DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-30 are pending.
Claims 16 and 26 are amended.
Claims 1-30 are the subject of this Office Action
The following Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication dated 07/01/2026. Rejection(s) and/or objection(s) not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejection(s) and/or objection(s) are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Maintained Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be free from the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Maintained Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Diehn et al.
Claims 1-12, 14-25, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Diehn et al. (U.S. PGPub 2024/0392387 A1, of record).
Regarding claims 1, 7-8, 16, and 22-23, Diehn discloses a method comprising:
performing whole exome sequencing or whole genome sequencing on nucleic acids derived from a tumor biopsy sample of the subject (e.g., in creating a ‘personalized selector’ set of tumor-specific mutations to measure/monitor as per Example 2 and/or ¶0264, ¶0273, and/or ¶0728, which may be done via whole exome genome or whole exome sequencing as per ¶0274) to identify a plurality of tumor biopsy-specific SNVs (e.g., as per ¶0234, “[t]he selector set may comprise information pertaining to a plurality of genomic regions comprising 25, 30, 35, 40,45, 50, 55, 60, 65,70,75, 80, 85, 90, 95,100,110,120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190, 200 or more mutations present in at least one subject suffering from a cancer”);
selectively enriching or amplifying a plurality of target loci together in the same reaction volume from cell-free DNA derived from a blood, plasma, serum, or urine sample of the subject (e.g., as per ¶¶0698-0699 and/or ¶0733 and/or Example 2) to generate selectively enriched or amplified DNA, wherein 50 to 2,000 of the target loci encompass tumor biopsy-specific SNVs identified in the tumor biopsy sample of the same subject (e.g., as per ¶0234, “[t]he selector set may comprise information pertaining to a plurality of genomic regions comprising 25, 30, 35, 40,45, 50, 55, 60, 65,70,75, 80, 85, 90, 95,100,110,120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190, 200 or more mutations present in at least one subject suffering from a cancer”);
sequencing the selectively enriched or amplified DNA (e.g., sequencing the enriched DNA as per ¶0699 and/or Example 2 and/or ¶¶0732-0733) and generating sequence reads with a depth of read of at least 10,000 per target locus (e.g., ~10,000X as per Fig. 2B, 2C, and/or 5B), and identifying one or more of the tumor biopsy-specific SNVs in the sequence reads (e.g., “allowing the tracking and quantitation of those mutations originally discovered in the primary tumor” as per Example 2); and
wherein the method identifies a tumor biopsy-specific variant present in the first nucleic acid sample or the second nucleic acid sample at a limit of detection of less than or equal to 0.015% (e.g., as per ¶0471, ¶0733, and/or Fig. 5A).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Diehn discloses the above, wherein the tumor biopsy sample of the subject is from a solid tumor (e.g., as per ¶0014).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Diehn discloses the above, wherein the tumor biopsy sample of the subject is a tumor tissue sample (e.g., tissue biopsy as per ¶0691).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Diehn discloses the above, wherein the cell-free DNA comprises circulating tumor DNA (e.g., as per ¶0692 and/or ¶0733 and/or Example 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Diehn discloses the above, wherein the tumor biopsy-specific SNVs comprise clonal SNVs (e.g., as per ¶0273, ¶0281, and/or Example 1).
Regarding claims 6 and 21, Diehn discloses the above, wherein the method further comprises determining clonal heterogeneity of the tumor biopsy sample (e.g., as per ¶0273, ¶0281, and/or Example 1).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Diehn discloses the above, wherein the method further comprises designing PCR primers or hybrid capture probes targeting the tumor biopsy-specific SNVs identified in the tumor biopsy sample of the subject, and selectively enriching or amplifying the target loci using the PCR primers or hybrid capture probes (e.g., as per ¶0273, ¶0728, and/or Example 2).
Regarding claims 10 and 25, Diehn discloses the above, wherein the method further comprises performing barcoding PCR prior to the sequencing (e.g., as per ¶0123).
Regarding claims 11 and 27, Diehn discloses the above, wherein the sequencing step generates sequence reads with a depth of read of at least 10,000 to 50,000 per target locus (e.g., as per Fig. 2B and/or 2C).
Regarding claim 12, Diehn discloses the above, wherein the method is capable of identifying one or more tumor biopsy-specific SNVs in the sequence reads at a limit of detection of less than or equal to 0.015% (e.g., as per ¶0471 and/or ¶0733).
Regarding claims 14 and 29, Diehn discloses the above, wherein the method further comprises determining recurrence and/or metastases of the cancer from the one or more tumor biopsy-specific SNVs identified in the sequence reads (e.g., as per ¶0018 and/or ¶0147).
Regarding claims 15 and 30, Diehn discloses the above, wherein the cancer is colorectal cancer, lung cancer, bladder cancer, or breast cancer (e.g., as per ¶0029 and/or ¶0065).
Regarding claim 28, Diehn discloses the above, wherein the method identifies one or more tumor biopsy-specific SNVs in the sequence reads at a limit of detection of less than or equal to 0.005% (e.g., as per ¶0471 and/or ¶0733).
***
Response to Arguments
The 07/01/2026 remarks argue: not all elements are taught.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
Specifically, the remarks at pages 6-7 assert that “Diehn fails to teach or suggest the claimed combination, including tumor-informed identification of 50 to 2,000 tumor biopsy-specific SNVs followed by selective enrichment of corresponding cell free DNA loci” because the reference allegedly “repeatedly criticizes the prior art for being patient- specific and for requiring a personalized assay to be designed for each patient.”
This is not persuasive, at least because Diehn does not discourage the use of a personalized selector set, but rather instruct how to apply its use in their method. Example 2 states, inter alia, “[t]he personalized selector would then be applied for capture of the fragments of interest, sequenced and analyzed in the same manner as the 'off-the-shelf' CAPP-Seq workflow, allowing the tracking and quantitation of those mutations originally discovered in the primary tumor within the corresponding cfDNA”).
Furthermore, assuming, arguendo, that this were a nonpreferred embodiment (with which the Examiner does not agree), as per MPEP § 2123, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989), which states “[t]hat the [prior art] discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. This is especially true because the claimed composition is used for the identical purpose taught by the prior art.”
Further, Applicant points to embodiments of Diehn not relied on in the rejection (e.g., ¶¶0771-0773) to assert that “[t]hose population-selector disclosures may describe recurrent regions useful for a broad CAPP-Seq platform, but they do not disclose selecting 50 to 2,000 tumor biopsy-specific SNVs identified by WES or WGS in the tumor biopsy sample of the same subject.” At least because Applicant is relying on an embodiment not used in the rejection, and there is no indication that it would be relevant to the embodiments that are relied on, such arguments are not persuasive.
Next, the remarks contend that “Diehn does not disclose ‘generating sequence reads with a depth of read of at least 10,000 per target locus,’ as recited in claim 1” and that “Diehn's disclosure can at most incidentally include some values of 10,000 reads, but it is not clear whether the 10,000 reads are per target locus”. The remarks acknowledge that Diehn discusses in several locations sequencing read depths of at least 10,000x for the targeted loci, but allege that these discussions in are strictly for non-personalized selector sets. This has been fully considered but is not persuasive at least because Diehn is clear about the sequencing and analysis being the same, whether the selector set is for personalized or off-the-shelf sets (e.g., as per Example 2, Diehn discloses that assays using personalized selector sets are to be “sequenced and analyzed in the same manner as the ‘off-the-shelf’ CAPP-Seq workflow”).
New Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
Necessitated by Amendments
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Diehn et al. and Schmitt et al.
Claims 1-12 and 14-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diehn et al. (U.S. PGPub 2024/0392387 A1, of record) in view of Schmitt et al. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2012, 109(36):14508-14513) and/or Kinde et al. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2011, 108(23):9530-9535).
Diehn is relied on as above, for claims 1-12, 14-25, and 27-30.
However, it is noted that the Diehn reference does not explicitly disclose the limitation of obtaining sequence reads with a depth of read of 20,000x per target locus for at least 100 of the target loci, as set forth in claim 26. However, Applicant is directed to In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), where the court found "More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Routine optimization is not considered inventive and no evidence has been presented that the selection of at least 20,000x sequencing depth was other than routine or that the results should be considered unexpected in any way as compared to the closest prior art. In support of this, it is noted that Schmitt (e.g., as per the Mutant Recovery section on p. 14511) and Kinde (e.g., as per Table 1), both of which are drawn to detection of ultra-rare mutants through high-throughput sequencing, each disclose sequencing depths in the claimed range.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to perform the next-generation sequencing in Diehn using the sequencing read depths as per Kinde and/or Schmitt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since increasing of sequencing depth was known to increase sensitivity of detecting ultra-rate mutations. Further, as per MPEP 2143(I)(A), 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. In the instant case, all of the elements of increasing sequencing depth for detection of rare mutations were well known in the art, as per Diehn, Kinde, and Schmitt, the mere combining of the individual elements in one embodiment in the manner of the claimed invention results in no change in the elements respective functions, and the combination yields nothing more than predictable results.
***
Response to Arguments
The 07/01/2026 remarks argue: not all elements are taught.
Note that the rejections have been modified to address the newly amended claim 26.
Maintained Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
U.S. 17/692,469
Claims 1-12 and 14-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-38 of copending Application No. 17/692,469 (the ‘469 application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected claims of the present invention would be anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the subject matter in the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-12 and 14-30, the claims of the ‘469 application disclose a method comprising selectively enriching and barcoding 100 to 100,000 target loci from a cfDNA sample (from blood, serum, plasma, or urine) comprising ctDNA which span 100 to 100,000 tumor-specific variants previously identified from a solid tumor biopsy from the subject, sequencing to a read depth of 20,000x to 500,000x, and identifying the tumor-specific variants and with a LOD less than or equal to 0.015% (e.g., as per claims of the ‘469 application).
***
Applicant’s Response
The 07/01/2026 reply includes Applicant’s response to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of record: “Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections and requests that the Office hold the double patenting rejections in abeyance until such time as the claims at issue are deemed otherwise allowable. If any double patenting concern remains at that time, Applicant will address it at the appropriate time.”
This request is not the filing of a terminal disclaimer, or filing of a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, as the required response in accordance with MPEP 804 I.B.1.
Applicant’s request is expressly contrary to MPEP 804 I.B.1. (see also MPEP 714.03 and 37 C.F.R. 1.111).
U.S. 19/327,573
Claims 1-12 and 14-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23-50 of copending Application No. 19/327,573 (the ‘573 application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected claims of the present invention would be anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the subject matter in the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-12 and 14-30, the claims of the ‘573 application disclose a method comprising selectively enriching and barcoding 100 to 100,000 target loci from a cfDNA sample (from blood, serum, plasma, or urine) comprising ctDNA which span 100 to 100,000 tumor-specific variants previously identified from a solid tumor biopsy from the subject, sequencing to a read depth of 20,000x to 500,000x, and identifying the tumor-specific variants and with a LOD less than or equal to 0.015% (e.g., as per claims of the ‘753 application).
***
Applicant’s Response
The 07/01/2026 reply includes Applicant’s response to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of record: “Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections and requests that the Office hold the double patenting rejections in abeyance until such time as the claims at issue are deemed otherwise allowable. If any double patenting concern remains at that time, Applicant will address it at the appropriate time.”
This request is not the filing of a terminal disclaimer, or filing of a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, as the required response in accordance with MPEP 804 I.B.1.
Applicant’s request is expressly contrary to MPEP 804 I.B.1. (see also MPEP 714.03 and 37 C.F.R. 1.111).
U.S. 19/410,320
Claims 1-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 19/410,320 (the ‘320 application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected claims of the present invention would be anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the subject matter in the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-30, the claims of the ‘320 application disclose a method comprising selectively enriching and barcoding 100 to 100,000 target loci from a cfDNA sample (from blood, serum, plasma, or urine) comprising ctDNA which span 100 to 100,000 tumor-specific variants previously identified from a solid tumor biopsy from the subject, sequencing to a read depth of 20,000x to 500,000x, and identifying the tumor-specific variants and with a LOD less than or equal to 0.015% (e.g., as per claims of the ‘320 application).
***
Applicant’s Response
The 07/01/2026 reply includes Applicant’s response to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of record: “Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections and requests that the Office hold the double patenting rejections in abeyance until such time as the claims at issue are deemed otherwise allowable. If any double patenting concern remains at that time, Applicant will address it at the appropriate time.”
This request is not the filing of a terminal disclaimer, or filing of a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, as the required response in accordance with MPEP 804 I.B.1.
Applicant’s request is expressly contrary to MPEP 804 I.B.1. (see also MPEP 714.03 and 37 C.F.R. 1.111).
U.S. 11,530,454 B2
Claims 1-12 and 14-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 11,530,454 B2 (the ‘454 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected claims of the present invention would be anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the subject matter in the claims of the reference patent.
Regarding claims 1-12 and 14-30, the claims of the ‘454 patent disclose a method comprising selectively enriching and barcoding 100 to 100,000 target loci from a cfDNA sample (from blood, serum, plasma, or urine) comprising ctDNA which span 100 to 100,000 tumor-specific variants previously identified from a solid tumor biopsy from the subject, sequencing to a read depth of 20,000x to 500,000x, and identifying the tumor-specific variants and with a LOD less than or equal to 0.015% (e.g., as per claims of the ‘454 patent).
***
Applicant’s Response
The 07/01/2026 reply includes Applicant’s response to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of record: “Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections and requests that the Office hold the double patenting rejections in abeyance until such time as the claims at issue are deemed otherwise allowable. If any double patenting concern remains at that time, Applicant will address it at the appropriate time.”
This request is not the filing of a terminal disclaimer, or filing of a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, as the required response in accordance with MPEP 804 I.B.1.
Applicant’s request is expressly contrary to MPEP 804 I.B.1. (see also MPEP 714.03 and 37 C.F.R. 1.111).
U.S. 12,492,429 B2
Claims 1-12 and 14-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,492,429 B2 (the ‘429 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected claims of the present invention would be anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the subject matter in the claims of the reference patent.
Regarding claims 1-12 and 14-30, the claims of the ‘429 patent disclose a method comprising selectively enriching and barcoding 100 to 100,000 target loci from a cfDNA sample (from blood, serum, plasma, or urine) comprising ctDNA which span 100 to 100,000 tumor-specific variants previously identified from a solid tumor biopsy from the subject, sequencing to a read depth of 20,000x to 500,000x, and identifying the tumor-specific variants and with a LOD less than or equal to 0.015% (e.g., as per claims of the ‘429 patent).
***
Applicant’s Response
The 07/01/2026 reply includes Applicant’s response to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of record: “Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections and requests that the Office hold the double patenting rejections in abeyance until such time as the claims at issue are deemed otherwise allowable. If any double patenting concern remains at that time, Applicant will address it at the appropriate time.”
This request is not the filing of a terminal disclaimer, or filing of a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, as the required response in accordance with MPEP 804 I.B.1.
Applicant’s request is expressly contrary to MPEP 804 I.B.1. (see also MPEP 714.03 and 37 C.F.R. 1.111).
U.S. 12,203,142 B2
Claims 1-12 and 14-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,203,142 B2 (the ‘142 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected claims of the present invention would be anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the subject matter in the claims of the reference patent.
Regarding claims 1-12 and 14-30, the claims of the ‘142 patent disclose a method comprising selectively enriching and barcoding 100 to 100,000 target loci from a cfDNA sample (from blood, serum, plasma, or urine) comprising ctDNA which span 100 to 100,000 tumor-specific variants previously identified from a solid tumor biopsy from the subject, sequencing to a read depth of 20,000x to 500,000x, and identifying the tumor-specific variants and with a LOD less than or equal to 0.015% (e.g., as per claims of the ‘142 patent).
***
Applicant’s Response
The 07/01/2026 reply includes Applicant’s response to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of record: “Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections and requests that the Office hold the double patenting rejections in abeyance until such time as the claims at issue are deemed otherwise allowable. If any double patenting concern remains at that time, Applicant will address it at the appropriate time.”
This request is not the filing of a terminal disclaimer, or filing of a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, as the required response in accordance with MPEP 804 I.B.1.
Applicant’s request is expressly contrary to MPEP 804 I.B.1. (see also MPEP 714.03 and 37 C.F.R. 1.111).
Conclusion
No claims are 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY FLINDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heather Calamita can be reached on (571)272-2876. 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.
/JEREMY C FLINDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights