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 .
Applicant Response
Applicant's response, filed 05/26/2026, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 10/23/2025 was acknowledged in the office action 02/26/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 17- 20 are canceled
Claims 21-24 are newly added.
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are pending and under examination herein.
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are rejected.
Priority
The instant application does not claim the benefit of priority to another application. As such, the effective filing date assigned to each of claims 1-16 and 21-24 is 09/30/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 06/08/2026 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 submitted 09/30/2021 were accepted by the examiner in the office action mailed 02/26/2026.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 3 is withdrawn in view of claim amendments filed 05/26/2026.
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). This warning is newly recited and necessitated by claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn in view of claim amendments filed 05/26/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 5-10, 15, and 21-24 appear to be free from a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are found to recite statutory subject matter and do not recite any judicial exceptions.
The rejection of claims 2-4, 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn after further consideration and in view of Applicant Arguments filed 05/26/2026, stating that under Step 2A Prong One, the claims as a whole integrate any such judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two as the claimed methods address a recognized problem in anti-counterfeiting technology, namely that many types of anti- counterfeit tags can themselves be forged by sophisticated bad actors and that it is desirable to develop new types of anti-counterfeit tags that are relatively easy and inexpensive to produce and validate but difficult and expensive to copy, as disclosed in the instant specification para 0003, by providing an improvement by tying the recited comparison to a physical molecular tagging and authentication workflow - synthesizing polynucleotides with random sequences, applying them to an item, collecting them from the item, and sequencing the collected polynucleotides - such that the comparison closes the loop on a physical security system rather than operating as freestanding logic (Applicant’s Arguments, p 8, para 2-p 9, para 2). This was found to be persuasive, and the additional elements of synthesizing a plurality of synthetic polynucleotides comprising random sequences, sequencing at least a first portion of the plurality of synthetic polynucleotides to obtain a plurality of original sequences, the first portion comprising less than all of the plurality of synthetic polynucleotides, registering, in an electronic record, the original sequences and a description of the item; and applying at least a second portion of the plurality of synthetic polynucleotides to the item, the second portion comprising (i) less than all of the first portion and (ii) synthetic polynucleotides that were not sequenced, collecting at least a portion of the synthetic polynucleotides from the item, and sequencing at least a portion of the synthetic polynucleotides collected from the item to obtain a plurality of retrieved sequences are found to use or interact with the exception in a way that meaningfully limit the judicial exception, and integrate it into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong 2: YES).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections of claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-13 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berrada et al. (US20150018538A1; 03/24/2023 IDS, US Patent Pub #2; previously cited; hereafter referred to as Berrada) are withdrawn in view of claim amendments filed 05/26/2026, as Berrada does not appear to disclose applying a second portion of synthetic polynucleotides comprising both less than the first portion and non-sequenced polynucleotides to the item.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of claims 3 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrada et al. (US20150018538A1; 03/24/2023 IDS, US Patent Pub #2; hereafter referred to as Berrada) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Shamey (AATCC review 2009, 9, no. 4, p 31-38) withdrawn in view of claim amendments filed 05/26/2026, as Berrada does not appear to disclose applying a second portion of synthetic polynucleotides comprising both less than the first portion and non-sequenced polynucleotides to the item.
The rejections of claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrada et al. (US20150018538A1; 03/24/2023 IDS, US Patent Pub #2; hereafter referred to as Berrada) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Yin et al (US20210019973A1; 06/17/2025 IDS, US Patent Pub #25; hereafter referred to as Yin) withdrawn in view of claim amendments filed 05/26/2026, as Berrada does not appear to disclose applying a second portion of synthetic polynucleotides comprising both less than the first portion and non-sequenced polynucleotides to the item.
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 1-2, 5-6, 8-13, 15-16, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrada et al. (US20150018538A1; 03/24/2023 IDS, US Patent Pub #2; previously cited; hereafter referred to as Berrada), in view of Jung et al. (US20150107475A1; newly cited; hereafter referred to as Jung) and Connolly (WO2004063856A2; newly cited; hereafter referred to as Connolly). This rejection is newly recited and necessitated by claim amendments.
With respect to claim 1, 5-6 and 15, Berrada discloses a method and device for marking an article for security, tracking or authentication. The method includes depositing a solution comprising a nucleic acid marker onto at least a portion of the article (abstract; fig 1).
Berrada further discloses the marker can be synthetic DNA, semi-synthetic DNA of a combination of synthetic and semi-synthetic DNA (para 0031).
Berrada further discloses the DNA may be formed by extracting, digesting and re-ligating naturally or non-naturally occurring DNA, and further that it may be specifically or randomly digested and ligated to generate artificial nucleic acid sequences which are unique to the world, and that digestion may be performed randomly or site-specifically, for example by random or site specific nucleases, so that the nucleic acid fragments resulting from digestions may be specifically or randomly rearranged to form new nucleic acid sequences, suggesting synthesizing and assembling the marker from at least two or more random subsets taken from non-naturally occurring DNA (i.e. synthesized DNA) (para 0031-0032).
Berrada further discloses the presence of the nucleic acid marker in an article of interest may be detected by using portable scanners and/or lab verification methods that may include for instance PCR or isothermal amplification followed by any suitable specific marker sequence detection method, and that the identification data for each nucleic acid marker and a plurality of product information may be stored in a database, suggesting that the marker is sequenced and stored in a database for comparison prior to application to the item (para 0115-0116).
However, Berrada does not appear to disclose applying synthetic polynucleotides that were not sequenced.
However, the prior art to Jung discloses methods of marking an item with naturally-derived or synthetic non-natural polymeric marker molecules, such as a DNA or Peptide marker in conjunction with optional visible or rapid scan reporters for authenticating or tracking (abstract). Jung further discloses the DNA taggant can be a synthetically produced non-natural sequence, and all or a portion of the DNA may comprise an identifiable sequence, with the nucleic acid taggant having a known portion of its sequence identifiable or sequenceable, suggesting that the DNA taggants applied would comprise a portion of sequenced polynucleotides and some polynucleotides that were not sequenced and registered (para 0145;para 0248).
Jung further discloses physical properties of DNA markers allow for the provision of a unique fingerprint for each item that can be serialized for tracking and tracing, and that if the examined object carries the original nucleic acid, the PCR procedure will amplify extracted nucleic acid to produce amplicons of a predetermined size and a sequence identical to a portion of the original nucleic acid sequence of the taggant, while if the primers do amplify the recovered nucleic acid to produce one or more random amplicons from counterfeit items, these one or more amplicons cannot have the unique taggant nucleic acid sequence from the authentic object, thereby increasing security (para 0010-0022; para 0191-0192).
The prior art to Connolly, in the same field of endeavor, also discloses a method for identifying an item tagged with nucleic acid containing taggant, and further discloses a subset of the 32 target nucleic acid molecules may be selected and mixed with unknown or random nucleic acid molecules and then applied to an item of movable property, and that when authentic identification of the item of movable property is desired, the applied mixture of nucleic acid is sampled and analyzed by known methods, with the detector reporting the presence of any of the 32 known nucleic acid molecules, but does not recognize any others, and thus, if the originally selected set of nucleic acid molecules is present, authenticity is confirmed (para 0020-0021). Connolly further discloses that selection of the code (i.e., a unique subset of identifiable nucleic acid molecules) by the user, combined with a detector which recognizes the entire set of molecules, is an added security feature (para 0022).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steps of for marking an article for security, tracking or authentication as disclosed by Berrada, with the step of applying DNA taggants only having a known portion of its sequence identifiable or sequenceable as disclosed by Jung and Connolly because physical properties of DNA markers allow for the provision of a unique fingerprint for each item that can be serialized for tracking and tracing, and selection of the code (i.e., a unique subset of identifiable nucleic acid molecules) by the user, combined with a detector which recognizes the entire set of molecules, is an added security feature, as disclosed by Jung and Connolly. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because adding another portion of un-sequenced tags to the item would not impede the methods of Berrada, as the identification/authentication is still based on the registered sequences.
With respect to claims 2, 11 and 16, Berrada discloses, the nucleic acid marker may be used to determine whether or not a particular article of interest is authentic by determining whether the article of interest is marked with the nucleic acid marker, and the presence of the nucleic acid marker in the article may be identified or tracked at any point in the stream of commerce and may be detected by using portable scanners and/or lab verification methods that may include for instance PCR or isothermal amplification followed by any suitable specific marker sequence detection method, suggesting that the marker is collected from the item, sequenced and compared to stored identification data to detect authenticity (para 0114-0115; fig 1).
With respect to claims 8-10 and 22-24, Berrada discloses the digestion and ligation of the extracted DNA may be completed by standard restriction digestion and ligation techniques known to those skilled in the art of molecular biology as known to those skilled in the art of molecular biology, which suggests that the synthesis could be performed by enzymatic synthesis and the assembly could be performed by Gibson assembly, Overlap-Extension Polymerase Chain Reaction (OE-PCR), or Golden Gate assembly, as these techniques were known to persons of ordinary skill in the art for assembling polynucleotides, as disclosed by para 0052-0063 of the instant application (para 0031-0032). Berrada further discloses the sequence of the nucleic acid marker can be of any suitable length, for instance the sequence of the nucleic acid marker can be a sequence of from about 5 to about 5000 bases or a sequence from about 20 to about 1000 bases, suggesting that the average length of the synthetic polynucleotide fragments could be greater than 400 nucleotides (para 0032).
With respect to claims 12 and 21, Berrada discloses the nucleic acid marker may have a specific template sequence and/or a specific template length, so that when polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedures are performed, PCR primers may be any specific primer pairs with a complementary nucleic acid sequence which can bind nucleic acids of the nucleic acid marker template (para 0035).
With respect to claim 13, Berrada discloses the nucleic acid fragments resulting from digestions may be specifically or randomly rearranged to form new nucleic acid sequences, suggesting that the primer binding sites can be arranged as desired within the marker(para 0032).
With respect to claims 5-6, and 15, Berrada further discloses the digestion and ligation of the extracted DNA may be completed by standard restriction digestion and ligation techniques known to those skilled in the art of molecular biology as known to those skilled in the art of molecular biology, which suggests that the synthesis could be performed by enzymatic synthesis and the assembly could be performed by Gibson assembly, Overlap-Extension Polymerase Chain Reaction (OE-PCR), or Golden Gate assembly, as these techniques were known to persons of ordinary skill in the art for assembling polynucleotides, as disclosed by para 0052-0063 of the instant application (para 0031-0032). Berrada further discloses the nucleic acid fragments resulting from digestions may be specifically or randomly rearranged to form new nucleic acid sequences, suggesting that nucleic acids can be synthesized in in particular format (para 0032).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have assembled the polynucleotides to contain at least one synthetic polynucleotide from each a first and random subset (or as many subsets as desired) through routine experimentation of specifically or randomly rearranging DNA that may be formed by extracting, digesting and re-ligating non-naturally occurring DNA (i.e. synthesized DNA) within the prior art conditions of using standard restriction digestion and ligation techniques known to those skilled in the art of molecular biology, as disclosed by Berrada. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrada et al. (US20150018538A1; 03/24/2023 IDS, US Patent Pub #2; hereafter referred to as Berrada) in view of Jung et al. (US20150107475A1; newly cited; hereafter referred to as Jung) and Connolly (WO2004063856A2; newly cited; hereafter referred to as Connolly), as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Shamey (AATCC review 2009, 9, no. 4, p 31-38). This rejection is newly recited and necessitated by claim amendments.
With respect to claims 3 and 7, Berrada, in view of Jung and Connolly, discloses the limitations of claims 1-2, as applied above. Berrada further discloses examples of authenticating items based on the similarity in the sequences collected from the item against the identification information for the marker, including differentiating it from a control, with the threshold appearing to be a complete match to the sequence (para 0125). However, Berrada does not appear to disclose that the size of the portion of polynucleotides sequences sequenced collected from the item or the number of subsets assembled is based on the value of the item.
However, the prior art to Shamey, in the same field of endeavor, product authentication can protect the manufacturer and improve revenue, ensure quality and increase consumer confidence and further discloses the value of the product being protected often determines the level of security that is applied (p 31, col 1, para 1; p 32, col 1, para 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Berrada to include increasing the complexity of the number of portions/subsets used in the authentication and assembling steps based on the value of the item, because product authentication can protect the manufacturer and improve revenue, ensure quality and increase consumer confidence, and the value of the product being protected often determines the level of security that is applied, as disclosed by Shamey. There is a reasonable expectation of success, as changing the size of the portion/subsets collected and assembled based on the value of the item would not impede the authentication steps of Berrada. Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berrada et al. (US20150018538A1; 03/24/2023 IDS, US Patent Pub #2; hereafter referred to as Berrada) in view of Jung et al. (US20150107475A1; newly cited; hereafter referred to as Jung) and Connolly (WO2004063856A2; newly cited; hereafter referred to as Connolly), as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Yin et al (US20210019973A1; 06/17/2025 IDS, US Patent Pub #25; hereafter referred to as Yin). This rejection is newly recited and necessitated by claim amendments.
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Berrada, in view of Jung and Connolly, discloses the limitations of claims 1-2, as applied above. However, Berrada does not appear to disclose providing the retrieved sequences to a computing device connected to the electronic record or that the electronic record is maintained at one or more network-accessible computing devices at one or more locations physically distant from the item.
However, the prior art to Yin, in the same field of endeavor, discloses molecular tag authentication systems using nucleic acid polynucleotides with known or partially-known sequences that can be added to a product (e.g., added to the surface of a product) and then later recovered for sequencing or other molecular authentication procedures to verify authenticity of the product. (para 0004; para 0006). Yin discloses that the authentication information can be provided in electronic format and performed by an online computer system, and further discloses that the computer system, which also comprises one or more databases, and could be part of a network and the network can include one or more computer servers, which can enable distributed computing, such as cloud computing (para 242; para 0282; para 0309-0314).
Using a computer system to authenticate the item, as automating a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (see In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)). Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize online or cloud computing to store the electronic location at a location physically distant from the item, as cloud storage was known in the art. Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant states the prior art to Berrada does not teach the newly amended limitations in claims 1 and 15 of applying to the item synthetic polynucleotides that were not sequenced, or synthesizing and assembling the marker from at least two or more random subsets and requiring that each assembled polynucleotide comprises (i) at least one synthetic polynucleotide from the first random subset and (ii) at least one synthetic polynucleotide from the second random subset, as recited in the amended claim 15 (Applicant’s Arguments, ).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, and new art to Jung and to Connolly have been applied to teach the limitation of applying to the item synthetic polynucleotides that were not sequenced. With respect to Berrada, as discussed above, discloses the DNA may be formed by extracting, digesting and re-ligating naturally or non-naturally occurring DNA, and further that it may be specifically or randomly digested and ligated to generate artificial nucleic acid sequences which are unique to the world, and that digestion may be performed randomly or site-specifically, for example by random or site specific nucleases, so that the nucleic acid fragments resulting from digestions may be specifically or randomly rearranged to form new nucleic acid sequences, suggesting synthesizing and assembling the marker from at least two or more random subsets taken from non-naturally occurring DNA (i.e. synthesized DNA) (para 0031-0032). Berrada discloses the digestion and ligation of the extracted DNA may be completed by standard restriction digestion and ligation techniques known to those skilled in the art of molecular biology as known to those skilled in the art of molecular biology, which suggests that the synthesis could be performed by enzymatic synthesis and the assembly could be performed by Gibson assembly, Overlap-Extension Polymerase Chain Reaction (OE-PCR), or Golden Gate assembly, as these techniques were known to persons of ordinary skill in the art for assembling polynucleotides, as disclosed by para 0052-0063 of the instant application (para 0031-0032). Berrada further discloses the nucleic acid fragments resulting from digestions may be specifically or randomly rearranged to form new nucleic acid sequences, suggesting that nucleic acids can be synthesized in in particular format (para 0032).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have assembled the polynucleotides to contain at least one synthetic polynucleotide from each a first and random subset (or as many subsets as desired) through routine experimentation of specifically or randomly rearranging DNA that may be formed by extracting, digesting and re-ligating non-naturally occurring DNA (i.e. synthesized DNA) within the prior art conditions of using standard restriction digestion and ligation techniques known to those skilled in the art of molecular biology, as disclosed by Berrada. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A. Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious.
Double Patenting
The rejections of claims 1-16 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. US12391986B2 in view of Berrada et al. (US20150018538A1; 03/24/2023 IDS, US Patent Pub #2), Yin et al (US20210019973A1; 06/17/2025 IDS, US Patent Pub #25), and Shamey (AATCC review 2009, 9, no. 4, p 31-38) are withdrawn as ‘neither the 986 Patent nor the cited art appear to disclose applying a second portion of synthetic polynucleotides comprising both less than the first portion and non-sequenced polynucleotides to the item.
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 1-16 and 21-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. US12391986B2 in view of Berrada et al. (US20150018538A1; 03/24/2023 IDS, US Patent Pub #2), Jung et al. (US20150107475A1; newly cited; hereafter referred to as Jung), Connolly (WO2004063856A2; newly cited; hereafter referred to as Connolly), Yin et al (US20210019973A1; 06/17/2025 IDS, US Patent Pub #25), and Shamey (AATCC review 2009, 9, no. 4, p 31-38). This rejection is newly recited and necessitated by claim amendments.
Response to Applicant’s Argument
Applicant’s Arguments have been fully considered and new art to Jung and to Connolly have been applied to teach the newly recited limitations.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
