I hereby certify that this paper (along with any paper referred to as being attached
`or enclosed) is being transmitted via the Office electronic filing system in
`accordance with 37 CFR § 1.6(a)( ).
`
`/Amy E. Mandragouras, Esq!
`
`Dated: May 28, 2015
`Electronic Signature for Amy E. Mandragouras, Esq.:
`
`Docket N0.: AVN—009RCE
`
`(PATENT)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`In re Patent Application of:
`Peter Sazani et al.
`
`US. Patent N0.: 8,871,918
`
`[Application N0.: 12/605,276]
`
`Issued: October 28, 2014
`[Filed: October 23, 2009]
`
`Confirmation N0.: 1379
`
`Art Unit: 1674
`
`For: MULTIPLE EXON SKIPPING
`COMPOSITIONS FOR DMD
`
`Examiner: J .S.P. McDonald
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313—1450
`
`STATEMENT UNDER 37 CFR §1.7051b!12!
`
`Dear Madam:
`
`This statement is respectfully submitted in support of the “Application for Patent Term
`
`Adjustment Including Request for Reconsideration Under 37 CFR §1.705(b)” for the above—
`
`referenced application. Patentees have reviewed the Determination of Patent Term Adjustment
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 154 (b) dated October 28, 2014 and believe that the US. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office ("PTO") incorrectly calculated the PTA.
`
`The PTA as recited on the face of US Patent No: 8,871,918 is 151 days. A copy of the
`
`PTO’s PTA calculation (“PTA Sheet”) available on Private Pair is submitted herewith as Exhibit
`
`A. Patentees submit that the determination of 151 days of PTA is incorrect for the reasons
`
`discussed below.
`
`According to the PTO’s PTA Sheet, the PTO determined that Patentee’s submission of a
`
`Response after Non—Final Action on April 18, 2014 constitutes a 87 day Applicant Delay, since
`
`the three month response date technically fell on a Federal Holiday within the District of
`
`Columbia (17.6,, USPTO closing), January 21, 2014. However, in view of the recent District
`
`

`

`Application No.: 12/605,276
`
`Docket No.: AVN—009RCE
`
`Court decision, ArQule, Inc. v. Kappos (No. 1:10—cv—01904—ESH, 2011 WL 2469826 (D.D.C.
`
`June 23, 2011); holding PTO’s reduction of PTA award due to response filed on day after
`
`Veterans Day holiday was erroneous), the effective three month deadline was Wednesday,
`
`January 22, 2014, since the three month response period ended on a Federal Holiday within the
`
`District of Columbia. As such, the PTO incorrectly assessed Patentee’s submission on April 18,
`
`2014 as a 87 day Applicant Delay instead of a My Applicant delay.
`
`In addition, According to the PTO’s PTA Sheet, the PTO did not debit any days of PTA
`
`for Patentee's submission of a Response after Final Action on February 23, 2012. Patentee's
`
`agree with this determination because the Amendments filed in the Response after Final Action
`
`dated February 23, 2012 were not entered. Therefore, this Response was not a reply for PTA
`
`purposes.
`
`In view of the foregoing, Patentees respectfully request that the PTO review the PTA
`
`determination and revise the PTA to 152 days, rather than the 151 days indicated on the face of
`
`the patent.
`
`Finally, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.705(b)(2)(iii), Patentees submit that the patent
`
`corresponding to this application is not subject to a Terminal Disclaimer.
`
`Dated: May 28, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Amy E. Mandragouras,
`
`Electronic signature:
`Esq./
`Amy E. Mandragouras, Esq.
`Registration No.: 36,207
`NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
`SCARBOROUGH LLP
`
`One Post Office Square
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109—2127
`
`(617) 742—4214 (Fax)
`(800) 237—2000
`Attorney/Agent For Applicant
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket