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 .
This office action is Non-Final due to NEW Ground of Rejection.
Claim Status
Claims 34-35, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 64, 67, and 74-88 are pending.
Claims 34-35, 37, 54, 58, 60, and 76-77 are currently amended and claims 79-88 are new claims.
Claims 1-33, 36, 38-47, 49-53, 55-57, 59, 61-63, 65-66, and 68-73 are cancelled.
In response to species election, applicant elected (A) the octapeptide ASDKPYIL (SEQ ID NO: 6) and (B) a chymotrypsin inhibitor on 12/4/2024.
Claims 64 and 67 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected method invention.
Claims 35, 78, 80-81, and 85-86 are further withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected peptide species different from the elected octapeptide ASDKPYIL (SEQ ID NO: 6) and a chymotrypsin inhibitor. Withdrawn claims maybe rejoin after identification of allowable subject matter.
Claims 34, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 74-77, 79, 82-84 and 87-88 have been examined.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2020/056924 filed on 03/13/2020, which claims foreign priority of EP 19163073.0 filed on 03/15/2019.
Withdrawn Rejection
The rejection of Improper Markush Group is withdrawn because the claim amendments overcome the rejection.
The rejection of claims 34-35, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, and 74-78 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn because the claim amendments overcome the rejection.
New Ground of Objection and Rejection
Claim Objections
Claims 34 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 34, the phrases “AA1 is an optional amino acid selected from A, L,I, and V”; “AA2 is an optional amino acid selected from S, T, G, A, N, E and D”; and “AA3 is an optional amino acid selected from D, E” should be revised to “AA1 is A, L, I, V, or absent; AA2 is S, T, G, A, N, E, D, or absent; AA3 is D, E, G, or absent”.
Claim 34 contains the acronym “pI2”, and an acronym in the first instance of claims should be expanded upon/spelled out as “potato proteinase inhibitor II” with the acronym indicated in parentheses as (PI2). The abbreviations can be used thereafter.
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 37, 54, and 83-84 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.
Claims 37 and 83-84 are unclear with respect to missing unit of percentage (%), rendering the metes and bounds of the percentage (%) in the claims indefinite.
Claim 54 is rejected as improper Markush group language. This rejection maybe overcome by replacing the word “comprising” at line 2 of claim 54 to be “consisting of”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 77 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 77 is directed to the polypeptide between 5 to 50 amino acids in length in claim 34 for failing to further limit the subject matter of polypeptide’s length in claim 34. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Modified Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 34, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 74-77, 79, 82-84 and 87-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claims 34-35 encompass a mixture of natural products comprising an enzyme digested meat-derived polypeptide of alpha-actinin-2 protein and potato proteinase inhibitor II (PI2) derived from a potato protein extract as disclosed in the specification (p3, line 10-18; p4, line 25-27).
The eligibility of patent subject is further analyzed as follows.
Step 1. The claim is directed to a composition comprising a mixture of natural products.
Step 2A-Prone 1. The instant specification disclosed the claimed peptides comprising the motif of ASDKPYIL as a meat-derived polypeptide of muscle-specific alpha-actinin-2 protein (p3, line 10-18). The specification disclosed the claimed peptides are produced from degradation over time by both exo- and endopeptidases naturally present in the intestine (p4, line 19-25), demonstrating the claimed peptides are natural products. The specification further disclosed potato proteinase inhibitor II (PI2), such as PI2 derived from a potato protein extract, demonstrating the claimed protease inhibitor of potato proteinase inhibitor II also a natural product. The claim requests that a combination comprises a peptide comprising the motif of ASDKPYIL and a protease inhibitor derived from a potato protein extract (e.g., potato proteinase inhibitor II in claims 74-75). Both products exist in nature and there is no evidence in the record that the combination of both imparts new properties.
Step 2A prong 2: No, there is nothing in the claim to integrate the judicial exception (JE) into any particular practical application. The amounts in the claims are the amounts in which the peptides are naturally-occurring and potato proteinase inhibitor II (PI2) is also derived from a natural potato protein extract.
Step 2B: No, there is nothing in the claim that causes it to amount to significantly more than the JE. Again, the claim is drawn to a composition comprising naturally-occurring peptides derived from degradation of muscle-specific alpha-actinin-2 protein over time by both exo- and endopeptidases naturally present in the intestine (p3, line 10-18) and a naturally-occurring protease inhibitor derived from a potato protein extract. Both of the claimed products are food ingredients can be taken as food via mouth in nature.
With respect to claims 34, 37, 48, and 74-77, 83-84, both the peptide resulting from protein degradation and the proteinase inhibitor II (PI2) derived from a potato protein extract in the composition are natural products. Furthermore, all inhibitors in the potato protein extract are NOT markedly different from the inhibitors in a naturally-occurring potato proteins.
With respect to claims 58, 60, 87-88 the claimed protein substrate are also natural products comprising meat, milk, wheat, bacteria to further generate a composition comprising various naturally-occurring products.
With respect to claims 54, 79, and 82, the limitation of oral dosage including a liquid of water, milk, juice or yoghurt, but all of them are either existing in nature or NOT markedly different natural products.
Applicant’s Argument
The claimed compositions provide a distinction from something that is found in nature because the claimed polypeptide comprising a KPYIL motif (Remarks, p9, whole page).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because (i) the specification disclosed the claimed peptides, such as the elected octapeptide of ASDKPYIL comprising the motif of KPYIL, are produced from degradation over time by both exo- and endopeptidases naturally present in the intestine (p4, line 19-25), demonstrating the claimed peptides are natural products and (ii) the specification further disclosed potato proteinase inhibitor II (PI2), such as PI2 derived from a potato protein extract, demonstrating the claimed protease inhibitor of potato proteinase inhibitor II also a natural product. The claims encompass a combination of two naturally occurring products without significantly more than the significantly more than judicial exception (JE).
Modified rejection
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.
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.
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.
1. Claims 34, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 74-77, 79, 82-84 and 87-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stagsted et al. (WO 2017103200 A1, previously cited 7/5/2024) in view of Hill et al. (Physiol Behav. 1990 Aug;48(2):241-6, previously cited 3/5/2025).
Claim 1 is drawn to a composition comprising 1) a polypeptide comprising SEQ ID NO: 3 no more than 50 amino acid in length and (ii) a protease inhibitor.
Stagsted et al. teach a composition comprising peptides for inducing satiation (feeling of fullness that ends a meal and controls how much to eat) and satiety as well as reducing the incidence of metabolic syndrome comprising overweight and obesity, cardiovascular diseases, atherosclerosis, hypertension, hepatosteatosis, diabetes and/or cancer (p1, line 3-7). Stagsted et al. teach dietary proteolytic products (peptides and amino acids) induce signalling in enteroendocrine cells of the intestine, ultimately leading to satiation and satiety (p2, line 15-19). Stagsted et al. show the peptide comprising an octapeptide of ASDKPYIL derived from meat (p2, line 19-22, SEQ ID NO:6) reading on the limitation (i) and the elected octapeptide. Stagsted et al. teach the polypeptides are preferred for oral administration since these types of polypeptides are derived from a source (e.g., meat) that naturally has to pass through the mouth and to the intestinal mucosa (p15, line 1-2).
Stagsted et al. do not explicitly teach the administered composition further comprising a protease inhibitor.
Similarly, Hill et al. teach oral administration of proteinase inhibitor II from potatoes in soup reduces energy intake in man (Title and Abstract) such as food intake (Abstract and p241, col 1, para 1). Hill et al. teach the oral administration of 1 g of a proteinase inhibitor isolated from potatoes (POT II) which binds to both trypsin and chymotrypsin led to a significant four-fold increase in plasma CCK levels (p241, col 2, para 1), reading on the limitation (ii). Because both Stagsted et al. and Hill et al. teach oral administration of a food ingredient able to induce satiation and satiety, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine both food ingredients of (i) Stagsted’s peptide comprising the motif of ASDKPYIL derived from meat and (ii) Hill’s proteinase inhibitor isolated from potatoes (POT II) which binds to both trypsin and chymotrypsin led to a significant four-fold increase in plasma CCK levels for the same purpose of inducing satiation (feeling of fullness that ends a meal and controls how much to eat) and satiety as suggested by Stagsted et al. (p1, line 3-7), reading on claims 34 and 76-77. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for same purpose in order to form third composition that is to be used for very same purpose; idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, CCPA 1980. See MPEP 2144.06.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention would have found it obvious to combine Stagsted’s peptide comprising the motif of ASDKPYIL and Hill’s proteinase inhibitor isolated from potatoes because (a) Stagsted et al. teach oral administration of a peptide comprising ASDKPYIL (p2, line 22, SEQ ID NO:6) for inducing satiation (feeling of fullness that ends a meal and controls how much to eat) and satiety (p1, line 3-7) and (b) Hill et al. teach the oral administration of a proteinase inhibitor isolated from potatoes (POT II) which binds to both trypsin and chymotrypsin led to a significant four-fold increase in plasma CCK levels (p241, col 2, para 1) and cholecystokinin (CCK) is one of a group of gut peptides which are known to reduce food intake in man as a potential satiety agent (p241, col 1, para 1). The combination would have reasonable expectation of success because both Stagsted et al. and Hill et al. teach oral administration of a food ingredient able to induce satiation and satiety.
With respect to claim 48, Stagsted et al. teach the polypeptide is added to food composition, food product, or food ingredient (p16, line 22-25). Hill et al. teach proteinase inhibitor II in a food composition (p242, col 1, Dosing and Preload), reading on the composition in a food composition.
With respect to claims 54, 79, and 82, Stagsted et al. suggest the composition for oral administration formulated in the forms comprising tablets, capsules, caplets, slurries, sachets, suspensions, chewing gum, and powder formulation that may be dissolved in a liquid, such as water, milk, juice, or yogurt (p31, line 3-7).
With respect to claims 58, 60, and 87-88, Hill et al. teach proteinase inhibitor II in a food composition of chicken consomme comprising 15 g of proteins including 1.5 g of proteinase inhibitor II (1.5 g) (p242, col 1, Dosing and Preload). The chicken meat proteins serving as substrates for endoproteinase, such as trypsin or chymotrypsin.
With respect to claims 74-75, Hill et al. teach the proteinase inhibitor can be extracted from potatoes (Abstract).
With respect to claims 37and 83-84, Hill et al. teach 1.5 g PTO II, an inhibitor of trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitor, can be administered in 130 ml apple juice without additional proteins, 100% total protein, (p242, col 1, para 2). Hill et al. teach 1.5 g proteinase inhibitor II administered with chicken soup in a total protein of 15.5g (p242, col 1, Dosing and Preload). Thus, Hill et al. show the effective amount of trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitor (e.g., proteinase inhibitor II) for reducing food intake and inducing satiation and satiety is an effective variable that can be optimized between slightly less than 10% and 100%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Applicant’s Argument
The amendments to claims overcome the rejection of record (p11, para 2-4).
The cited prior art fails to teach or suggest that combining the recited polypeptide and protease inhibitor, as claimed, can provide for increased efficacy and stability of the polypeptide because Hill does not indicate that stability of the presently recited polypeptide can be maximized by combining with a protease inhibitor and an endoproteinase substrate (p11, last para to p13, para 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons as follows.
Applicant’s argument (i) is not persuasive because the claim amendments do not overcomes the rejection of record. See the rejection above not repeated here. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for same purpose in order to form third composition that is to be used for very same purpose; idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, CCPA 1980. See MPEP 2144.06.
Applicant’s argument (ii) is not persuasive because (a) one of ordinary skill in the art understand a proteinase inhibitor by definition able to bind to one or more proteinases (e.g., Hill’s POT II) to protect a bioactive protein from proteinase degradation by reducing availability of free proteinases leading to increased efficacy and stability of a therapeutic peptide administered together with a proteinase inhibitor and (b) Hill et al. teach the oral administration of 1 g of a proteinase inhibitor isolated from potatoes (POT II) which binds to both trypsin and chymotrypsin led to a significant four-fold increase in plasma CCK levels (p241, col 2, para 1) and reducing food intake described above. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2144(IV). Also See MPEP 2144.06 above.
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 34, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 74-77, 79, 82-84 and 87-88 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,259,554 B2 (the ‘554 patent) in view of Stagsted et al. (WO 2017103200 A1, previously cited 7/5/2024) and Hill et al. (Physiol Behav. 1990 Aug;48(2):241-6, previously cited 3/5/2025).
Claims 1 and 7 of the ‘554 patent disclosed an oral dosage form comprising a peptide of ASDKPYIL (SEQ ID NO: 6).
Claims 1 and 7 of the ‘554 patent do not disclose the peptide composition further comprising a protease inhibitor.
The relevancy of Stagsted et al. and Hill et al. described above as applied to claims 34, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 74-77, 79, 82-84 and 87-88 not repeated here.
Because Stagsted et al. in view of Hill et al. teach the beneficial combination of the peptide ASDKPYIL (SEQ ID NO: 6) taught by claims 1 and 7 of the ‘554 patent and the proteinase inhibitor II from potatoes to induce satiation and satiety, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to beneficially combine claims 1 and 7 of the ‘554 patent in view of Stagsted et al. and Hill et al.
Thus, claims 1 and 7 of the ‘554 patent in view of Stagsted et al. and Hill et al. are obvious to the instant claims 34, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 74-77, 79, 82-84 and 87-88.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See response to arguments above.
Claims 34, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 74-77, 79, 82-84 and 87-88 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of copending Application No. 17/438,772 (the ‘772 application, 6/20/2025) in view of Stagsted et al. (WO 2017103200 A1, previously cited 7/5/2024) and Hill et al. (Physiol Behav. 1990 Aug;48(2):241-6, previously cited 3/5/2025).
Claims 1 and 14 of the ‘772 application disclosed a peptide of ASDKPYIL (SEQ ID NO: 6) and a peptide hormone.
Claims 1 and 14 of the ‘772 application do not disclose the peptide composition further comprising a protease inhibitor.
The relevancy of Stagsted et al. and Hill et al. described above as applied to claims 34, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 74-77, 79, 82-84 and 87-88 not repeated here.
Because Stagsted et al. in view of Hill et al. teach the beneficial combination of the peptide ASDKPYIL (SEQ ID NO: 6) taught by claims 1 and 14 of the ‘772 application and the proteinase inhibitor II from potatoes to induce satiation and satiety, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to beneficially combine claims 1 and 14 of the ‘772 application in view of Stagsted et al. and Hill et al.
Thus, claims 1 and 14 of the ‘772 application in view of Stagsted et al. and Hill et al. are obvious to the instant claims 34, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 74-77, 79, 82-84 and 87-88.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See response to arguments above.
Claims 34, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 74-77, 79, 82-84 and 87-88 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,295,397 B2 (the ‘397 patent, previously rejected as 17/678,574) in view of Stagsted et al. (WO 2017103200 A1, previously cited 7/5/2024) and Hill et al. (Physiol Behav. 1990 Aug;48(2):241-6, previously cited 3/5/2025).
Claims 1 and 13 of the ‘397 patent disclosed a peptide of ASDKPYIL (SEQ ID NO: 6).
Claims 1 and 13 of the ‘397 patent do not disclose the peptide composition further comprising a protease inhibitor.
The relevancy of Stagsted et al. and Hill et al. described above as applied to claims 34, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 74-77, 79, 82-84 and 87-88 not repeated here.
Because Stagsted et al. in view of Hill et al. teach the beneficial combination of the peptide ASDKPYIL (SEQ ID NO: 6) taught by claims 1 and 13 of the ‘397 patent and the proteinase inhibitor II from potatoes to induce satiation and satiety, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to beneficially combine claims 1 and 7 of the ‘554 patent in view of Stagsted et al. and Hill et al.
Thus, claims 1 and 13 of the ‘397 patent in view of Stagsted et al. and Hill et al. are obvious to the instant claims 34, 37, 48, 54, 58, 60, 74-77, 79, 82-84 and 87-88.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See response to arguments above.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA-HAI LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/J.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1658
24-November-2025
/LI N KOMATSU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658