DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, drawn to a method for assessing and treating psychotic disorders in particular delusions and risk of developing delusions using a set of RNA biomarkers and comparing them to a reference standard to generate a score (claims 1-10) was acknowledged in the office action mailed 07/29/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of adenosine phosphate in Species Group II and IV and where in the subject is male in Species Group III, and in the reply filed on 01/29/2025 was acknowledged in the office action mailed 07/29/2025.
As discussed in the office action mailed 07/29/2025: Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/29/2025.
As discussed in the office action mailed 07/29/2025: Claims 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/29/2025.
Applicant Response
Applicant's response, filed 10/29/2025, has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Status
Claims 5-7 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4 and 8-20 are pending.
Claims 8-9 and 11-20 are withdrawn, as discussed above.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are under examination herein.
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected.
Priority
The instant application filed 06/17/2021 does not claim the benefit of priority to another application. As such, the effective filing date assigned to each of claims 1-4 and 10 is 06/17/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 09/25/2025, 10/28/2024 and 05/28/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have therefore been considered. A signed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings filed 06/17/2021 and 09/01/2021 were accepted by the examiner in the office action mailed 07/29/2025.
Specification
The objections to the and abstract are withdrawn in view of amendments to the abstract filed 10/29/2025.
The disclosure remains objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (i.e. “https” in para 0038). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant states the specification has been amended to correct the informalities (Applicant’s Arguments, p 12, para 2-p13, para 1).
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive as the amended specification still contained an imbedded hyperlink in para 0038.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 5 is withdrawn in view of cancelation of the claim in the claim amendments filed 10/29/2025.
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1: “the sample” in steps (c) and (d) should be “the biological sample” for consistency, and “denoting” should be “denotes”.
In claim 4: “wherein the biological sample is at least sample from the individual selected from the group consisting of” should be “wherein the biological sample is selected from the group consisting of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendments or after further consideration.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant arguments have been considered, but new objections to claims 1 and 4 have been applied after further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of cancelation of the claim in the claim amendments filed 10/29/2025.
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 1-4 and 10 remain 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. Newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendments and after further consideration.
Claim 1 recite the limitation " generating a sample score for the panel of RNA biomarkers, based on the scores of each of the biomarkers in the sample" in step (d). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim does not previously disclose scores for the biomarkers in the sample, and only discloses generating a score for each biomarker. Step (c) should likely recite “generate a score for each biomarker in the biological sample” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 1 is also incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the steps for determining a reference score for the panel of RNA biomarkers in the clinically normal relevant population in step (e), as the claim only recites generating scores for the biomarkers based on an increase or decrease in the expression levels of the biomarkers in the biological sample relative to the reference expression levels.
Claims 2-4 and 10 are also indefinite for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 1 on which they depend.
Claim 2 is also unclear with respect to the phrase “the biomarkers are quantified in samples taken on two or more occasions from the individual”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and the metes and bounds of the claim are rendered indefinite by the lack of clarity. Specifically, claim only recites “obtaining a biological sample from the individual” (emphasis added) and “quantifying RNA expression levels of a panel of RNA biomarkers in the biological sample” (emphasis added), and does not recite steps for obtaining additional samples. Clarification is required.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant arguments have been considered, but new rejections have been applied in view of claim amendments and after further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejections of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn in view of cancelation of the claim in the claim amendments filed 10/29/2025.
The rejections of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn in view of claim amendments filed 10/29/2025 5, as the claims integrate the judicial exception into practical application with the additional elements in the independent claims. Specifically, the active step in claim 1 of “treating the male individual identified as having delusions or an elevated risk of delusions with at least one treatment selected from the group consisting of: flunisolide, apramycin, adenosine phosphate, guanethidine, 15(S)-15-methylprostaglandin E2, meteneprost, methyldopate, hydralazine, rotenone, phthalylsulfathiazole, N-acetyl-L-leucine, eldeline, tocainide, laudanosine, pempidine, 7-aminocephalosporanic acid, Sulfachlorpyridazine, finasteride, 528116.cdx, SB 218078, Quinacrine hydrochloride, N9-isoproplyolomoucine, ALW- II-38-3, mitoxantrone, HG-6-64-01, Alvocidib, SB-216763, Syk Inhibitor, Cyclopiazonic Acid, GW 441756, LY 225910, AG 82, doxorubicin, mitomycin, and terfenadine”, integrate the recited judicial exceptions into practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2, because the additional elements apply or use the recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Step 2A, Prong 2: YES).
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea and a law of nature or natural phenomenon:
Claim 10 recite calculating combined biomarkers and clinical information Up- based on the equation:(Sample Score) + (Delusions Score) - (Grooming Score) = Up-Delusions Score; wherein the Sample Score is obtained as per steps (a) through (d) the method of claim 1; ((c) comparing the amounts of the biomarkers in the biological sample from the individual with the amounts of the RNA biomarkers present in the reference standard to generate a score for each biomarker; (d) generating a score for the panel of RNA biomarkers, based on the scores of the biomarker(s) in the panel); wherein the Delusions Score is calculated with a clinical rating or self-report scales; wherein the Grooming Score is calculated with a rating scale; assessing the level of delusions of the individual by comparing the individual's Up- Delusions Score to a reference Up-Delusions Score; and monitoring the individual's response to a treatment for delusions by determining changes in the Up-Delusions Score after initiating a treatment.
These recitations equate to steps of collecting information, analyzing data and making observations, evaluations and judgements that can be carried out in the human mind. Specifically, the steps for comparing quantified expression levels of the biomarkers in the biological sample from the individual and the reference standard to generate a score for each biomarker, generating a sample score based on individual biomarker scores, calculating combined biomarkers and clinical information based on the equation, and assessing the level of delusions by comparing the individuals score to a reference score can be practically performing the human mind as claimed and are similar to the concepts of collecting and comparing known information in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and collecting information, analyzing it, and reporting certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, each of the above recited limitations fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. It is noted that the monitoring step of claim 10 is not required by the claim as the administering treatment step is contingent upon the Up-Delusion score being greater than a reference up-Suicide score. However, even if this step were required, the monitoring step could still be performed mentally, as it only requires evaluating changes in the up-delusions score. Furthermore, the steps as claimed for calculating scores based on an equation equate to organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and reciting a mathematical equation, similar to the concepts of taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, the claims recite a correlation between the levels of biomarkers present in the biological sample from an individual and the biological state of the subject, such as the level of delusions in the individual. This is similar to the concept of a correlation between the presence of myeloperoxidase in a bodily sample and cardiovascular disease risk in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1361, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2017) that the court identified as a law of nature or natural phenomenon. As such, claim 10 recites an abstract idea and a law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that uses the recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment for a condition. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere data gathering . Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1 and 10 recite (a) obtaining a biological sample from an individual and quantifying the amounts of RNA biomarkers in the biological sample, to create a panel of RNA biomarkers,(b) quantifying the amounts of the RNA biomarkers in the panel in a clinically relevant population to generate a reference expression level for the RNA biomarkers in a panel of RNA biomarkers; wherein the panel of biomarkers a first group of RNA biomarkers comprising: Activator Of Transcription and Developmental Regulator 2 (AUTS2), Pyruvate Dehyrogenase Phosphatase Catalytic Subunit 1 (PDP1), Nuclear Receptor Subfamily 4 Group A Member 2 (NR4A2), GNAS Complex Locus (GNAS), Interleukin 6 Signal Transduce (IL6ST), Chromodomain Helicase DNA Binding Protein 9 (CHD9), X-Ray Repair Cross Complementing 6 (XRCC6), RAR Related Orphan Receptor A (RORA), Actinin Alpha 4 (ACTN4), and Acyl-CoA Synthetase Long Chain Family Member 4 (ACSL4), wherein the expression level of the first group of RNA biomarker(s) in the sample is increased relative to a reference expression level, denoting delusions or an increased risk for developing delusions; and the panel of biomarkers comprise a second group of RNA biomarkers comprising: Zinc Finger And BTB Domain Containing 20 (ZBTB20), Forkhead Box P1 (FOXP1), Spondin 1 (SPON1), and (NRP2), wherein the expression level of the second group of RNA biomarker(s) in the sample is decreased relative to a reference expression level of the RNA biomarkers in the panel, denoting delusions or an increased risk for developing delusions; administering a treatment for delusions to the individual when the individual's Up- Delusions Score is greater than a reference Up-Suicide Score, wherein the treatment is selected from the group consisting of. flunisolide, apramycin, adenosine phosphate, guanethidine, 15(S)-15-methylprostaglandin E2, meteneprost, methyldopate, hydralazine, rotenone, phthalylsulfathiazole, N-acetyl-L-leucine, eldeline, tocainide, laudanosine, pempidine, 7- aminocephalosporanic acid, Sulfachlorpyridazine, finasteride, 528116.cdx, SB 218078, Quinacrine hydrochloride, N9-isoproplyolomoucine, ALW-JJ-38-3, mitoxantrone, HG-6-64-01, Alvocidib, SB-216763, Syk Inhibitor, Cyclopiazonic Acid, GW 441756, LY 225910, AG 82, doxorubicin, mitomycin, and terfenadine.
Claim 10 recites steps for gathering data and is similar to determining the level of a biomarker in blood, which the courts determined to be an insignificant extra-solution activity in Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 and PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The treatment step of claim 10 is not required by the claim as it is contingent on the individual's Up- Delusions Score being greater than a reference Up-Suicide Score. Thus, the administration step does not integrate the mental analysis step into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2).) It does not appear that these limitations result in an improvement that is reflected in the additional elements of the claims. In conclusion, it does not appear that the additional elements of the claim integrate the recited judicial exception into practical application. As such, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea and a natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). Further analyzing the additional elements under step 2B, the additional elements as described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As directed in the Berkheimer memorandum of 19 April 2018 and set forth in the MPEP, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
The instant specification discloses the use of commercial kits, microarrays, systems and databases for quantifying RNA biomarkers from samples using previously described methodology, and therefore these steps are well-understood, routine and conventional (para 0029; para 0033-0036). Furthermore, the courts have found that limitations for determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means is well-understood, routine and conventional (Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
As discussed above, the treatment step of claim 10 is not required. The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No). As such, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant states the claims do not recite judicial excepts, as the claims are only based on mathematical concepts and do not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas or calculations, and the claims steps cannot be practically performed in the human mind as it is the expression levels and changes in expression levels from a reference level for all the biomarkers of the panel that form the score (as clarified in the amendments of claim 9) that are utilized in the method (Applicant’s Arguments, p 13, para 9-p 14, para 1).
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. As discussed above, claim 10 recites an equation within the claims and calculating a score based on the equation, and therefore recites a mathematical process. Furthermore, the human mind is capable of comparing quantified expression levels for biomarkers in a biological sample from an individual and quantified reference expression levels to generate scores for the biomarkers and further determine a sample score based on the scores for the biomarkers as recited, especially as there is a finite number of biomarkers used and the score can be as simple as a 0 or 1 to denote an increased risk of delusion. It is further noted that claim 9 is withdrawn and therefore not examined, but it also not recite any further limitations on the biomarkers. Furthermore, the claims recite a law of nature or natural phenomenon, as discussed above. Therefore, the claim recites judicial exceptions.
Applicant further states the claims integrate any recited judicial exceptions into practical application with the specific treatments to be amended, as recited in amended claim 1, and requests withdrawal of the rejection (Applicant’s Arguments, p 14, para 3-p 15, para 1).
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. The examiner agrees the judicial exception are integration into practical application in claim 1, and have withdrawn the rejections for claims 1-4. However, the treatment step in claims 10 is not required by the claim, and therefore does not integrate the recited judicial exceptions into practical application, as discussed above. Therefore, the rejection for claim 10 is maintained.
Prior Art
Claims 1-4 and 10 appear to be free from prior art as the closest prior art does not appear to suggest or teach a panel of biomarkers comprising Activator Of Transcription and Developmental Regulator 2 (AUTS2) . The closest prior art to Kurian et al. (Mol Psychiatry 2011, 16, 37–58; previously cited; hereafter referred to as Kurian) discloses a convergent functional genomics (CFG) approach to help identify and prioritize blood biomarkers for two key psychotic symptoms, one sensory (hallucinations) and one cognitive (delusions) using gene expression profiling in whole blood samples from patients with schizophrenia and related disorders, with phenotypic information collected at the time of blood draw, then cross-matched the data with other human and animal model lines of evidence (abstract). Kurian further discloses obtaining a blood sample from patients and animal models (i.e. clinically relevant population and extracting and quantifying gene expression for the subjects (p 38, col 2, para 2-p 44, col 1, para 2). Kurian also discloses scoring the biomarkers through comparison and cross-validation with literature derived human postmortem brain data, human genetic data, or their own animal model data (i.e. the reference standard) (p 44, col 1, para 3-col2, para 2). Kurian also discloses generating a panel of 31 top candidate biomarker genes out of 107 identified candidate biomarker genes for delusions prioritized by CFG score for multiple independent lines of evidence, including biomarker that are increase in high delusion states, as well as biomarkers that are decreased in high delusion states, and generating a score for the panel for both patients with high delusion as well as those without delusions, based on the scores of the biomarkers in the panel, and determining a predictive score (table 5; supplementary table 2; p 46, col 1, para 4-col 2, para 2). Kurian further discloses verifying the predictive power of the delusions state biomarker panel and identifying patients with delusions using the prediction score (p 46, col 2, para 1-2; fig 4; table 2). Kurian also discloses that in conjunction with other clinical information, such bio-marker tests may come to play an important part in personalizing treatment to increase precision, effectiveness and avoid adverse reactions (p 56, col 1, para 3-col 2, para 1). However, Kurian is silent on the specific biomarkers listed in claim 1.
The prior art to Koomar and Michaelson (Curr Psychiatry Rep 2020, 22, 4 previously cited) discloses genes implicated in language and their neuropsychiatric associations, which include markers recited in claim 1, however AUTS2 is described as a well-established as a risk gene for ASD, which also associated with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, but Koomar and Michaelson do not provide a suggestion that this biomarker is associated with delusions (summary; p 6, col 1, para 3-col2, para 4; table 1).
The prior art to Zhang et al. (05/28/2025 IDS, NPL 5; previously cited) discloses AUTS2 might elucidate the pathogenesis of schizophrenia and play an important role in its etiology, but there is no suggestion to use it as a marker for identifying delusions or a risk of delusions (abstract; p 19413, para 4).
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No.18/570,890 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims recite obvious equivalent or broader limitations in comparison to the reference claims. Newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendments and after further consideration.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant defers response to the rejection until the claims of the instant and reference application are in condition for allowance (Applicant’s Arguments, p 15, para 2).
This is acknowledged by the examiner.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIDHI DHARITHREESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Larry D Riggs II can be reached at (571) 270-3062. 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.
/N.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687