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
This application is in response to papers filed on July 30, 2026.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 30th, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 10-11, 13, 17-18, 20 and 38-44 are currently pending. It is noted that claim 10 has been amended, and claims 43 and 44 are newly added by Applicants’ amendment filed on 7/30/2026. No claims were canceled by Applicants’ amendment filed on 7/30/2026.
Therefore, claims 10-11, 13, 17-18, 20 and 38-44 are currently under examination to which the following grounds of rejection are applicable.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to International Application PCT/US2019/056577 filed October 16, 2019. The International Application claims priority to US Provisional Application 62/746,296 filed October 16, 2018.
Therefore, the earliest effective filing date for the instant application is October 16, 2018.
Specification
The listing of references in the specification 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.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Maintained Objections/Rejections in response to Applicants’ Arguments or Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13, 17, 18 and 38-40 remain rejected and claims 41, 42 and 44 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boj (Cell, 2015, 160, pp 324-328; Cited in IDS filed 8/10/2021) in view of Makareeva (Cancer Research, 2010, 70(11), pp. 4366-4374; Cited in IDS Filed 11/11/2022), as evidenced by Sachs et al (US 20170342385 A1) and Millipore Sigma (“DMEM/F-12 PLUS Basal Medium” product sheet”; Cited in PTO-892 filed 03/18/2024). This is a modified rejection necessitated by Applicants’ amendments to the claims in the response filed July 30, 2026.
Regarding claim 10, Boj discusses a need for understanding the pathways that contribute to pancreatic tumorigenesis (pp. 324, col 1, para 1) and utilizes neoplastic human and murine 3D organoid models to characterize tumor development within pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PDA). Boj developed 3D pancreatic ductal organoids from multiple murine primary tumors and pancreatic tissues from Kras+/LSL-G12D; Pdx1-Cre (hereinafter “KC”) mice, wherein their tissue develops preinvasive ductal lesions that mirror human preinvasive pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasms (PanINs) and subsequently, metastatic PDAs (pp. 325, col 2, para 1). Moreover, Boj details the method of generating human pancreatic organoids, wherein tissue biopsies were taken from normal human pancreas and PDA tumors, enzymatically digested with collagenase XI and dispase, wherein the tumor cells were then plated within a Matrigel (Figure S3, attached). Moreover, the human organoid cultures were cultured in a human complete medium, wherein the medium does not contain any serum, and human tumor organoids could sustain an indefinite number of passages (pp. 327, col 2, para 4,; Figure 3C).
Regarding claim 11 and 13, Boj teaches that cancerous cells were isolated from human pancreatic adenocarcinoma tissue (Figure S3, attached below).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Boj discloses culturing the embedding tumor cells into a Matrigel, wherein the Matrigel comprises laminin, entactin, and collagen IV, as evidenced by Sachs (para [0180]). Sachs discloses that Matrigel is a basement membrane prepared from Engelbreth-Holm-Swarm (EHS) mouse sarcoma cells (para [0178]).
Regarding claim 38, Boj discloses that the human organoids were cultured in a defined human complete medium in AdDMEM/F12 medium (pp. 327, col 2, para 4 and pp. 335, col 2, para 2), which is a basal medium used in low-serum or serum-free medium formulations for stem and 3D organoid cell cultures, as evidenced by Millipore Sigma. Boj does not disclose adding serum to the organoid culture and therefore teaches a serum free medium, absent any evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 39 and 40, Boj discloses culturing murine pancreatic ductal organoid cultures in fetal bovine serum (FBS) (pp. 335, col 1, para 4).
Regarding claim 41, Boj teaches dissociating the cancerous cells from human tissue using collagenase (pp. 335, col 2, para 2).
Regarding claim 42, Boj discloses that organoid cultures were obtained from biopsy (Figure S3, see attached).
Regarding claim 44, Boj discloses that and human tumor organoids could sustain an indefinite number of passages (pp. 327, col 2, para 4; Figure 3C). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would select 8 weeks according to the experimental design with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
682
1262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Boj does not teach the addition of collagen I homotrimers, wherein the collagen I homotrimers are present in an amount effective to favor organoid formation.
Makareeva discloses that carcinomas contain collagen alpha(I)---3 homotrimers, and that cancers cells may utilize homotrimeric collagen fibers to enhance proliferation and migration of cancers cells, and are resistant to MMP degradation (pp. 4366, Abstract; pp. 4366, col 2, para 2). Moreover, Makareeva suggests that cancer cells rely on homotrimer fibers to develop MMP-resistant roadways for tumor invasion, instead of remodeling the tumor stroma, providing the necessary support for proliferation and migration of the cells without forming invasion barriers (pp. 4372, col 1, para 3). Makareeva also discloses that the addition of collagen I homotrimers aids in the organization of tumor cells, and increases rigidity of the microenvironment, also influencing faster proliferation of cancer cells (pp. 4372, col 1, para 3). Further, Makareeva discloses that when culturing breast cancer cells on homotrimer films in media, there was an increase in proliferation and migration (Figure 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
654
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of the benefit of collagen I homotrimers contributing to enhance proliferation and migration of cancers cells as disclosed by Makareeva, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to culture the pancreatic tumor organoid taught by Boj in a medium supplemented with exogenous collagen I homotrimers of Makareeva in an amount effective to favor organoid formation and growth and progression as the addition of collagen I homotrimers was found to enhance cancer cell proliferation and organization of tumor cells. Moreover, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the culture method of cancer cells with collagen homotrimers disclosed by Makareeva, to the pancreatic tumor organoid model taught by Boj, as Makareeva teaches culturing cancer cells in a culture medium where they naturally produce collagen I homotrimers, and that when reconstituting cancer cells on collagen I homotrimer matrices, improved proliferation and migration of cancer cells. Furthermore, Makareeva discloses that collagen I homotrimers form roadways or physical paths to allow cancer cells to move easily into tissue. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a skilled artisan to culture cancer cells in an extracellular matrix as taught by Boj, in the presence of a medium comprising collagen I homotrimers, as taught by Makareeva with reasonable expectation of success, as it would improve the proliferation of cells within the pancreatic organoid, and also aid in the self-organization of cancer cells within the matrix. Furthermore, a person would ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to culture the human tumor organoids of Boj in a medium comprising collagen I homotrimers and have the organoids maintained for at least 8 weeks, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Makareeva discloses that cancer cells could proliferate in the presence of collagen I homotrimers.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments as they apply to the rejection of claims 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 38-40, 41, 42 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Makareeva, Boj, Sachs, & Millipore Sigma
Beginning on page 4 of the Arguments filed July 30, 2026, Applicants’ essentially argue the following:
Boj does not disclose supplementing the culture medium with exogenous collagen I homotrimers, much less supplementing the medium with exogenous collagen I homotrimers in an amount effective to favor organoid formation and growth and progression to lesions resembling human cancer tissue.
Makareeva does not teach or suggest that exogenous collagen I homotrimers should be supplied as a supplement to the medium of a three-dimensional extracellular-matrix organoid culture in an amount effective to favor organoid formation and growth and progression to lesions resembling human cancer tissue.
Sachs and Millipore Sigma do not remedy the deficiency. Those teachings do not disclose or suggest supplementing the medium of the claimed organoid culture with exogenous collagen I homotrimers in an amount effective to favor organoid formation and growth and progression to lesions resembling human cancer tissue.
In response to these arguments, they are fully considered but deemed not persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding 1) and 2), about Applicant’s argument that Boj does not teach the entire claimed subject matter, the Examiner agrees. However, Boj is not applied alone, but in combination with Makareeva and Sachs, as evidenced by Millipore Sigma, and the claimed invention becomes obvious when the references are considered together as a whole rather than each alone. Boj teaches cultivation of organoid cultures from primary pancreatic adenocarcinomas (pp. 324, col 1, para 1; pp.325, col 1, para 3), but fails to teach culturing cancerous cells in a collagen I homotrimer-supplemented medium. Although Makareeva does disclose that carcinomas secrete collagen I homotrimers (pp. 4366, Abstract), Makareeva also teaches that cancer cells were seeded within both heterotrimer and homotrimer films within media to compare cell proliferation, migration and adhesion (pp. 4368, col 1, para 2). Makareeva also found that when reconstituted in a collagen I homotrimer film, the cancer cells showed increase proliferation and migration (Figure 5), exemplifying that the exogenous addition of collagen I homotrimer in cell culture improves proliferation of cancer cells, which a skilled artisan would have been motivated to employ in the pancreatic tumor organoid model of Boj. Furthermore, Makareeva’s art is relied upon for the teaching that the collagen I homotrimer promotes proliferation and development of MMP-resistant pathways that aid in recruitment of cancer cells (pp. 4372, col 1, para 3). In view of this benefit, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to supplement the medium of the pancreatic tumor organoid taught by Boj, as Boj teaches organoid cultures comprising cancer cells, and supplementing the culture with collagen I homotrimers would enhance the viability of the cells with a reasonable expectation of success. Applicants have not provided a reason why supplementation of exogenous collagen I homotrimers to the medium of a three-dimensional extracellular matrix organoid culture, in an amount effective, would not be expected to lead to proliferation, growth, and progression of organoid cultures derived from primary pancreatic adenocarcinomas. This expectation is because collagen I homotrimers secreted by carcinomas are known to promote these effects. The function of collagen I homotrimers should be reasonably expected to be the same, whether produced by carcinoma cells within the medium or added exogenously to the medium containing carcinoma cells.
Regarding 3) both Sachs and Millipore Sigma are not relied upon for addressing the deficiency of collagen I homotrimers within Boj’s teachings. Boj discloses that pancreatic tumor cells are embedded and cultured within a Matrigel, an extracellular matrix component, (Figure S3) to cultivate pancreatic tumor organoids. Therefore, Sachs is relied upon to address the limitations of instant claims 17 and 18, as Matrigel is an extracellular matrix wherein it is also a basement membrane preparation secreted by Engelbreth-Holm-Swarm (EHS) mouse sarcoma cells (para [0178]). Moreover, Sachs discloses that the Matrigel comprises laminin, entactin, and collagen IV, as evidenced by Sachs (para [0180]). Likewise, the teaching of Millipore Sigma is not relied upon for the supplementation of collagen I homotrimer, rather, Millipore Sigma teaches that the AdDMEM/F12 medium disclosed on Boj contains no serum, absent any evidence to the contrary.
***
Claims 10 and 20 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Boj et al. (Cell, 2015, 160, pp. 324-338; Cited in IDS filed 8/10/2021) in view of Makareeva et al. (Cancer Research, 2010, 70(11), pp. 4366-4374; Cited in IDS Filed 11/11/2022) (ref. of record) as applied to claims 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 38-40, 41, 42 and 44 above, in further view of Thakuri et al. (Advanced Healthcare Materials, 2017; Cited in PTO-892 filed 9/12/2023).
With regard to claim 10, the combined teachings of Boj, Makareeva and Sachs render obvious the claimed methodology, as iterated above in the 103 rejection the content of which is incorporated herein, in its entirety.,
However, Boj and Makareeva fail to teach that the extracellular matrix is synthetic.
Thakuri discusses the use of both natural and synthetic biomaterials to culture cancer cells as spheroids or organoids (pp. 1, col 1, Abstract). Specifically, Thakuri teaches that synethic biomaterials such as polyethylene glycol, poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA), and polycaprolac-tone (PCL), can be modified with defined properties such as porosity, stiffness and signaling of specific molecules present within tumor microenvironments (pp. 2, col 1 para 2). Moroever, Thakuri discusses that synthetic biomaterials can recapitulate mechanical and mechanical cues in vivo, providing a greater understanding of tumor biology (pp. 2, col 1, para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to substitute the Matrigel-based organoid of Boj with a synthetic biomaterial such as PEG, disclosed by Thakuri, as synthetic biomaterials can be modified to recapitulate specific behaviors within the tumor microenvironment, rendering the organoids more physiologically relevant. Moreover, a person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use synthetic biomaterials for organoid culture as it presents an alternative method of cultivating organoids from cancer cells, as taught by Thakuri. As such, there would have been reasonable expectations of success in combining these teachings as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to combine known elements in the art to give predictable results.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments as they apply to the rejection of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103
Claim 20 depends from claim 10. The Office has not shown that Thakuri would supply the deficiencies of Makareeva, Boj, Sachs, and Millipore Sigma.
In response to the arguments, it has been fully considered but is not persuasive due to the following reasons:
Regarding 1) Thakuri is not relied upon for teaching the limitation of collagen I homotrimers, rather, Thakuri is relied upon to remedy the limitation of claim 20. Thakuri discusses the use of both natural and synthetic biomaterials to culture cancer cells as spheroids or organoids (pp. 1, col 1, Abstract). Specifically, Thakuri teaches that synthetic biomaterials such as polyethylene glycol, poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA), and polycaprolac-tone (PCL), can be modified with defined properties such as porosity, stiffness and signaling of specific molecules present within tumor microenvironments (pp. 2, col 1 para 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the Matrigel of Boj with a synthetic biomaterial as it not only presents an alternative method of cultivating organoids, but has an additional benefit of being fine-tuned to recapitulate the tumor microenvironment. Furthermore, One cannot show obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 G2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co.¸ 800 F.2d 1091, 231 375 (Fed. Cir, 1986).
***
Claims 41 and 42 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Boj et al. (Cell, 2015, 160, pp. 324-338; Cited in IDS filed 8/10/2021) (ref. of record) in view of Makareeva et al. (Cancer Research, 2010, 70(11), pp. 4366-4374; Cited in IDS Filed 11/11/2022.) (ref. of record) and Sachs et al. (US 2017 / 0342385 A1, 2017; Cited in IDS filed 9/12/2023.) (ref. of record), as evidenced by and Millipore Sigma (“DMEM/F-12 PLUS Basal Medium” product sheet”; Cited in PTO-892 filed 03/18/2024) (ref. of the record) as applied to claims 10, 11, 13, 17, 18 and 38- 40 above, in further view of Agorku et al. (Miltenyi Biotec, 2017; Cited in PTO-892 filed 03/18/2024) (ref. of record).
With regard to claim 1, the combined teachings of Makareeva, Boj and Sachs render obvious the claimed methodology, as iterated above in the 103 rejection the content of which is incorporated herein, in its entirety.
Regarding claim 41, in part, Boj discloses obtaining the cancerous cells from human tumor tissue (pg. 335, right col., par. 2)
Regarding claim 42, in part, Boj discloses generating organoids from human cancerous tissue obtained by fine-needle biopsy (pg. 330, left col., par. 1 ).
However, Boj discloses that the biopsy organoids were not dissociated prior to suspension in Matrigel® (pg. pg. 330, left col., par. 1) as required in claim 41.
However, Agorku describes a workflow to enable the isolation and analysis of tumor cells from cancer samples and tumor cells obtained by biopsy (see background). Agorku discloses that analysis of tumor tissue obtained by needle biopsies yield only small amounts of tissue, which in many cases do not suffice for dissociation (Background, left col.).
Agorku further discloses that by using different biopsy methods and needles available, it is possible to obtain high yield and optimal tissue dissociation (Background, left col.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to obtain human tissue by biopsy and dissociate the cancerous cells from the obtained human tissue since dissociation of cells from biopsy was described in the art for further analysis and cultivation of the cells, as taught by Agorku. A person of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the method taught by Boj comprising the generation of cancer cell organoids from limited amounts of cells provided by biopsies with the teachings of Agorku regarding the use of different biopsy methods and needles available with the purpose of obtaining a high yield and optimal tissue dissociation. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because obtaining tissue by biopsy is common practice in the art. Therefore, the invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments as they apply to the rejection of claims 41 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. §103
The Office has not shown that Agorku would supply the deficiencies of Makareeva, Boj, Sachs, and Millipore Sigma
In response to the arguments, it has been fully considered but is not persuasive due to the following reasons:
Regarding 1), Agorku is relied upon to remedy the rejection with Sachs, MilliporeSigma, Boj and Makareeva for the teachings regarding that the cells are dissociated from human tissue and that the human tissue is from a biopsy. One cannot show obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 G2d 413,208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co.¸ 800 F.2d 1091, 231 375 (Fed. Cir, 1986). Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. applicant statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. See MPEP 2145.
New Grounds of Objection/Rejections
Claim Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 is objected to for its recitation of the term “medium” as it lacks the definitive article that provides proper antecedent basis. It is recommended for the term to be amended to “a medium”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 10-11, 13, 17-18, 20 and 38-44 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.
Regarding claim 10, it is indefinite in its recitation of the phrase “in an amount effective”, as it is a relative term which renders the claim unclear. The term “in an amount effective” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of claim 10 are unclear because it is not apparent what quantity or concentration of exogenous collagen I homotrimers would be considered “effective” for organoid formation, growth, and progression to lesions resembling human cancer tissue.
The applicant must amend the claim to recite a specific, objective amount or provide clear criteria for determining what constitutes an “amount effective” as used in the claim.
Regarding claim 43, it is indefinite in its recitation of the term “the cells” as it lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 recites “cancerous cells”.
Therefore, claims 11, 13, 17-18, 20, 38-42 and 44 are rendered indefinite insofar that they depend on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 10 and 43 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boj (Cell, 2015, 160, pp 324-328; Cited in IDS filed 8/10/2021) in view of Makareeva (Cancer Research, 2010, 70(11), pp. 4366-4374; Cited in IDS filed 11/11/2022). This is a new rejection necessitated by Applicants’ amendments to the claims in the response filed July 30, 2026.
With regard to claim 10, the combined teachings of Boj and Makareeva render obvious the claimed methodology, as iterated above in the 103 rejection the content of which is incorporated in claim 10. Moreover, Boj teaches the cultivation of pancreatic tumor organoids to understand pathways to understand pancreatic tumorigenesis (pp. 324, col 1, para 1). Boj details the method of generating human pancreatic organoids, wherein tissue biopsies were taken from normal human pancreas and PDA tumors, enzymatically digested with collagenase XI and dispase, wherein the tumor cells were then plated within a Matrigel (Figure S3, attached).
However, Boj fails to teach culturing cancerous cells within a medium supplemented with collagen I homotrimers.
Makareeva teaches that collagen I homotrimers aid in creating MMP-resistant roadways that facilitate in the recruitment of invasive cancer cells (pp. 4366, Abstract; pp. 4366, col 2, para 2). Moreover, Makareeva teaches cancer cells rely on homotrimer fibers to develop MMP-resistant roadways for tumor invasion, instead of remodeling the tumor stroma, providing the necessary support for proliferation and migration of the cells without forming invasion barriers (pp. 4372, col 1, para 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to culture the pancreatic tumor organoids of Boj in a medium comprising collagen I homotrimers, as Makareeva teaches that collagen I homotrimers improve cancer cell proliferation. There would have been reasonable expectations of success in combining these teachings as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize to combine known elements in the art to give predictable results.
However, neither Boj or Makareeva fail to teach that the organoid comprises at least 1 x 103 cells, wherein at least 80% of the cells are viable.
Ivanov teaches stem cell tumor spheroid proliferation was influenced by seeding density (pp. e103817, col 2 para 1). Further, Ivanov discloses that seeding at intermediate densities (i.e. 1000 to 5000 cells per well) displayed the most proliferation across the spheroids (pp. e103817, col 2 para 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the number of cells used to form the organoids based on influential considerations in the design of the assay, such as culture conditions, supplemented exogenous factors, cancerous cell type and others as Ivanov teaches that cell seeding density is a result effective parameter that influences overall cell viability and would have been achieved through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katriel B Kasayan whose telephone number is (571)272-1402. The examiner can normally be reached 10-4p.
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, Maria G Leavitt can be reached at (571) 272-1085. 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.
/KATRIEL BARCELLANO KASAYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1634
/MARIA G LEAVITT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1634
Prosecution Insights