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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/6/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application, Amendments, And/Or Claims
The Applicants amendments/remarks received 4/6/2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 9, 15 and 17 are amended; claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 13 and 19-23 are canceled; no claims are withdrawn; claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11-12 and 14-18 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
The objection to claims 7, 15 and 23, as set forth at pp. 2-3 of the previous Office Action is moot regarding claims 7 and 23 due to cancelation of the claims and is withdrawn regarding claim 15 in view of the amendment of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as set forth at pp. 3-5 of the previous Office Action is moot regarding claims 6-8 and 19-23 due to cancelation of the claims and is withdrawn regarding the remaining claims in view of the amendment of the claims.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9 and 11-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while presumably being enabling for producing microcarriers wherein the foam core has a closed cell structure wherein the foam core is produced from proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem, does not reasonably provide enablement for producing microcarriers wherein the foam core has a closed cell structure wherein the foam core is produced with a physical foaming agent, a chemical foaming agent or an inorganic foaming agent.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The factors to be considered in determining whether undue experimentation is required are summarized in In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (a) the breadth of the claims; (b) the nature of the invention; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the level of one of ordinary skill; (e) the level of predictability in the art; (f) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) the existence of working examples; and (h) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. While all of these factors are considered, a sufficient number are discussed below so as to create a prima facie case.
The claims are not overly broad in that independent claim 1 is drawn to a microcarrier comprising a foam core containing polystyrene with a closed cell structure and independent claim 9 is drawn to a method of producing a microcarrier comprising a foam core comprising a closed cell structure. The nature of the invention is biotechnology, i.e., the physiological arts, which are known to be unpredictable (MPEP 2164.03); however, the skill of the ordinary artisan in such arts is generally high (usually Ph. D. level). No prior art reference anticipates the method of producing the microcarrier of claim 9; hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have necessarily had to rely on the direction and working examples provided by the inventor to practice the method of producing the microcarrier without undue experimentation.
The ONLY disclosed method for producing said microcarrier in the entire disclosure comprises producing the foam core of the microcarrier from proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem (Examples 1-3 and Comparative Example 3).
Applicant does not provide guidance or working examples for producing microcarriers wherein the foaming agent is a physical foaming agent, a chemical foaming agent or an inorganic foaming agent, nor does Applicant provide guidance or working examples for producing microcarriers wherein the heating an aqueous solution containing polystyrene containing a foaming agent (independent claim 9) wherein the polystyrene containing a foaming agent is anything OTHER THAN proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem. Methods which require reagents which are proprietary and not commercially available, wherein the exact generic equivalent is not disclosed, are necessarily not enabled to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the required reagents to practice the method are unavailable or not disclosed. The instant disclosure does not provide any enabling method for producing the microcarriers meeting the claimed limitations OTHER THAN heating an aqueous solution comprising proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem.
Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have had to engage in undue experimentation to practice the method of producing a microcarrier commensurate in scope with the claims, if possible at all; therefore, claims 9, 11-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to provide a disclosure which enables the practicing of the invention commensurate in scope with the claims without undue experimentation.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18-23, because the instant disclosure does not provide an enabling method for producing the microcarriers without the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem, the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem are not disclosed as being available to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing nor is an enabling method for producing the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided; production of the claimed microcarriers of claims 1, 3 and 5 is not enabled; hence, claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as not being enabled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Arguments of the Applicant’s Response on pp. 6-7 regarding the claim objections, the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) set forth on pp. 3-4 of the previous Office action and the rejection of claims 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) set forth on pp. 4-5 of the previous Office action are moot as the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-9 and 11-23 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) for scope of enablement in the previous Office action, Applicant argues (pp. 7-8) that “The specification of the subject application, including the examples provided therein, clearly discloses how to make and use the claimed microcarrier for cell culture of amended claim 1 and the method in amended claim 9 as well as each of their dependent claims. Thus, Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to use the claimed microcarrier for cell culture of amended claim 1 and the method of claim 9 without undue experimentation.” This is completely unpersuasive as the only disclosed method for producing said microcarrier in the entire disclosure comprises producing the foam core of the microcarrier from proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem (Examples 1-3 and Comparative Example 3). The disclosure does not disclose what the foaming agent is, what the concentration of the foaming agent is, what the initiator is, what the concentration of the initiator is, what the styrene monomer is, what the concentration of the styrene monomer is, what the surfactant is, what the concentration of the surfactant is, what the reactor is, what temperature the components are incubated at in the reactor, what the length of time the components are in the reactor, the pressure in the reactor nor the rate of injection of the foaming agent into the reactor; hence, it is completely unpersuasive that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been able to use the claimed method without undue experimentation; hence, the method of claims 9, 11-12 and 14-18 are not enabled and the disclosure is not enabling for producing the compositions of claims 1, 3 and 5 because the disclosure fails to provide a disclosure which enables the production of the compositions of claims 1, 3 and 5 commensurate in scope with the claims without undue experimentation.
As described above, because the instant disclosure does not provide an enabling method for producing the microcarriers without the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem; because the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided by LG Chem are not disclosed as being available to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing nor is an enabling method for producing the proprietary foamable polystyrene particles provided; production of the claimed microcarriers of claims 1, 3 and 5 are not enabled; hence, the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11-12 and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of an enabling disclosure is maintained with modification to address claim amendments and for clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gutsche et al., 1994 (cite U, PTO-892, 7/17/2024; herein “Gutsche”) in view of Cho et al., KR20140056014 (Foreign patent document cite 18, IDS, 7/22/2021; Espacenet English machine translation relied on in the rejection is cite N, PTO-892, 7/17/2024; herein “Cho”) in light of “Corning polystyrene microcarrier” (cite V, PTO-892, 7/17/2024) as set forth at pp. 9-14 of the previous Office Action is moot regarding claims 6-8 and 19-23 due to cancelation of the claims and is withdrawn regarding the remaining claims in view of the amendment of the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gutsche et al., 1994 (cite U, PTO-892, 7/17/2024; herein “Gutsche”) in view of Cho et al., KR20140056014 (Foreign patent document cite 18, IDS, 7/22/2021; Espacenet English machine translation relied on in the rejection is cite N, PTO-892, 7/17/2024; herein “Cho”) and Hillegas et al., US 4994388 (cite A, attached PTO-892; herein “Hillegas”).
Gutsche teaches a microcarrier for cell culture comprising a foam (i.e., porous) core containing polystyrene for culturing fibroblasts and chicken hepatocytes (Abst.; Figs. 3a-c; NOTE: Figs. 3a-c are two-dimensional images of three-dimensional transparent or translucent polystyrene foam cores; hence, the closed cell pores in the middle of the microcarrier in Fig. 3b are pores in the interior of the foam bead. The smooth perimeter of the bead demonstrates that the outer surface of the bead is smooth and non-porous).
Regarding the limitation of claim 1 that the microcarrier has a density of 0.80 g/cm3 to 0.99 g/cm3, Hillegas, Table 1 is cited as evidence that polystyrene microcarriers without internal pores have a density of 1.02 – 1.05 g/cm3, while the microcarriers of Gutsche would necessarily have a lower density because the polystyrene is foamed (see Fig. 3b). Gutsche teaches that heptane, i.e., a physical foaming agent, was the porogen for the manufacture of the foam core polystyrene microcarriers, wherein the porogen was 60% by weight of the monomer (pp. 802-3, “Microcarrier Fabrication”). The density of the microcarrier could be easily controlled by adjusting the amount of porogen in the preparation of the foam core polystyrene microcarriers; hence, microcarriers with a density of 0.80 g/cm3 to 0.99 g/cm3 are prima facie obvious over the disclosure of Gutsche.
The closed cell pores in the interior of the foam core of the microcarriers of Gutsche do not appear to connect to the outside of the microcarrier (Fig. 3b) and the closed cell pores which do intersect with the outside of the foam core do not appear to connect to the other closed cell pores, rather, they are cavities or depressions in the exterior surface of the foam core (Fig. 10). Additionally, the smooth perimeter of the bead in Fig. 3b demonstrates that the outer surface of the bead is smooth and non-porous. Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the foam core of the microcarriers made obvious by Gutsche prevents culture medium from penetrating into the microcarrier during cell culture because the internal pores do not connect to the outside of the microcarrier and the pores which intersect with the surface of the microcarrier do not connect to the internal pores.
Gutsche does not teach that the microcarrier comprises a primer polymer layer comprising the components listed in claims 5, 12 and 17 or a cell-adhesion inducing layer comprising gelatin; however, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify Gutsche’s microcarrier to comprise a primer polymer layer and a cell-adhesion inducing layer for culturing stem cells in view of the disclosures of Cho and Hillegas.
Cho teaches polymer supports, i.e., microcarriers, for culturing stem cells wherein the microcarrier comprises extracellular matrix proteins or peptides immobilized to polymer, such as polystyrene, via a layer of dopamine or polydopamine ([0003], [0007], [0009], [0014]). Specifically, Cho teaches the polystyrene core is coated with polydopamine, i.e., a primer polymer layer comprising dopamine formed on a polystyrene surface), then cell adhesion proteins or peptide are conjugated to the polydopamine, i.e., a cell adhesion-inducing layer formed on the surface of the primer polymer layer; Abst.; [0007], [0009], [0020-24], [0032]). Cho teaches that microcarriers comprising polystyrene, a primer polymer layer comprising dopamine and a cell adhesion layer comprising extracellular matrix protein allowed for stable attachment of human induced pluripotent stem cells which were able to proliferate without animal-derived support cells [0016].
Cho does not specifically teach that the cell adhesion-inducing protein is gelatin; however, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the cell adhesion-inducing protein to be gelatin in view of the disclosure of Hillegas.
Hillegas teaches low-density microcarriers for culturing cells comprising a polystyrene core coated with collagen, wherein the collagen is linked to the polystyrene with glutaraldehyde, wherein the collagen is the cell adhesion protein for adhering the cells to the microcarrier (Abst.; col. 2, ll. 52-68; col. 3, ll. 14-15; col. 3, ll. 22-26; col. 3, l. 66 – col. 4, l. 43; col. 5, ll. 10-50; col. 5, l. 66 – col. 6, l. 36). Hillegas teaches that the collagen can be any type of collagen (col. 4, ll. 28-29); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious for the collagen to be gelatin, i.e., partially hydrolyzed collagen.
Hillegas teaches that the density of the polystyrene core should be lowered because microcarriers having a lower density require less fluid turbulence to maintain in suspension which is advantageous because the shear force, e.g., stirring, damages cells and reduces their proliferation (col. 2, ll. 52-68). Hillegas teaches that the density of the microcarrier can be lowered by lowering the density of the polystyrene core (col. 5, l. 66 – col. 6, l. 36).
Hillegas teaches that the collagen coated polystyrene microcarriers have a diameter of 90-210 µm (Table 1).
The foam core of the microcarriers of Gutsche have a closed cell structure as seen in Fig. 3b; hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the microcarriers made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho and Hillegas have a foam core with a closed cell structure.
Hillegas teaches the advantage of attaining a low density for the microcarrier, teaching that cells are sensitive and easily damaged by agitation, such as stirring; hence, a more buoyant microcarrier is preferable. The density of the microcarrier would clearly influence the specific surface area of the microcarrier; hence, the specific surface area is a result effective variable and a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the specific surface area of the microcarrier to have an obvious effect on parameters such as the density of the microcarrier; hence, optimizing for the density of the microcarrier as taught by Hillegas with the materials taught by Hillegas, Gutsche and Cho would lead to a specific surface area of 150 cm2/g to 210 cm2/g.
Hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to produce the microcarriers made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho and Hillegas, comprising a foam core with a closed cell structure and a smooth, non-porous surface, with a density of 0.80 g/cm3 to 0.99 g/cm3 and an average diameter of 90-210 µm; to coat the microcarriers with polydopamine and then with gelatin, giving a microcarrier for cell culture comprising a foam core with a closed cell structure and a smooth, non-porous surface containing polystyrene, a primer polymer layer formed on a surface of the foam core comprising dopamine; and a cell adhesion-inducing layer formed on the surface of the primer polymer layer comprising gelatin, so that the microcarriers could effectively be used to culture cells; therefore, claims 1, 5 and 18 are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 3, the foam core of the microcarriers of Gutsche appear to have an internal porosity of ~ 30% (Fig. 3B); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the microcarriers made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho and Hillegas would have an internal porosity of ~ 30%; therefore, claim 3 is prima facie obvious.
Additionally, Gutsche teaches that heptane, i.e., a physical foaming agent, was the porogen for the manufacture of the foam core polystyrene microcarriers, wherein the porogen was 60% by weight of the monomer (pp. 802-3, “Microcarrier Fabrication”). The internal porosity of the microcarrier could be easily controlled by adjusting the amount of porogen in the preparation of the foam core polystyrene microcarriers; hence, microcarriers with an internal porosity of 2-30% are prima facie obvious over the disclosure of Gutsche; therefore, claim 3 is prima facie obvious.
Gutsche teaches that the foam core microcarriers are made by heating an aqueous solution comprising polystyrene containing a foaming agent (physical foaming agent heptane) to 70 °C for 1 hour (pp. 802-3, “Microcarrier Fabrication”), i.e., heating an aqueous solution containing polystyrene containing a foaming agent and foaming the foaming agent to produce a foam core, then recovering and drying the microcarriers. The foam core of the microcarriers of Gutsche have a closed cell structure (Fig. 3B). As discussed above, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the foam core of the microcarriers made obvious by Gutsche would have a culture medium permeation rate in the range of 0 vol% to 30 vol% of the internal pore volume at the time of culturing cells at 37°C for 72 hours because the internal pores do not connect to the outside of the microcarrier and the pores which intersect with the surface of the microcarrier do not connect to the internal pores. The method made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho and Hillegas would further comprise applying a primer polymer layer (polydopamine) to a surface of the foam core and applying a cell adhering layer of gelatin, wherein Hillegas makes obvious microcarriers with an average diameter of 90-210 µm, wherein the microcarrier has a density of 0.80 g/cm3 to 0.99 g/cm3, and a specific surface area of 150 cm2/g to 210 cm2/g; therefore, claim 9 is prima facie obvious over the method made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho and Hillegas.
Regarding claim 11, Gutsche teaches that heptane, i.e., a physical foaming agent, was the porogen for the manufacture of the foam core polystyrene microcarriers, wherein the porogen was 60% by weight of the monomer (pp. 802-3, “Microcarrier Fabrication”). The internal porosity of the microcarrier could be easily controlled by adjusting the amount of porogen in the preparation of the foam core polystyrene microcarriers; hence, microcarriers with an internal porosity of 2-30% produced by the method made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho and Hillegas are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Cho teaches coating the substrate with polydopamine, i.e., a polymer containing dopamine; therefore, claim 12 is prima facie obvious over the method made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho and Hillegas.
Regarding claim 14, the foaming agent in the method made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho and Hillegas is heptane, a physical foaming agent; therefore, claim 14 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Gutsche teaches that the foam core microcarriers are made by heating an aqueous solution comprising polystyrene containing a foaming agent (physical foaming agent heptane) to 70 °C for 1 hour (pp. 802-3, “Microcarrier Fabrication”). It would be prima facie to streamline the production of the foam core polystyrene; hence, the time at heat would be a result effective variable for streamlining the process. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to vary this parameter to optimize the manufacturing process and would arrive at the claimed time of 1 to 10 minutes; therefore, claim 15 is prima facie obvious. See also MPEP 2144.05 II.A. “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%)".
Regarding claim 16, Cho teaches coating the polystyrene substrate with the polydopamine solution for 4 hours; hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the method made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho and Hillegas would comprise a step of immersing the foam core in the primer polymer solution for 4 hours; therefore, claim 16 is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Hillegas teaches that the cell adhesion solution comprising collagen, e.g., gelatin, is contacted with the polystyrene core until the solution evaporates to dryness (col. 6, ll. 28-33); hence, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious that the method made obvious by Gutsche in view of Cho and Hillegas would comprise a step of immersing the primer-polymer-coated microcarriers in the gelatin solution for 10-20 hours; therefore, claim 17 is prima facie obvious.
Additionally, the time of incubation in the cell-attachment solution is a result effective variable and a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the coverage of the cell-attachment proteins to have an obvious effect on the adherence of cells to the microcarriers. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to vary this parameter to get optimal cell attachment and would arrive at the claimed 10 to 20 hours of immersion; therefore, claim 17 is prima facie obvious. See also MPEP 2144.05 II.A. “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%)".
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Gutsche in view of Cho in light of “Corning polystyrene microcarrier”, Applicant argues that Gutsche in view of Cho in light of “Corning polystyrene microcarrier” does not teach the amended claims which, inter alia, teach that the cell adhesion-inducing layer comprises gelatin. This is conceded; however, Gutsche in view of Cho and Hillegas clearly makes obvious microcarriers made of a foamed polystyrene closed cell structure core coated with a primer polymer layer comprising dopamine, which is then coated with a cell adhesion inducing layer comprising gelatin; thus, Gutsche in view of Cho and Hillegas makes obvious the compositions and methods of claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11-12 and 14-18 as set forth in the rejection set forth above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Trent R Clarke whose telephone number is (571)272-2904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 MST.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/TRENT R CLARKE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1651
/DAVID W BERKE-SCHLESSEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights