DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction requirement of Invention II is withdrawn after further consideration.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 10/23/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious search burden as the inventions share the sample CPC classification (Applicant’s Arguments, p 7, para 2). This is not found persuasive because the inventions would require a different field of search and require employing different search strategies or search queries, even if the Inventions share the same CPC classifications.
Applicant further states Inventions I and III are not distinct as the product of Invention III is an item labeled with synthetic polynucleotides that is exactly the type of result obtained from the methods of Invention I (Applicant’s Arguments, p 8, para 2). This is not found persuasive because that the product as claimed can be made by another materially different process, as shown in claim 19. Claim 10 of Invention I recites that the plurality of synthetic polynucleotides is synthesized by enzymatic synthesis, whereas claim 19 of Invention III recites that the plurality of synthetic polynucleotides are synthesized by column synthesis, and therefore the product of Invention III as claimed can be made by a materially different process than by the process recited in Invention I.
Applicant further states the Restriction Requirement does not provide the clear line of demarcation between the inventions, as Inventions III is directed to items tagged with the same synthetic polynucleotides (Applicant’s Arguments, p 8, para 3). This is not found persuasive, because, the Restriction Requirement identified the separate inventions by a grouping of the claims with a short description of the total extent of the invention claimed in each group, specified the type or relationship of each group as by stating the group is drawn to a process, or to a subcombination, or to a product, etc., and classifies each group.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/23/2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn, as discussed above.
Claims 1-16 are under examination herein.
Claim 3 is objected to.
Claims 1-16 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 is 09/30/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed11/17/2021, 03/24/2023, 05/30/2023, 03/02/2024, 04/24/2024, 09/27/2024, 01/29/2025, 06/17/2025 and 11/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have therefore been considered. A signed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings submitted 09/30/2021 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein: sequencing at least a portion” should be “wherein: the sequencing at least a portion” for proper antecedent basis. 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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 is unclear with respect to the phrase, “and applying at least a portion of the plurality of synthetic polynucleotides to the item”. The metes and bounds of claims 1, and all claims dependent thereon, are rendered indefinite by the lack of clarity. Specifically, it is unclear if the portion applied to item is the same portion that is sequenced. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as applying at least the portion of the plurality of synthetic polynucleotides to the item
Claims 2-14 are also indefinite for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 1, on which they depend.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "taking two or more of the random subsets of the plurality of synthetic polynucleotides” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 5, on which this claim depend, does not require taking two or more random subsets, but rather only requires taking one or more random subsets of the plurality of synthetic polynucleotides.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein a number of the one or more random subsets used for assembly of the assembled polynucleotides" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 6, on which this claim depends, recites “taking two or more random subsets”, and using them for assembling “a plurality of assembled polynucleotides”.
Claims 8-9 are also indefinite for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 6, on which they depend.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "wherein: sequencing the synthetic polynucleotides collected from the item" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1, on which this claim depends, does not recite collecting synthetic polynucleotides from the item.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 and 5-15 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.
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 2-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
Claims 2 and 16 recite determining that the item is authentic based on comparison of the plurality of the retrieved sequences to the plurality of original sequences in the electronic record.
These recitations equate to steps of collecting information, analyzing data and making observations, evaluations and judgements that can be carried out in the human mind. Specifically, comparing retrieved sequences to an original sequence to determine authenticity can be practically performing the human mind as claimed and are similar to the concepts of collecting and comparing known information in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and collecting information, analyzing it, and reporting certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind. Claim 3 further qualifies the recited judicial exceptions. Therefore, each of the above recited limitations fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claims 2-4 and 16 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology, applies or uses the recited judicial exception to affect a particular treatment for a condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Rather, the instant claims recite additional elements that amount to mere data gathering and outputting, and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 2 and 16 recite collecting at least a portion of the synthetic polynucleotides from the item; sequencing at least a portion of the synthetic polynucleotides collected from the item to obtain a plurality of retrieved sequences.
Claim 3 recites wherein: sequencing at least a portion of the synthetic polynucleotides collected from the item comprises sequencing fewer than all of the plurality of synthetic polynucleotides collected from the item, wherein a size of the portion is based on a value of the item.
Claim 4 recites further comprising: providing the plurality of retrieved sequences to a computing device communicatively connected to the electronic record; and receiving from the computing device an indication of authenticity.
Claim 2-3 and 16 recites limitations for obtaining data. These limitations equate to mere data gathering activity to obtain the data necessary for the mental evaluations and judgements (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claims 4 recites limitations for outputting data that the courts consider to be an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). There is no indication that any of these additional elements provide a practical application of the recited judicial exception outside of the judicial exception itself. Claims 4 also merely recites using a generic computing systems and computer program products to carry out instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The computer system and computer program product as claimed fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished and only recites the idea of a solution or outcome. There are no limitations that indicate that the claimed steps require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Furthermore, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). As such, claims 2-4 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). Further analyzing the additional elements under step 2B, the additional elements as described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As set forth in the MPEP, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims under the 2B analysis, The instant specification discloses in para 0034 that techniques for sequencing polynucleotides are well known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the prior art to Shamey (AATCC review 2009, 9, no. 4, p 31-38) reviews current covert tagging techniques and 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, the concept of increasing the size of the portion of the retrieved tags sequences with the value of the item is well-known, routine and conventional in the art. Furthermore, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Therefore, the additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, and the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). As such, claims 2-4 and 16 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berrada et al. (US20150018538A1; 03/24/2023 IDS, US Patent Pub #2; hereafter referred to as Berrada).
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 (i.e. synthesizing and assembling the marker from at least two or more random subsets) (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).
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, 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 claim 12, 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 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) 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).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, Berrada 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.
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) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Shamey (AATCC review 2009, 9, no. 4, p 31-38).
With respect to claims 3 and 7, Berrada 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 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), Yin et al (US20210019973A1; 06/17/2025 IDS, US Patent Pub #25), and Shamey (AATCC review 2009, 9, no. 4, p 31-38).
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIDHI DHARITHREESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D Riggs II can be reached at (571) 270-3062. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.D./
Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687