DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s Amendment/Remarks filed 10/21/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 12-14 have been amended. No claims were cancelled or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-25 remain pending in the application and are currently under examination.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
Applicant’s amendment renders the objection to the specification moot. Specifically, the misspellings have been corrected. Thus, said objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the objection to claim 13 moot. Specifically, the misspelling has been corrected. Thus, said objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the rejection of claim 12 under 35 USC 112(b) moot. Specifically, the claim has been amended to remedy the indefinite issue. Thus, said rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 USC 112(b) moot. Specifically, the claim has been amended to delete the phrase “to grow”. Thus, said rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15-17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Immobilization of Active Bacteriophages on Polyhydroxyalkanoate Surfaces, ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2015 Nov 2; 8(2): 1128-38; hereinafter as “Wang”) in view of Hossainy et al. (US 2006/0147412 A1, Jul. 6, 2006, hereafter as “Hossainy”).
The instant invention is drawn to a method for coating a surface of a substrate of a medical device with a bactericide layer, the method comprising: exposing the surface to a plasma and depositing a plasma polymer layer bound to the surface; and binding the bactericide layer to the plasma polymer layer; wherein the bactericide layer includes bioactive bacteriophages.
Regarding instant claim 1, Wang teaches a method of attaching bacteriophages onto polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) surfaces via a plasma treatment such that bacteriophages are bound to a plasma polymer layer (abstract). It is noted that said bacteriophages are viruses that attack bacteria (i.e., bactericidal) (pg. 1128, left col, 2nd para.). Wang also teaches that such surface treatments could be used in a variety of applications including biomedical applications (pg. 1128, left col, 1st para.). Wang teaches treating the surface with plasma alone, plasma with EDC and sulfo-NHS, plasma with acrylic acid, and plasma with acrylic acid, EDC and sulfo-NHS (section 2.7). In the embodiments utilizing acrylic acid, Wang teaches that Inagaki’s polymerization method was utilized which resulted in poly(acrylic acid) grafted PHA films (page 1130, sections 2.7.3 and 2.7.4). Reference citation 35 in Wang refers to Inagaki’s polymerization method. Said reference (Inagaki et al., “Surface Modification of Poly(tetrafluoroethylene) Film by Plasma Graft Polymerization of Sodium Vinylsulfonate”, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 66, 77–84 (1997), pp. 77-84) teaches that said method results in deposition of a plasma polymer layer (pg. 80, right col., 1st full para.; pg. 82, right col, last para.). Accordingly, the plasma treatment of Wang effectively deposits a plasma polymer (poly(acrylic acid)) layer with the addition of functional groups provided by the plasma treatments to the PHA.
Wang is silent to a medical device substrate.
Hossainy teaches medical devices comprising a PHA coating and methods of forming thereof (abstract; [0199]-[0206] and [0211]). It is noted that a coating on a surface implies that said coating is adhered/bound to said surface.
The references are drawn to surfaces comprising PHA, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a medical device substrate in the invention of Wang as suggested by Hossainy with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Wang teaches attaching bacteriophages to PHA surfaces for biomedical purposes and Hossainy teaches PHA coatings are suitable for the particular biomedical application, medical devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected a medical device comprising a bactericidal PHA coating having bacteriophages attached thereto.
Regarding instant claims 3 and 6, Wang teaches oxygen plasma (a cold plasma) (pg. 1129, section 2.3).
Regarding instant claim 7, Wang teaches that the bacteriophages are covalently bonded, via the primary amines of their surface proteins (coating material), to carboxyl groups on the surface of plasma-treated films (pg. 1130, section 2.7.2).
Regarding instant claim 12, Wang is silent to the claimed medical device substrates (e.g., polymers, biodegradable amino-acid based polymers, a metal, an alloy).
Hossainy teaches the elements discussed above and further teaches that medical devices can be comprised of a polymer or a metal (or an alloy thereof) including stainless steel, tantalum, nickel-titanium, gold, magnesium, titanium, cobalt-chromium alloys ([0018]).
It would have further been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a medical device substrate material such as a polymer, a metal or an alloy into the invention of Wang as suggested by Hossainy with a reasonable expectation of success because Hossainy teaches that said substrates are suitable medical device materials to be utilized in combination with a PHA coating. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended is considered prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding instant claim 13, Wang teaches plasma-initiated acrylic acid grafting wherein an acrylic acid aqueous solution was incorporated during plasma treatment (pg. 1130, section 2.7.3).
Regarding instant claim 15, Wang teaches that the bacteriophages are covalently bound to the plasma polymer layer (pg. 1129, left col. 1st full para.; pg. 1130, section 2.7.2).
Regarding instant claims 16 and 17, Wang teaches that plasma treated PHA films were immersed (dipped) in a bacteriophage suspension and solvent casting occurred thereafter (washed with water and ethanol and vacuum-dried) (pg. 1130, section 2.7).
Regarding instant claim 25, Wang is silent to the medical devices claimed (e.g., orthopedic implant, a stent, a catheter, a defibrillator).
Hossainy teaches the particular medical device, a stent ([0005] and [0016]).
It would have further been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the particular medical device, a stent, into the invention of Wang as suggested by Hossainy with a reasonable expectation of success because Hossainy teaches that said stent is a suitable medical device utilized in combination with a non-fouling PHA coating ([0005]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended is considered prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Thus, the combined teachings of Wang and Hossainy render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/21/2025, regarding the 103 rejection over Wang and Hossainy have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Wang does not disclose depositing a plasma polymer layer bound to the surface, but rather teaches a surface is merely activated plasma. Applicant asserts that in Wang, the surface of the polymer is merely activated to allow attachment of bacteriophages whereas in the claimed invention, a completely new layer is deposited using the plasma. Applicant also asserts that Wang has not shown that a polymer built from plasma can serve as an intermediate between a substrate and bacteriophages. Remarks, pages 2-3.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that Wang teaches treating polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) with plasma in order to bind bacteriophages to said PHA (abstract). Wang teaches treating the PHA surface with plasma alone, plasma with EDC and sulfo-NHS, plasma with acrylic acid, and plasma with acrylic acid, EDC and sulfo-NHS (section 2.7). In the embodiments utilizing acrylic acid, Wang teaches that Inagaki’s polymerization method was utilized which resulted in poly(acrylic acid) grafted PHA films (page 1130, sections 2.7.3 and 2.7.4). Reference citation 35 in Wang refers to Inagaki’s polymerization method. Said reference (Inagaki et al., “Surface Modification of Poly(tetrafluoroethylene) Film by Plasma Graft Polymerization of Sodium Vinylsulfonate”, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 66, 77–84 (1997), pp. 77-84) teaches that said method results in deposition of a plasma polymer layer (pg. 80, right col., 1st full para.; pg. 82, right col, last para.). Accordingly, contrary to applicant’s assertions, the plasma treatment of Wang effectively deposits a plasma polymer (poly(acrylic acid)) layer with the addition of functional groups provided by the plasma treatments to the PHA.
A reference is relevant as prior art for all they contain including alternative embodiments (MPEP 2123). The examiner notes that the instant specification discusses plasma polymerization using a precursor monomer (see [00159] of the instant specification). Additionally, claim 13 sets out suitable monomers including acrylic acid. Wang, as discussed above, also teaches plasma polymerization using a precursor monomer (i.e., acrylic acid; page 1130, sections 2.7.3 and 2.7.4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the same method taught in Wang as compared to the method taught in [00159] of the instant specification would produce the same products. For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant asserts that in the claimed invention, a plasma polymer layer can be added to any suitable material, even a metal whereas Wang has not shown that a polymer built from plasma can serve as an intermediate between a substrate and bacteriophages. Applicant states that Wang has shown that activating a specific polymer (PHA) with plasma for a short duration allows to bind bacteriophages. Remarks, pages 3-4.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that independent claim 1 recites, “a substrate” generically and dependent claim 12 recites a Markush group of alternative substrate species including polymers and metals. None of the claims require a metal substrate. Wang teaches a polymer (PHA) substrate which meets the limitations of the claims. Thus, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant also argues that Wang provides data showing that oxygen was inserted in the polymer backbone between carbons and asserts that no new layer is grown. Remarks, page 4.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that Wang teaches incorporation of oxygen to the polymer surface resulted in the formation of different functional groups, such as carboxyl, hydroxyl, and peroxide groups and in the case of an acrylic acid embodiment, N-O groups (page 1131). Table 2 also discusses the plasma treated PHA-film having surface acrylic acid polymerization followed by EDC/sulfo-NHS functionalization. Thus, Wang teaches a new polymer layer was created in the plasma-initiated acrylic acid embodiment. For these reasons and the above reasons, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a new layer of acrylic acid is not obtained by plasma deposition, but by dipping the plasma activated surface in an acrylic acid aqueous solution. Applicant asserts that such a process is very different that the claimed process. Remarks, pages 4-5.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that the claims recite open-ended “comprising” language which allows for additional unrecited elements/steps (MPEP 2111.03). There is nothing in the claims that exclude dipping/immersing the surface. Furthermore, Wang teaches that Inagaki’s polymerization method was utilized which resulted in poly(acrylic acid) grafted PHA films (page 1130, sections 2.7.3 and 2.7.4). Reference citation 35 in Wang refers to Inagaki’s polymerization method. Said reference (Inagaki et al., “Surface Modification of Poly(tetrafluoroethylene) Film by Plasma Graft Polymerization of Sodium Vinylsulfonate”, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 66, 77–84 (1997), pp. 77-84) teaches that said method results in deposition of a plasma polymer layer (pg. 80, right col., 1st full para.; pg. 82, right col, last para.). Accordingly, contrary to applicant’s assertions, the plasma treatment of Wang effectively deposits a plasma polymer (poly(acrylic acid)) layer with the addition of functional groups provided by the plasma treatments to the PHA. Thus, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Thus, for the above reasons, said rejection is maintained.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Immobilization of Active Bacteriophages on Polyhydroxyalkanoate Surfaces, ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2015 Nov 2; 8(2): 1128-38; hereinafter as “Wang”) in view of Hossainy et al. (US 2006/0147412 A1, Jul. 6, 2006, hereafter as “Hossainy”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kokai-Kun et al. (US 2003/0215433 A1, Nov. 20, 2003, hereinafter as “Kokai-Kun”).
The instant invention is described above.
Wang and Hossainy teach the elements discussed above.
Wang and Hossainy are silent to the claimed bacteriophage related products (e.g., lysostaphins).
Kokai-Kun teaches medical devices comprising an antibacterial enzyme (i.e., lysostaphin) coating (abstract; [0019]-[0020], [0032]; Example 3). Kokai-Kun further teaches that the lysostaphin can be covalently attached to a polymer surface/coating ([0031] [0056]; claim 57).
All of the references are drawn to anti-fouling/antibacterial coated surfaces, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a bacteriophage related product such as lysostaphins into the invention of Wang/Hossainy as suggested by Kokai-Kun with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Kokai-Kun teaches that incorporating a lysostaphin into a medical device coating effectively inhibits bacterial growth and it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (MPEP 2144.06 (I)).
Thus, the combined teachings of Wang, Hossainy and Kokai-Kun render the instant claim prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/21/2025, regarding the 103 rejection over Wang, Hossainy and Kokai-Kun have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant relies on the same arguments as presented for the 103 rejection over Wang and Hossainy. No further arguments regarding claim 2 are presented. Remarks, pages 1-5.
For the same reasons as discussed above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Thus, said rejection is maintained.
Claims 4, 5, 8-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Immobilization of Active Bacteriophages on Polyhydroxyalkanoate Surfaces, ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2015 Nov 2; 8(2): 1128-38; hereinafter as “Wang”) in view of Hossainy et al. (US 2006/0147412 A1, Jul. 6, 2006, hereafter as “Hossainy”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bilek et al. (US 2010/0227372 A1, Sep. 9, 2010, hereafter as “Bilek”).
The instant invention is described above.
Wang and Hossainy teach the elements discussed above.
Regarding instant claims 4, 5, 8-11 and 13, Wang and Hossainy are silent to plasma including nitrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, argon, helium, ethylene, or allylamine, free radicals, and the claimed reactive groups of claims 5 and 9.
Bilek teaches functionalized surfaces utilizing a plasma polymer layer to covalently bind biological molecules to said surfaces (abstract). Bilek teaches that suitable plasma forming vapours used to treat the plasma polymer surface of the substrate (e.g., polymer, metal) include helium, argon, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ethylene, and allylamine as well as mixtures thereof ([0092]). Bilek teaches that the activation of the plasma polymer surface involves generation of reactive free radicals or oxygen species, such as charged oxygen atoms and reactive carbonyl and carboxylic acid moieties appear following exposure of the plasma treated or generated polymer surface to oxygen (e.g., from air), and which are then available as bonding sites for reactive species on biological molecules, such as amine groups ([0068].
Bilek and Wang are drawn to plasma polymer layers bound to biological molecules, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the particular plasma gases, helium, argon, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ethylene, and/or allylamine into the invention of Wang/Hossainy as suggested by Bilek with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Wang teaches oxygen plasma treatment for binding biological molecules and Bilek teaches helium, argon, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ethylene, and/or allylamine gases for the same purpose. Bilek effectively teaches that each of the plasma gases are functional equivalents. Combining and substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.06). A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected a plasma polymer layer made via the claimed plasma gases would effectively create free radicals and create binding sites for reactive species on biological molecules such as bacteriophages.
It is noted that MPEP 2111.04 states that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited”. As discussed above, Bilek teaches the administration of each of the claimed plasma gases. Thus, it would have been reasonably expected that administration of said gases would result in the claimed reactive groups.
Regarding instant claim 14, Wang and Hossainy are silent to the plasma polymer layer having a thickness of 10-1000 nm.
Bilek teaches functionalized surfaces utilizing a plasma polymer layer to covalently bind biological molecules to said surfaces (abstract). Bilek also teaches that said functionalized surfaces include implantable devices ([0073]). Bilek further teaches that the plasma polymer layer has a thickness of from about 0.3 nm to about 1000 nm, from about 3 nm to about 500 nm, 300 nm or 100 nm or from about 10 nm to about 30 nm ([0081]).
Bilek and Wang are drawn to plasma polymer layers, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the plasma polymer layer by way of routine experimentation in the invention of Wang/Hossainy as suggested by Bilek with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Bilek teaches plasma polymer layer thicknesses of from about 0.3 nm to about 1000 nm, from about 3 nm to about 500 nm, 300 nm or 100 nm and from about 10 nm to about 30 nm as being suitable to covalently bind biological molecules. MPEP 2144.05 states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. Furthermore, it is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known and determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum values (MPEP 2144.05).
Thus, the combined teachings of Wang, Hossainy and Bilek render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/21/2025, regarding the 103 rejection over Wang, Hossainy and Bilek have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant relies on the same arguments as presented for the 103 rejection over Wang and Hossainy. No further arguments regarding claims 4, 5, 8-11, 13 and 14 are presented. Remarks, pages 1-5.
For the same reasons as discussed above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Thus, said rejection is maintained.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Immobilization of Active Bacteriophages on Polyhydroxyalkanoate Surfaces, ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2015 Nov 2; 8(2): 1128-38; hereinafter as “Wang”) in view of Hossainy et al. (US 2006/0147412 A1, Jul. 6, 2006, hereafter as “Hossainy”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katsarava et al. (US 2016/0375139 A1, Dec. 29, 2016, hereinafter as “Katsarava”).
The instant invention is described above.
Wang and Hossainy teach the elements discussed above. Wang also teaches that the oxygen plasma treatment can be adapted to treat other polymeric substances (pg. 1136, section 4).
Wang and Hossainy are silent to the bioactive bacteriophages being dispersed in a coating material.
Katsarava teaches implantable devices comprising polymeric compositions comprising at least one bacteriophage (abstract; [0329]). Katsarava teaches that the bacteriophages are dispersed, mixed, dissolved, homogenized, or covalently bonded in a composition comprising an amino acid based polymer ([0023]). Katsarava also teaches block copolymers are suitable for the polymeric composition ([0069], [0077], [0083] and [0091]).
All of the references are drawn to anti-fouling/antibacterial compositions for use in biomedical applications, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a bacteriophage dispersed in the coating composition into the invention of Wang/Hossainy as suggested by Katsarava with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Katsarava teaches that bacteriophages can be incorporated into a polymeric composition such as block copolymer composition by dispersing or covalently bonding said bacteriophages to said polymeric composition. The prior art recognized that bacteriophages could be dispersed or covalently bonded to polymeric compositions, thus, a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected dispersing and/or covalently bonding bacteriophages in/to a polymer (e.g., a block co-polymer) coating composition would have provided an antibacterial composition suitable for use on an implantable device.
Thus, the combined teachings of Wang, Hossainy and Katsarava render the instant claim prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/21/2025, regarding the 103 rejection over Wang, Hossainy and Katsarava have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant relies on the same arguments as presented for the 103 rejection over Wang and Hossainy. No further arguments regarding claim 18 are presented. Remarks, pages 1-5.
For the same reasons as discussed above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Thus, said rejection is maintained.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (Immobilization of Active Bacteriophages on Polyhydroxyalkanoate Surfaces, ACS Appl Mater Interfaces, 2015 Nov 2; 8(2): 1128-38; hereinafter as “Wang”) in view of Hossainy et al. (US 2006/0147412 A1, Jul. 6, 2006, hereafter as “Hossainy”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murthy et al. (US 2009/0130196 A1, May 21, 2009, hereinafter as “Murthy”).
The instant invention is described above.
Wang and Hossainy teach the elements discussed above.
Wang and Hossainy are silent to a coating material in which biodegradable microcapsules containing the bioactive bacteriophages are embedded and step of spraying said coating.
Murthy teaches bacteriophage compositions, where the bacteriophage is adsorbed onto a matrix via, e.g., spraying, a bacteriophage solution/suspension onto the matrix and then optionally encapsulating the bacteriophage (abstract; [0014] and [0047]). Murthy states that polymers may be used to encapsulate the bacteriophage, and any polymer known in the art may be used ([0064]).
Wang and Murthy are drawn to bacteriophage compositions, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a step of spraying a coating material comprising encapsulated bacteriophages into the invention of Wang/Hossainy as suggested by Murthy with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Murthy teaches that encapsulating bacteriophages is effective in protecting the bacteriophages from extended periods of exposure to low pH that would otherwise render the bacteriophages, or phage components, non-viable, thereby, providing improved bacteriophage stability ([0026]).
Thus, the combined teachings of Wang, Hossainy and Murthy render the instant claim prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 10/21/2025, regarding the 103 rejection over Wang, Hossainy and Murthy have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant relies on the same arguments as presented for the 103 rejection over Wang and Hossainy. No further arguments regarding claims 23 and 24 are presented. Remarks, pages 1-5.
For the same reasons as discussed above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Thus, said rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
All claims have been rejected; no claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY HAGOPIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6097. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Liu can be reached on 571-272-5539. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASEY S HAGOPIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1617