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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt and entry of the communication filed on Jan. 15, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-21 are pending. Claims 11-17 and 20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 18-19 and 21 are currently examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
(Previous rejection-withdrawn) Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
This rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on Jan. 15, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
(Previous rejection-withdrawn) Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written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 new matter rejection.
This rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on Jan. 15, 2026.
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.
(New Rejection-necessitated by amendment) Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misner et al. (US 2020/0080047 A1, published on Mar. 12, 2020) and further in view of Puleo et al. (US 2018/0001231 A1, published on Jan. 04, 2018) and Oslan et al. (Microorganisms. 2020 Oct 24;8(11):1654).
The amended base claim 1 is directed to a method for clarifying a bioprocess fluid comprising particles suspending in a cell culture fluid, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a cell culture suspended in an unclarified bioprocess fluid in a bioreactor;
adding an affinity chromatography resin directly to the unclarified bioprocess fluid in the bioreactor;
binding a biological target in the unclarified bioprocess fluid to the chromatography affinity resin; and
passing the unclarified bioprocess fluid with the bound biological target into an assisted gravity settler having one or more mesofluidic channels and an operating angle of less than or equal to 150 relatives to a working surface,
capturing the chromatography affinity resin with the bound biological target within the assisted gravity settler
buffer flush washing the captured chromatography affinity resin with the bound biological target:
eluting the biological target from the chromatography affinity resin;
reversing the buffer flow through the assisted gravity settler and
reclaiming the chromatography affinity resin;
wherein the method is suitable for use with cell densities 20 million cells/rmL
wherein the bound biological target is at least one biotherapeutically active product selected from the group of: cells, proteins, viruses, vaccines, DNA, RNA, and peptides.
Misner et al. teaches a method for clarifying a bioprocess fluid having particles suspended in a cell culture fluid includes flowing an unclarified bioprocess fluid from a bioreactor through a plurality of mesofluidic channels within a separation device to separate at least a portion of particles from the unclarified bioprocess fluid to generate a substantially clarified bioprocess fluid, and collecting the clarified bioprocess fluid from an outlet of the separation device, wherein a residence time of the bioprocess fluid within the separation device (See [0004]). Based on the invention, Misner et al. teaches the instant base claim 1 as follows:
Misner et al. teaches a cell culture suspended in an unclarified bioprocess fluid in a bioreactor (See [0004]).
2). Misner et al. teaches a bioprocessing system 180 including the bioreactor 182 (See Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
525
992
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The bioreactor 182 contains the unclarified solution of a base fluid and is the place of a biological reaction or process being carried out. After a reaction has taken place within the bioreactor 182, the unclarified solution of a base fluid containing cells and/or other dispersed particulates is flowed from the bioreactor 182 to the separation device(s) 196, where the unclarified solution contains the cells and/or other particulates, such as cells, aggregated cells, adhered cells on carriers, diatomaceous earth, resin beads, or a combination (See [0029]). In [0036]), Misner et al. teaches that the cell culture fluid 196 received is called cell culture fluid 198 (e.g., the unclarified solution containing cells and/or other particles suspended in a base fluid), and further teaches that ion exchange or affinity beads is added to the cell culture fluid 198 to capture a product or protein to be recovered (See [0062]), where the “198” represents the cell culture fluid and the device 196 can receive the cell culture fluid 198 from the bioreactor 182, and the device 196 may be an assisted gravity settler used to separate particles, such as cells and/or other particles, from the cell culture fluid 198 to allow for recovery of a clarified fluid 202 via a fluid outlet 204 of the device 196 (See [0036]). Because the bioreactor 182 is a place where a biological reaction or process is carried out (See [0029]), it is obvious that one of skilled in the art can directly add the affinity resin into the unclarified bioprocess fluid 198 in the bioreactor in order to bind to the biological target as claimed.
Nevertheless, adding resin directly into the unclarified cell culture in the bioreactor is known in the art. For example, Puleo et al. teaches that a resin mixed with cells cultured in a medium may be used as an unprocessed fluid sample. In these embodiments, a resin is directly added to the unprocessed fluid sample, which includes cells in the culture media and biomolecules produced by the cells (e.g. proteins). The biomolecules may include, proteins bound to the added resin (See [0111]), and by adding resin beads directly into the bioreactor (i.e. a body feed) or into the fluid path of cell culture medium prior to entry into device, resin could bind to desired protein. This mixture may be passed directly through the present separation device to capture resin-bound protein in a continuous manner, without the traditional process steps of cell
clarification/debulking (prior to traditional column chromatography) (See [0138]). Also, Oslan et al. teaches that the stirred-tank bioreactor equipped with an internal adsorption column has been applied for improvement of the performance of fermentation subjected with by-product inhibition. In such a technique, the resin with the ability to adsorb the target by-product was entrapped in an internal adsorption column with no direct contact with the impeller in the bioreactor. The use of the internal column allows the fluidization of porous adsorbent resins, so in turn, the surface of adsorbent in the column can be increased. In addition, the use of an internal adsorption column allows the cells culture to flow freely through the column, while the product or by-product is captured at the same time (See page 2, paragraph 3).
3). Misner et al. teaches passing the unclarified bioprocess fluid with the bound biological target into an assisted gravity settler having one or more mesofluidic channels and an operating angle of less than or equal to 150 relatives to a working surface by stating that in operation, the cell culture fluid 198 may be provided to the device 196 at a particular flow rate. This is the flow rate that the cell culture fluid 198 passes through the mesofluidic channels 208 (See [0039]), where the affinity resin bead is presented in the cell culture in 198 (See [0062]). As for the assisted gravity settler, Misner et al. teaches that the device 196 may be an assisted gravity settler used to separate particles, such as cells and/or other particles, from the cell culture fluid 198 to allow for recovery of a clarified fluid 202 via a fluid outlet 204 of the device 196 (See [0036]; Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). As for the degree of the operating angle, Misner et al. teaches that the separation device is operated at an angle of less than 10° relative to a work surface (See e.g., page 11, claim 1) that is in the range of the claimed angel degree.
Misner et al. teaches capturing the chromatography affinity resin with the bound biological target within the assisted gravity settler by stating that in some embodiments, the particles may be recovered from the device 196. In such embodiments, a charge of the added flocculant may also be used to capture charged species in the cell culture fluid 198, such as DNA. In some embodiments, ion exchange or affinity beads may be added to the cell culture fluid 198 to capture a product or protein to be recovered (See [0062]).
5) As for the flushing step, Misner et al. teaches that once the unclarified solution is flowed through the device 196 such that the cells and/or other particulates sediment from the solution, and before a terminal retention capacity of the device is reached, a common or separate fluidic conduit fluidically coupled to an inlet of the device 196 may be operated to flush out product contained in the device to improve product recovery and increased product yield (See [0031]). Because the 196 can contain resin beads (See [0029]), the resin bound with the biological target will be flushed as well.
6). As for the elution step, although Misner et al. does not use the word “elution”, Misner et al. teaches that in some embodiments, the clarified fluid may exit the device 196 and may be flowed through one or more additional devices 196 (e.g., a series of devices 196) or may be flowed through one or more additional purification subsystems 184 of the bioprocessing system 180 to further clarify or purify the clarified fluid (See [0029]). Based on the teaching, it is reasonable to consider that the purification step here includes the step of elution. This can be evidenced by Puleo’s invention. Puleo et al. teaches that additional steps may be used to purify proteins from the protein-bound resin retrieved from the mesofluidic collection chamber. The recovered protein forms the resin may be used for different downstream applications (See [0111]).
7) As for the reversing the buffer flow through the assisted gravity settler and reclaiming the chromatography affinity resin as claimed, Misner et al. teaches that once the unclarified solution is flowed through the device 196 such that the cells and/or other particulates sediment from the solution, and before a terminal retention capacity of the device is reached, a common or separate fluidic conduit fluidically coupled to an outlet of the device 196 may be operated to reverse the flow within the device 196 from the outlet to an inlet of the device. The reverse flow may return the cells and/or other particulates retained within the device 196 (e.g., retentate) to the bioreactor 182 and/or a separate sterile container 192 fluidically coupled to the device 196 and/or the bioreactor 182 (See claim 32), where the 196 contains the resin beads in order to clarify the fluid and then the clarified fluid may exit the device 196 and may be flowed through one or more additional devices 196 ( e.g., a series of devices 196) or may be flowed through one or more additional purification subsystems 184 of the bioprocessing system 180 to further clarify or purify the clarified fluid, such as a chromatographic separation subsystem 186 (See [0029]). Therefore, the separation system includes the chromatographic separation that can be separate the resin from the bound protein, further, these released resin through chromatograph separation can be reclaimed as described above if needed (See Fig. 1 below and Fig. 7). This can also be evidenced but Puleo’s invention. Puleo et al. teaches that in other embodiments, the resin after eluting the proteins may be re-used for other binding applications (See [0111]).
PNG
media_image2.png
508
899
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
791
798
media_image3.png
Greyscale
8) Misner et al. teaches the cell densities at the device 196 may sufficiently clarify the cell culture fluid 198 at varying volumes having a high cell density (e.g., >20 million cells/mL) (See [0037]).
9) Misner et al. teaches that wherein the substantially clarified bioprocess fluid comprises biotherapeutically active products, cells, viruses, vaccines, DNA, RNA, or a combination (See claim 5, page 11).
Accordingly, Misner et al. teaches a method for clarifying a bioprocess fluid comprising particles suspending in a cell culture fluid with the required steps as claimed in the instant application.
Regarding claim 6, Misner et al teaches that “the method of claim 1, additionally comprising: lowering the pH of the unclarified bioprocess fluid before flowing the unclarified bioprocess fluid through the separation device, and raising the pH of the clarified bioprocess fluid to a neutral pH after collecting the unclarified bioprocess fluid from the separation device” (See claim 11, page 11).
Regarding claim 7, Misner et al. teaches at one or more additional purification subsystems fluidically coupled to an outlet of the separation device and configured for further processing of the clarified bioprocess fluid, wherein the additional purification subsystems comprise chromatographic separation, secondary depth filtration, a polishing membrane, or any combination thereof (See claim 28, page 12 and Fig. 1).
(New Rejection-necessitated by amendment) Claims 2-4, 9-10, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misner et al. (US 2020/0080047 A1, published on Mar. 12, 2020) as evidenced by Puleo et al. (US 2018/0001231 A1, published on Jan. 04, 2018) as applied to claims 1 above and in view of Lock et al. (US 11,015,173 B2, date of Patent on May 25, 2021, PCT filed on Dec.9, 2016) as evidenced by CY13579-05Aug20-DF (https://cdn.cytivalifesciences.com/api/public/content/digi-15123-pdf).
Regarding claims 2-4, they further require that the method comprises the step of adding a detergent and a nuclease to the unclarified bioprocess fluid before adding the chromatography affinity resin (claim 2), the chromatography affinity resin further comprises a cross-linked 6% agarose matrix with a polysaccharide polymer bound to a ligand (claim 3), the chromatography affinity resin is AVB Sepharose (claim 4).
Based on the description above, Misner et al. teaches a method for clarifying a bioprocess fluid comprising particles suspended in a cell culture fluid, the method. However, Misner does not specifically teach adding a detergent and a nuclease to the unclarified fluid (claim 2), using a resin that comprises a cross-linked agarose matrix with a polysaccharide poly bound to a ligand (claim 3), AVB Sepharose as the affinity resin (claim 4).
Lock et al. teaches a scalable purification method for AAV1. Lock et al. disclosed that the suitable methods of lysing cells are also known in the art and include for example multiple freeze/thaw cycles, sonication, microfluidization, and treatment with chemicals, such as detergents and/or proteases (see column 16, lines 43-47) and at least one nuclease digestion step is performed prior to loading the mixture onto the anion exchange resin, (See column 10, lines 7-25), which is read on instant claim 2. Lock et al. teaches that for a 1:1 electrolyte such as sodium chloride (NaCl), potassium chloride (KCL), formate (HCO2 -), or acetate (CH2CO2 -) ( e.g., NH4Ac or NaAc ), the ionic strength is equal to the concentration. However, for a sulfate (SO4 2-), the ionic strength is four times higher (See column 9, lines 23-39), where the sulfate can be part of an ionic detergent. Lock et al. also teaches that suitably, the rAAV production culture harvest is treated with a nuclease, or a combination of nucleases, to digest any contaminating high molecular weight nucleic acid present in the production culture (See column 17, lines 1-24), Here these descriptions disclose the importance and benefit by adding a detergent and a nuclease to the unclarified bioprocess fluid before adding the chromatography affinity resin.
Lock et al. also teaches claims 3-4 by stating that the support is a cross-linked 6% agarose matrix having an average particle size of about 34 μm and having an AAV specific antibody (see column 12, lines 64-67) and the commercially available affinity resin used by Lock et al. is the AVB Sepharose™ high performance affinity resin (see column 13, lines 1-2). Lock et al. disclosed that “a method for separating recombinant AAV1 (rAAVl) viral particles containing DNA comprising pharmacologically active genomic sequences from genome-deficient AAV1 capsid intermediates” (See claim 1, column 27). Lock et al. also disclosed that “a method for separating recombinant AAVl (rAAVl) viral particles containing DNA comprising pharmacologically active genomic sequences from genome-deficient AAVl capsid intermediates” (See claim 1, column 27) and stated that the average yield of rAAVl viral particles is at least about 70% (See claim 3, column 28), which teaches the instant claims 9-10.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings from Misner et al and Lock.et al. to arrive at an invention as claimed. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so based on the advantages described above by adding the detergent into cells in order to lyse the cells, add proteases to break down protein and add nuclease to digest any contaminating high molecular weight nucleic acid present in the production culture (see column 30, claim 30). AVB Sepharose™ high performance is an affinity chromatography resin designed for the purification of adeno associated virus (AAV) with a fast, one-step purification of adeno associated viruses of several subclasses (https://www.cytivalifesciences.com/en/us/shop/chromatography/resins/affinity-specific-groups/avb-sepharose-high-performance-p-05953). Agarose is a polysaccharide polymer material. The standard agarose beads (6%), cross-linked, is a resin routinely used for gel filtration and coupling affinity ligands (https://zellx.de/product/standard-agarose-beads-6-highly-cross-linked/). Although both AVB and Standard Agarose Beads (6%), cross-linked agarose, were commercial products, Lock et al. successfully employed them into the scalable method for AAV1 purification. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to introduce, known resins, such as the AVB resin and 6% agarose in the AAV purification system to reach a yield of AAV particles as Lock et al. did. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in designing a viral vector purification method as the claimed method by introducing the detergent/protease, nuclease and AVB resin/agarose resin from Lock to Misner’s method.
The amended claims 18-19 are directed to a method of clarifying adeno associated virus (AAV) including the processes of providing a cell culture, adding an affinity resin, and passing assisted gravity settler having one or more mesofluidic channels and an operating angle of less than or equal to 150 relatives to a working surface with a specific cell density and biotherapeutic products.
The amended claim 21 is directed to a method for clarifying a bioprocess fluid comprising particles suspending in a cell culture fluid with process steps at providing a cell culture, adding and binding an affinity chromatography resin, passing the unclarified bioprocess fluid, capturing the chromatography affinity resin, and buffer flush washing, eluting, reversing the buffer flow and reclaiming the chromatography affinity resin, where the method is suitable for use with cell densities 20 million cells/rmL and the bound biological target is at least one biotherapeutically active product selected from the group of: cells, proteins, viruses, vaccines, DNA, RNA, and peptides.
Based on the descriptions above regarding the rejection of claim 1, Misner et al. teaches the claimed method in claims 18-19 except that the particle is AAV (Claim 18) and the affinity resin is AVB.
Based on the descriptions above regarding the rejection of claim 1, Misner et al. teaches each process steps of claim 21 except that the chromatography affinity resin that includes a cross-linked 6% agarose matrix with a polysaccharide polymer bound to a ligand.
Lock et al. teaches a scalable method for efficiently separating genome-containing AAV1 vector particles (See e.g., column 2, lines 45-50) and also teaches using AVB Sepharose for purifying recombinant AAV1 (rAAV1) viral particles (See e.g., Column 13, lines 1-14).
Lock et al. further teaches that the affinity capture is suitably performed using an antibody-capture affinity resin. In one embodiment, the solid support is a cross-linked 6% agarose matrix having an average particle size of about 34 μm and having an AAV-specific antibody (See column 12, lines 63-67), where the Agarose is a polysaccharide polymer material. The standard agarose beads (6%), cross-linked, is a resin routinely used for gel filtration and coupling affinity ligands (https://zellx.de/product/standard-agarose-beads-6-highly-cross-linked/).
In addition, AVB Sepharose™ is a high-performance affinity resin in AAV purification that can be evidenced by CY13579-05Aug20-DF (https://cdn.cytivalifesciences.com/api/public/content/digi-15123-pdf). CY13579-05Aug20-DF teaches that AVB Sepharose™ High Performance is an affinity chromatography resin designed for the purification of adeno associated virus (AAV). Benefits of AVB Sepharose HP include efficient, industrial-scale purification of adeno-associated viruses (AAV) of several subclasses by affinity chromatography, reduced regulatory concerns (due to non-mammalian derived product) in the production of AAV for clinical applications and high selectivity and excellent scalability. Further, CY13579-05Aug20-DF teaches that AVB Sepharose High Performance is based on a highly cross-linked 6% agarose matrix, which enables rapid processing of large sample volumes (See page 1, Cytiva- CY13579-05Aug20-DF).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching from Misner et al and Lock.et al. to arrive at an invention as claimed. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to add the AAV purification into Misner’s invention because there remains a need for scalable methods for separating pharmacologically active (full) rAAV particles having the desired transgene packaged from rAAV capsids which lack desired transgene (See Lock et al. column 2). Also, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to introduce the AVB resin into Misner’s invention because the commercially available affinity resin AVB Sepharose™ is a high-performance affinity resin in AAV purification that can be evidenced by Cytiva- CY13579-05Aug20-DF (https://cdn.cytivalifesciences.com/api/public/content/digi-15123-pdf) as described above. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to develop a method as claimed in the instant application.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed on Jan. 15, 2026 has been received and fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments for the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) & (b) are considered. The rejections are withdrawn. The previous rejected claims 6-7 and 9-10 are re-examined in the current office action based on the amendments.
Applicant’s argument on the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is not found persuasive as the follows:
1). Applicant argued that the cited references do not describe or suggest adding an affinity chromatography resin that does not utilize magnetic beads directly to the unclarified bioprocess fluid in the bioreactor (See Remarks, page 9)
The argument is not persuasive because there is no limitation for magnetic beads in the newly amended claim 1.
2). Applicant argued that the comporting with the text of Paragraph [0061], beads were added to fluid that was "provided from" a bioreactor, and not to the fluid in the bioreactor itself (See Remarks, page 9).
The argument is not persuasive. There is no such discussion in Misner’s [0061]. However, in Misner’s [0062], Misner teaches that “the unprocessed cell culture fluid 198 may be provided from a source, such as a bioreactor”, where this sentence is also reflected by the teaching in Misner’s [0036] for stating that the device 196 may receive an input of a cell culture fluid 198 (e.g., the unclarified solution containing cells and/or other particles suspended in a base fluid), and the particles comprise cells, aggregated cells, adhered cells on carriers, diatomaceous earth, resin beads, or a combination (See page 11, claim 4). Misner also teaches that the bioprocessing system 180 may include a bioreactor 182 in which a biological reaction or process is carried out. Based on the descriptions above, one skilled in the art can add the resin into the unclarified solution in the bioreactor and the resin binding to the biological target process can be performed in the bioreactor.
As for the argument that “it is well known that ion exchange beads should not be added directly to a bioreactor as they cause significant agglomeration of the unclarified cell culture and inhibit further bioprocessing”, applicant has not provided any evidence that ion exchange beads should not be added directly to a bioreactor. Further, the Office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to demonstrate the exchange beads can be added into the unclarified cell culture as Misner taught. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the claimed invention is different from those taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 562F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2d 1922 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
3). Applicant also argued that “Misner is not directed to a specific source of unclarified fluid and does not disclose, teach or suggest that affinity beads can or should be added to unclarified fluid in a bioreactor” and “Puleo does not make up for these shortcomings of Misner” (See Remarks, page 10).
The argument is not persuasive. Misner teaches a bioprocessing system 180 including a bioreactor 182 in which a biological reaction or process is carried out, and in some embodiments, after a reaction has taken place within the bioreactor 182, an unclarified solution of a base fluid containing cells and/or other dispersed particulates can flowed from the bioreactor 182 to the separation device(s) 196, where the particulates include resin beads (See [0029]). Here Misner teaches the affinity beads is added into the unclarified solution in a bioreactor before flowing into the device 196. Puleo is here as evidence to support that the resin can be directly added into the unclarified solution.
4), Applicant argued the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 of Claims 2-4, 18-19, and 21 based on the arguments raised for the bas claim 1.
The argument is not persuasive. Based on the description above in the office responses, Misner teaches the claimed claim 1. Therefore, Combining Lock’s invention with Misner and Puleo is applicable for teaching the claims in claims 2-4, 18-19, and 21.
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 RUIXUE WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7960. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm, 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, Thomas J. Visone can be reached on (571) 270-0684. 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.
/RUIXUE WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1672
/NICOLE KINSEY WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672