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’s response filed 11/03/2025 has been received and considered entered. This is a response to amendments and arguments filed 11/03/2025 and to an Information Disclosure Statement filed 11/04/2025.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Claims Status
Claims 7-8, 15-16, 19, 22-24, and 29-30 is/are cancelled. Claims 1-6, 9-14, 17-18, 20-21, 25-28, and 31 is/are currently pending with claims 6, 9-14, 17-18, 20-21, 25-28, and 31 withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
In the non-final rejection mailed 12/05/2024, claims 6, 9-14, 17-18, 20-21, 25-28, and 31 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply to the restriction requirement mailed 09/06/2024, applicant’s response filed on 6 November, 2024.
In the non-final rejection mailed 12/05/2024, applicant’s election without traverse of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein or portion thereof (claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, and 13) in the reply filed on 6 November, 2024 was acknowledged. The requirement was deemed proper and was therefore made FINAL in the office action mailed 07/01/2025.
Claims 1-5 is/are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Reference 1 in the citation listing in the specification is not listed in the provided IDS.
The information disclosure statement filed 11/04/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. No copy was provided of NPL 15 (Tang, 2008).
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.
Claim 1 is 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 contains the trademark/trade name “Quil A”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe triterpenoid saponins extracted from Quillaja Saponaria and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed 11/03/2025, the applicant amended “Quil A” to “a saponin fraction isolated from extract of the bark of Quillaja saponaria (Quil A), followed by the limitation “Quil A” (lines 4-5 of claim 1). However, this does not overcome the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b). MPEP 2173.05(u) states that the issue of using trademarks or trade names in a claim is not limited to the lack of clarity as to the structural limitations implied by the trademark or trade name. “The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to describe any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became the generic name of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. Thus, the use of a trademark or trade name in a claim to describe a material or product would not only render a claim indefinite, but would also constitute an improper use of the trademark or trade name” (emphasis added). Thus, despite the amendment specifying the structure of the composition referenced by the trademark, the reference to the trademark “Quil A” in the claim is an improper use of the trademark and reduces the value of the trademark. As such, the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is maintained, and Applicant is required to remove references to the trademark in the claims.
The examiner notes that there are alternatives to using the trademark “Quil A” as a claim limitation. The amendment has described the structure of “Quil A” as “a saponin fraction isolated from extract of the bark of Quillaja saponaria". Subsequent references to this composition could, for example, be described as “the saponin fraction” or “the Q. Saponaria saponin fraction” instead of “Quil A”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090169636 A1 (herein O’Hagan), in view of Barhate (2013), Bhumkar (2007), Coleman (2014), Hobernik (2018), and Premkumar (2020). The previously-presented rejection of claims 1 and 3-5 under 35 USC 103 has been amended below to incorporate the specific teachings of Bhumkar which were incorporated by reference in Barhate (i.e., method steps of Bhumkar used by Barhate, but not described by Barhate).
Regarding claim 1, O’Hagan teaches a vaccine composition (claim 53), comprising the polysaccharide chitosan (claim 1; paragraph [0010]; claim 6), an immunological adjuvant (claims 1 and 20), and a polynucleotide antigen derived from a viral pathogen (claims 30, 32, 35-36) (see claim 57; the vaccine composition comprises chitosan, Quil-A and the antigen). It is apparent that by “polynucleotide antigen” O’Hagan refers to a polynucleotide encoding an antigen, as opposed to an immunostimulatory TLR ligand. See e.g. [0056], [0173], [0174], [0178], [0209]. The adjuvant is preferentially Quillaja saponaria saponins (as Quil-A consists entirely of saponins extracted from Quillaja Saponaria, Quil-A is included in this embodiment) (paragraph [0199]). Furthermore, O’Hagan teaches that these nanoparticles are disaggregated nanoparticles (claims 1 and 9; the particles are implied to be individual and separate particles).
However, O’Hagan does not specifically recite the adjuvant to chitosan ratios of 1:15 to 1:100 weight:weight, as required by the instant claims (required by claim 1). O’Hagan teaches that any ratio of adjuvant to chitosan may be used (paragraph [0007]), but the exemplary ratios taught by O’Hagan do not encompass ratios of 1:15 to 1:100 weight:weight, as these weight:weight ratios range from 10:1 to 1000:1. Furthermore, O’Hagan teaches that the mean particle diameter of their vaccine nanoparticles ranges from 100-50,000nm (paragraph [0008]; claims 28-29), or more broadly, from 10nm to 150,000nm (paragraph [0033]), but does not teach that this diameter is necessarily measured in the absence of the payload molecule.
Barhate teaches vaccine nanoparticles comprising chitosan and Quillaja saponaria extract (abstract), wherein the vaccine nanoparticles are disaggregated (page 638) and wherein the Quillaja saponin extract and chitosan ratio is between 1:15 and 1:100 (weight:weight).
Regarding claim 1, Barhate teaches a vaccine nanoparticle comprising a Quillaja Saponaria saponin extract and chitosan ratio of 1:3 to 1:30 weight:weight (see Abstract; page 637; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Barhate teaches that in the absence of payload molecules, the nanoparticles are approximately 40nm in size (abstract).
Although O’Hagan does not teach the range in diameter of their nanoparticle in the absence of payload molecule(s), Barhate does. Both O’Hagan and Barhate describe chitosan-Quillaja saponaria extract vaccine nanoparticles between 5nm and 100nm in diameter. Furthermore, Barhate teaches that nanoparticles over 30-40nm in diameter exhibit good antigenicity (page 638 section 3.1). This provides an ideal minimum size for a chitosan-Quillaja saponaria extract vaccine nanoparticle. Additionally, O’Hagan teaches that the microparticle is ideally of a diameter that permits administration without occluding needles and capillaries (paragraph [0033]). In combining the teachings of O’Hagan and Barhate, it would therefore be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that chitosan-Quillaja saponaria extract vaccine nanoparticles have ideal minimum and maximum diameters as described in the art, and that nanoparticle diameter can be measured both in the absence and in the presence of payload molecules. Such a person would be motivated to create nanoparticles within this range to optimize immunogenicity, as described in Barhate, balanced with the maximum particle size compatible with administration route and capillary size, as described in O’Hagan.
Furthermore, Barhate teaches that the quantity of Quillaja extract taught is a tolerable dose (see page 637, 1000ug/mL or 1mg/mL, equivalent to 0.1% w/v, as 1% w/v is conventionally defined as 1g/100mL, and 1mg/mL is equivalent to 0.001g/mL or 0.1g/100mL), and teaches that 0.01% of the extract is loaded into the particles (Abstract) (0.1%x0.01%=0.001%).
Barhate teaches that the methods used for synthesis of gold-chitosan nanoparticles were the methods taught by Bhumkar (2007) (Barhate, page 637, “CsAuNPs were prepared using reported procedure with some modifications (Bhumkar et al., 2007)”, wherein the modifications consist of using 0.3% chitosan instead of the chitosan concentrations of Bhumkar, see Barhate page 638). Bhumkar teaches that the step of mixing HAuCl4, acetic acid, and chitosan requires 100uL of 1.25x10-1M HAuCl-4 and 100mL chitosan solution in 1% acetic acid (in Barhate, 0.3% w/v chitosan) (see page 1417 of Bhumkar for detailed methodology, which Barhate explicitly teaches as used to create the nanoparticles of Barhate). Given that Barhate teaches that the method of Bhumkar was used to create the gold-chitosan nanoparticles, an artisan would reasonably assume that Barhate also used 100mL of chitosan solution, thus using 0.3g of chitosan per batch of gold-chitosan nanoparticles. Barhate teaches that after formation of the TT-CsAuNPs, the particles were pelleted using ultracentrifugation and “redispersed in phosphate buffered saline” (page 637). An artisan would reasonably assume, since the term “redispersed” was used, and not a term indicating a change in concentration such as “diluted”, that this redispersal was in an equivalent volume of solvent (100mL) (the prefix “re-“ indicating a return to a previous state). Such an artisan would thus reasonably conclude that the overall w/v concentration of chitosan in the suspension was 0.3%. Thus, the 0.3% w/v concentration of chitosan and the 0.001% concentration of QS extract can be directly compared to estimate the chitosan:QS extract ratio of the nanoparticles of Barhate.
The w/v composition of chitosan and Quillaja saponin extract are thus taught to be 0.3% (at maximum loading of chitosan) and 0.001%, respectively; assuming all of the chitosan used in the nanoparticle preparation forms part of the resulting vaccine nanoparticles, this results in a weight:weight ratio of 1:300 Quillaja saponin extract to chitosan, with the ratio increasing as chitosan percent loading decreases (e.g., if only 2/3 of the chitosan in solution forms part of the final nanoparticles, the QS extract: chitosan w:w ratio is 1:200). It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that any quantity of Quillaja extract between that taught by Barhate and the lower quantities taught by O’Hagan could be successfully used in the design of a Quillaja saponin extract-chitosan vaccine formulation. As Barhate teaches a weight:weight ratio of 1:300 and O’Hagan teaches a weight:weight ratio of 1000:1, the claimed weight:weight ratios 1:15 to 1:100 are rendered obvious, as these fall between the ratios taught by O’Hagan and Barhate.
However, O’Hagan does not teach that the polynucleotide antigen encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein or portion thereof.
Regarding claim 1, Coleman teaches that the spike protein of coronaviruses is the major immunodominant antigen, and serves as an ideal target for the design of vaccines against coronaviruses (abstract). Furthermore, Coleman teaches that the introduction of SARS-CoV spike protein nanoparticles induced generation of SARS-CoV-neutralizing antibodies in animals (page 3171).
Regarding claim 1, Hobernik teaches that a core principle of DNA vaccine design is the introduction of antigen protein-encoding polynucleotides such that the subject’s cells express this antigen protein and the subject’s immune system responds, in a similar fashion to the immune response to injection of antigen protein (Figure 1). Furthermore, Hobernik discloses that chitosan is a suitable DNA carrier for DNA vaccines, and that chitosan has intrinsic adjuvant activity (page 12).
Regarding claim 1, Premkumar teaches that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is the immunodominant antigen of SARS-CoV-2 (abstract).
While O’Hagan does not teach that the antigen polynucleotide comprised in the vaccine nanoparticles encodes the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein or portion thereof, the combination of Coleman, Hobernik, and Premkumar makes obvious the selection of such a polynucleotide for use in the invention of O’Hagan. Coleman teaches that the spike protein of any coronavirus is the major immunodominant antigen; as such, it would be a prime target for development of a vaccine that would induce an immune response in a majority of patients. Furthermore, Premkumar teaches that this principle holds true for the coronavirus species SARS-CoV-2. However, Coleman discloses the use of the spike protein itself as an antigen used to induce an immune response, not a polynucleotide encoding the spike protein. Hobernik teaches that, in fact, a polynucleotide encoding a protein antigen can be administered to induce the subject’s cells to produce and release the protein antigen, creating an analogous circumstance within the subject’s body as with the administration of the antigen protein itself—that is to say, that both methods result in the antigen protein present in the subject’s body for induction of an immune response. As such, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that if the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 would induce a lasting immune response, the administration of a polynucleotide encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein or portion thereof, resulting in the expression of the spike protein by the subject’s cells, would similarly induce an immune response through the same mechanism by immune cells. Furthermore, it would be preferable to create a DNA vaccine, given that DNA vaccines are cost-effective and have a long shelf life (see Hobernik, abstract). Given that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein or portion thereof is an ideal antigen to target with a DNA vaccine, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein-encoding polynucleotide antigen so described to the DNA vaccine design of O’Hagan in order to create a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. Such a person would be motivated by the global COVID-19 pandemic to create a broadly-effective, cost-efficient, and easily-distributed vaccine.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Premkumar teaches that the receptor-binding domain (RBD) on the S1 subunit of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is a “common target of human antibodies” (page 2 paragraph 2), and antibodies targeting the RBD of the spike protein are “likely to be neutralizing and potentially protective” (page 4 paragraph 3).
Instant SEQ ID NOs:2 and 4, when compared to the full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein amino acid sequence, are determined to include this crucial immunogenic receptor-binding domain (see BLAST results attached to this action). The teachings of Premkumar render obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that any portion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, as long as it includes the RBD, would serve as a suitable antigen for a vaccine formulation. Furthermore, as Coleman, Hobernik, and Premkumar combined as above make obvious, this can be applied to a polynucleotide encoding the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein or a portion thereof, such as in the nucleic acid vaccine of O’Hagan.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090169636 A1 (herein O’Hagan), Coleman (2014), Hobernik (2018), Barhate (2013), and Premkumar (2020), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoven (2007). This rejection is maintained.
The teachings of O’Hagan, Barhate, Coleman, Hobernik, and Premkumar are discussed above and can be combined to render obvious claim 1. However, O’Hagan and Barhate do not teach that the chitosan is functionalized, resulting in negatively-charged chitosan.
Hoven teaches that chitosan is functionalized, resulting in a negative charge, by reacting with 5-formyl-2-furan sulfonic acid (FFSA) and then reducing with sodium borohydride to form a film (page 47 section 3.1).
Hoven teaches that negatively-charged chitosan demonstrates increased adsorption against both negatively- and positively-charged proteins, based on overall electrostatic interactions (abstract; pages 49-50). This property of negatively-charged chitosan is stated to correlate with overall electrostatic interactions, which does not necessarily exclude negatively-charged molecules such as nucleic acids. Hoven further teaches that functionalized chitosan films can vary in their proportion of functionalization (meaning that the proportion of chitosan molecules that are functionalized can be made to vary), and that this degree of functionalization has a parabolic relationship with the adsorption rate of negatively-charged proteins (Figure 7; Table 4). When a fraction of the chitosan in a composition is so functionalized, the remainder can be positively-charged, which through electrostatic interactions would attract negatively-charged molecules, such as nucleic acids. This evidence supports that chitosan functionalized with FFSA and sodium borohydride would be obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of filing as capable of being used in compositions with nucleic acid particles, and that it would further be obvious that the proportion of functionalization of chitosan in a composition can be varied for optimized adsorption of nucleic acids. Finally, Hoven teaches that negatively-charged chitosan reduces thrombogenic properties of chitosan, wherein positively-charged chitosan attracts plasma proteins, leading to thrombus formation and blood coagulation (page 45 paragraph 3). A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to functionalize the chitosan in the particles of O’Hagan with 5-formyl-2-furan sulfonic acid and sodium borohydride in order to both promote adsorption of nucleic acids in the particles and decrease thrombus formation and blood coagulation resulting from administration of chitosan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that a loading concentration of chitosan of 0.3% w/v cannot be assumed to result in particles comprising 0.3% w/v chitosan. While Barhate does not teach the percent loading of chitosan to the gold-chitosan nanoparticles, an artisan would reasonably assume that at most, with no further specification, 100% of the weight of chitosan introduced into the initial mixture was present in the final nanoparticles, with the possibility that less than 100% of the chitosan in solution was present in the final nanoparticles. Thus, though the nanoparticles would not comprise 0.3% w/v chitosan, they would, taken as a whole (the whole being an entire batch of nanoparticles created by Barhate), comprise up to 100% of the weight of chitosan comprised in the initial 0.3% w/v chitosan solution. As such, in order to calculate the QS extract:chitosan w/w ratio of the final nanoparticle compositions, an artisan would reasonably compare the total mass of chitosan used to the known quantity of QS extract loaded onto the nanoparticles. Barhate teaches that the methods used for synthesis of gold-chitosan nanoparticles were the methods taught by Bhumkar (2007). Bhumkar teaches that the step of mixing HAuCl4, acetic acid, and chitosan requires 100uL of 1.25x10-1M HAuCl-4 and 100mL chitosan solution in 1% acetic acid (in Barhate, 0.3% w/v chitosan) (see page 1417 of Bhumkar for detailed methodology). Given that Barhate teaches that the method of Bhumkar was used to create the gold-chitosan nanoparticles, an artisan would reasonably assume that Barhate also used 100mL of chitosan solution, thus using 0.3g of chitosan per batch of gold-chitosan nanoparticles. Barhate teaches that after formation of the TT-CsAuNPs, the particles were pelleted using ultracentrifugation and “redispersed in phosphate buffered saline” (page 637). An artisan would reasonably assume, since the term “redispersed” was used, and not a term indicating a change in concentration such as “diluted”, that this redispersal was in an equivalent volume of solvent (100mL) (the prefix “re-“ indicating a return to a previous state). Such an artisan would thus reasonably conclude that the overall w/v concentration of chitosan in the suspension was less than or equal to 0.3%. Thus, the 0.3% w/v concentration of chitosan and the 0.001% concentration of QS extract can be directly compared to estimate the chitosan:QS extract ratio of the nanoparticles of Barhate.
Applicant has argued that the weight/volume percent composition of Q. saponaria extract (QS extract) taught by Barhate is 0.000001% and not 0.1-0.01% as previously argued by the examiner, based on the language in the Abstract specifying that the QS extract payload is 0.01%, wherein Barhate teaches that payload is calculated as percent loading (page 637), and the teaching of Barhate that the amount of QS added was 1000ug/mL (0.1% w/v). As described above, with the conventional definition of %w/v being that 1% is 1g/100mL, the amount of QS extract added by Barhate is 0.1%, not 0.0001% as asserted by Applicant.
1000
u
g
1
m
L
=
1
m
g
1
m
L
=
0.001
g
1
m
L
=
0.1
g
100
m
L
=
0.1
%
w
/
v
Based on these values, the percent w/v concentration of QS extract in the suspension of chitosan-QS-TT-gold nanoparticles of Barhate is 0.001% (0.1%x0.01%), and thus the ratio of QS extract to chitosan w/w is 1:300 (see calculation below).
0.001
%
Q
S
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
w
/
v
0.3
%
c
h
i
t
o
s
a
n
w
/
v
=
1
Q
S
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
300
c
h
i
t
o
s
a
n
If less than 100% of the chitosan in the 0.3% w/v solution of chitosan were present in the final nanoparticles, the ratio of QS extract to chitosan w/w would increase (for example, if only 2/3 of the initial chitosan mass were present in the final nanoparticles, the ratio of QS extract to chitosan w:w would be 1:200).
Given this interpretation of the teachings of Barhate, considered convincing by the Examiner, Barhate does not teach the QS/chitosan ratios required by the instant claims. However, as described in the rejection above, Barhate and O’Hagan teach distinct ratios of QS:chitosan w:w: Barhate teaches a minimum ratio of 1:300, while O’Hagan teaches a ratio of 1,000:1. As such vastly different ratios of QS:chitosan are shown to result in functional and effective vaccine compositions by Barhate and O’Hagan, an artisan would reasonably expect that any ratio of QS:chitosan w:w between the ratios taught by O’Hagan and Barhate (i.e., 1:300-1,000:1) would result in a functional and effective vaccine composition, rendering obvious any ratio of QS:chitosan w:w between 1:300-1000:1. This range encompasses QS:chitosan w:w ratios of 1:15-1:100. Applicant did not address this previously-presented argument in the response filed 11/03/2025. As a result, the rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFRICA M MCLEOD whose telephone number is (703)756-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00AM-6:00PM EST.
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, Ram Shukla can be reached on (571) 272-0735. 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.
/AFRICA M MCLEOD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1635
/RAM R SHUKLA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1635