, teaches that the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella is one of the most economically important agricultural pests, its larvae causing damage by feeding on the foliage of cruciferous vegetables. In view of this economic importance, this would substantially raise interest of a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a neuropeptide of or close to one found in this species in order to develop an insect control composition to combat and control the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella because Martin teaches that this is one of the most economically important agricultural pests.
Thus, Martin provides a basis for selecting any one of the neuropeptides identified by Choi, including GGSMTFSPRL, to species-specifically target one of the most economically important agricultural pests.
Considering the focus on species-specific targeting, VIFIPKL would not be a likely selection given that this exact sequence is found in a large number of other insects listed in Fig. 1. Among the remaining four neuropeptides of P. xylostella, GGSMTFSPRL and NADEQQQSVDFTPR1 are noted as being shorter, so costing less for production, and differing to a large extent from the corresponding peptides in the list of Fig. 1. In particular the comparison of GGSMTFSPRL to other neuropeptides in the same column reveals that the N-terminus GGSM is not found in any other neuropeptide in this column. These factors provide a reasonable basis for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select GGSMTFSPRL for use as an insecticidal compound against P. xylostella, and also for further development, such as to increase hydrophobicity and stability of the natural neuropeptide and for delivery to P. xylostella. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given the teachings of Choi as to the effects of PBAN neuropeptides on multiple insect functions throughout the larval and adult stages.
A further motivation is that it would have been obvious to try GGSMTFSPRL for use and/or further modification to control one of the most economically important agricultural insect pests, P. xylostella. At the relevant time, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, namely to have more species-specific approaches to insect pest control and treatments. This is based on Choi’s teachings. Also based on Choi’s teachings, there had been identified a finite number of predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem, for P. xylostella there were five identified neuropeptides as candidates for use and/or further modifications to control P. xylostella, one of the most economically important agricultural insect pests as taught by Martin. Based on these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, in particular including use and/or modification of the P. xylostella neuropeptide GGSMTFSPRL with a reasonable expectation of success.
While the above provides rationales for selecting GGSMTFSPRL of instant claim 1 as an insecticidal compound, neither Choi nor Martin explicitly teach this insecticidal compound, the claimed peptide having the formula of claim 1, admixtured with one or more adjuvant, dispersant, emulsifying agent, or synergist.
However, Boerjan teaches that dispersion of the insect neuropeptide corazonin in vegetable oil is a simple slow release approach to oral uptake in the selected insect, an albino locust deficient in corazonin, Title, Abstract. Boergan’s results indicate that dispersing corazonin in vegetable oil improves the effect of the dispersed peptide when taken orally by an insect, see Fig. 1 and associated text, so one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to similarly formulate the neuropeptide GGSMTFSPRL in a composition comprising an oil such as vegetable oil to improve oral uptake by a destructive insect of interest, particularly P. xylostella per above, that is being targeted for control to reduce or eliminate loss of crops in an agricultural setting.
In view of the respective teachings of the applied references, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success for formulating GGSMTFSPRL with a vegetable or other oil, which per Boerjan would provide for simple slow release and also improve its effect when taken orally by a targeted insect. Based on the definitions of terms, see Claim Interpretation above, such vegetable oil so would function as so be classified as an adjuvant and synergist.
Accordingly, based on the above, claim 1 would have been obvious.
Because claims 2-4 encompass the peptide GGSMTFSPRL as the insecticidal compound, claims 2-4 would have been obvious on the same bases applied to claim 1.
Choi teaches that the C-terminus of the neuropeptides comprising the common amino acid sequence PRX are amidated, page 16, see also Abstract, so claim 5 also would have been obvious.
Given that claim 7 merely further specifies two agricultural composition types – an insect control composition and a plant protection composition, both related to insect control, claim 7 would have been obvious on the same bases applied to claim 1.
As to claim 15, given that Boerjan teaches vegetable oil improves the effect of the dispersed peptide when taken orally by an insect, when reasonably applied in an amount to increase the efficiency of the delivery of the insecticidal compound, so acting as an adjuvant, as well to increase the efficacy of the insecticidal compound, so acting as a synergist, based on the reasoning and rationales applied to claim 1, claim 15 also is rejected as obvious.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7925. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, however noting that the examiner will not normally be working on Wednesday-Friday and on Monday/Tuesday on alternating weeks, but will promptly answer messages upon his return to work.
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, MELISSA FISHER, can be reached on 571-270-7430. 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.
/JOSEPH FISCHER/Examiner, Art Unit 1658 1658
1 This is the sequence of the peptide claimed in applicant’s 19/090002 application.