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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 3, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the invention of Group I (combinations of miRNA markers and kits comprising reagents for detecting said markers) in the reply filed on April 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of species directed to the genus “a peripheral blood miRNA marker combination… comprising at least 5 miRNA markers” wherein the elected combination is “hsa-miR-103a-3p, hsa-miR-181a-5p, hsa-miR21-5p, hsa-miR140-5p, hsa-miR340-5p” is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Upon further consideration, the requirement for species election pertaining to various combinations of miRNAs documented on pages 3-5 of the Requirement for Election/Restriction mailed on February 24, 2025 is withdrawn.
Claim Status and Action Summary
This action is in response to the papers filed on March 3, 2026.
Claims 10-15 and 17-18 are pending in this application. Claims 17-18 were added in the amendment dated March 3, 2026. Claims 10-13 are withdrawn as directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-9 were canceled by applicant.
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 are under examination.
Any objections and rejections not reiterated below are hereby withdrawn.
Priority
The present application, filed on October 29, 2021 is a 371 of PCT/CN2020/084687, filed on April 14, 2020 and claims foreign priority to CHINA 201910392316.2, filed on April 30, 2019. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the present application, and a translation of said application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 was made of record on August 29, 2025. Therefore, the effective filing date of the present application is determined to be April 30, 2019.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Relevant to the lack of particular structural limitation in the rejected claims drawn to kits for diagnosing gastric cancer comprising a genus of structurally undefined primers for amplifying miRNA markers, MPEP 2163 states:
The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, at 2163IIA3(a), the MPEP states:
“…describing a composition by its function alone typically will not suffice to sufficiently describe the composition. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3 at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (Holding that description of a gene’s function will not enable claims to the gene “because it is only an indication of what the gene does rather than what it is.”); see also Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The patent at issue claimed a method of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 gene product by administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, however the patent did not disclose any compounds that can be used in the claimed methods. While there was a description of assays for screening compounds to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, there was no disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules selectively inhibit PGHS-2. The court held that “[w]ithout such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).
The claims are broadly drawn to kits comprising a reagent for specifically detecting combinations of miRNAs [comprising or consisting] of a combination of 12 miRNAs recited by the claims, wherein the reagent comprises a stem-loop reverse transcription primer, a semi-nested qPCR primer for amplifying the miRNA markers, or both.
In the case of the instant claims, the functionality/intended use of “specifically detecting” and “amplifying” the miRNA markers is a critical feature of the claimed genus of products.
The specification teaches the nucleotide sequence of the target miRNA markers (see table 1 of the specification, reproduced below for clarity) and references generic methods known in the prior art by which one could design primers to a generic miRNA. In this sense, the specification teaches obvious methods for designing primers to detect miRNAs.
PNG
media_image1.png
1097
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the specification does not teach any particular species of the genera “stem-loop reverse transcription primer” or “semi-nested qPCR primer” with the recited functionality/capable of being used in the intended use of “specifically detecting” or “amplifying the miRNA markers”.
While the skilled artisan may be capable of making stem-loop reverse transcription primers and/or semi-nested qPCR primer(s) with the claimed functionality/intended use of “specifically detecting” or “amplifying the miRNA markers”, possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features. See University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 927, 69 USPQ2d at 1895.
The claims encompass a genus of structurally undefined polynucleotides that are capable of being used to specifically detect particular miRNA markers and/or amplify the particular miRNA markers.
For claims drawn to a genus, the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species. A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims directed to a functionally defined genus of antibodies were not supported by a disclosure that “only describe[d] one type of structurally similar antibodies” that “are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus.”). The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615. Further, University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404, 1405 held that:
To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that “the inventor invented the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gostelli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.”). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement “by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious,” and by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.
An adequate written description of a DNA, such as the cDNA of the recombinant plasmids and microorganisms of the ‘525 patent, “requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties,” not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention. Fiers v. Revel, 984 F.2d 1164, 1171, 25 USPQ2d 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, “an adequate written description of a DNA requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method of isolating it; what is required is a description of the DNA itself.” Id. At 1170, 25 USPQ2d at 1606.
Thus considering the breadth of the reagents/primers required by the claims, their specific required functionalities, and the teachings of the instant specification, it is the conclusion that the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the broadly claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) and (d)
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “a kit… comprising a reagent for specifically detecting a combination of miRNA markers comprising [a combination requiring all of the 12 markers recited in claim 14], wherein the reagent comprises a stem-loop reverse transcription primer, a semi-nested qPCR primer, or both.
The present claims are directed to products. As presently recited, claim 14 positively recites structures “a reagent” comprising “a stem-loop reverse transcription primer”, “a semi-nested qPCR primer”, or “both”. The preamble of the claim recites an intended use of “specifically detecting a combination of miRNA markers comprising…”.
It is unclear from the claim language exactly what structures are intended to be required by the claim as presently written. The claim term “a reagent” comprising at least any one of “a stem-loop reverse transcription primer, a semi-nested qPCR primer, or both” appears to require only one reagent that is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, either a stem-loop reverse transcription primer or a semi-nested qPCR primer.
It is unclear how “a reagent” comprising “a semi-nested qPCR primer or a stem-loop reverse transcription primer” (i.e. encompassing embodiments wherein the reagent is one qPCR primer or one stem loop primer) is intended to provide sufficient structure to perform the recited intended function “specifically detecting a combination of miRNA markers…” as the specification defines structures of the recited miRNA markers at Table 1 (revised January 7, 2025; see below), but does not provide the structures (e.g. sequences) of any particular stem-loop reverse transcription primers or semi-nested qPCR primers sufficient to perform the recited function.
PNG
media_image2.png
806
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Because the recited miRNA markers do not share a common structure (i.e. sequence), it is unclear how a single stem-loop reverse transcription primer or a single semi-nested qPCR primer is intended to accomplish “specifically detecting” the combination of the 12 miRNAs.
Furthermore, the metes and bounds of polynucleotide sequences (i.e. primers) for amplifying the recited miRNA markers is unclear at least because no particular primers are disclosed for this purpose.
Similarly, claim 15 requires that the reagent “includes at least twelve oligonucleotides” (i.e. does not require both a stem-loop reverse transcription primer and a semi-nested qPCR primer).
Further, claims 15 and 18 recite “at least a part of the oligonucleotides specifically binds to the miRNA markers”. It is unclear from the claim language whether: a) each oligonucleotide is intended to specifically bind one miRNA marker, b) at least one sequence (i.e. “a part”) within any one of the oligonucleotides specifically binds one miRNA marker, or c) at least one sequence (i.e. “a part”) within any one of the oligonucleotides specifically binds all of the miRNA markers.
Claim 17 further limits the combination of miRNA markers recited in independent claim 14 as an intended use of the claimed products (for specifically detecting a combination… wherein the combination… consists of…). It is unclear what specific structures are intended to be covered by the claim language as presently written.
Claim 18 recites “the reagent includes at least twelve oligonucleotides wherein at least a part of the oligonucleotides specifically binds to the miRNA markers.” (i.e. the reagent may comprise any number of additional oligonucleotides so long as at least a part of the oligonucleotides (i.e. any one oligonucleotide, see 112(b) above)) specifically binds to (at least any one miRNA marker, see 112(b) above).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Under an interpretation of claim 14 wherein the claimed kit comprising a reagent is not limited by the recited intended use of the positively recited structural components, claim 17 does not positively recite any particular structural limitations in addition to those required by claim 14. Rather, claim 17 recites limitations upon the intended use.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Under an interpretation of claim 17 wherein:
The claimed kit requires a reagent comprising, for each of the twelve recited miRNA markers, either a stem-loop reverse transcription primer or a semi-nested qPCR primer wherein each of the stem-loop reverse transcription primers or each of the semi-nested qPCR primers specifically bind to a different corresponding miRNA marker of the twelve miRNA markers;
Claim 18 further recites that the reagent includes at least twelve oligonucleotides, wherein at least a part of the oligonucleotides (e.g. any one oligonucleotide of the twelve oligonucleotides, or at least a part of each of the twelve oligonucleotides?) specifically binds to the miRNA markers. It appears that claim 18 encompasses kits wherein “the reagent” comprises additional undefined oligonucleotides that may, or may not, bind to the miRNA markers. Therefore, the scope of claim 18 may be interpreted as broader than that of claim 17, upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of the following prior art rejections and in the interest of compact prosecution, the claims have been treated under two interpretations.
The claimed kits comprising a stem-loop reverse transcription primer, a semi-nested qPCR primer, or both are not limited by the intended use “for specifically detecting a combination of miRNA markers…”
The claimed kits comprising a stem-loop reverse transcription primer, a semi-nested qPCR primer, or both further requires, for each miRNA marker of a combination of miRNA markers comprising [the 12 miRNA markers recited in the claims], a stem-loop reverse transcription primer, a semi-nested qPCR primer, or both, wherein the stem-loop reverse transcription primer, a semi-nested qPCR primer, or both, specifically bind to a miRNA marker of the combination of miRNA markers comprising [the 12 miRNA markers recited in the claim].
Under interpretation (b), claim 17 is interpreted as further requiring that the reagent consists of a combination of stem-loop reverse transcription primers, semi-nested qPCR primers, or both, wherein the combination of primers consists of, for each miRNA marker of the combination of miRNA markers consisting of [the 12 miRNA markers recited in the claims], a stem-loop reverse transcription primer, a semi-nested qPCR primer, or both, wherein, for each miRNA marker, the corresponding stem-loop reverse transcription primer, the corresponding semi-nested qPCR primer, or both, specifically bind to the miRNA marker.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Too et al., 2017a US 9,850,527 B2 (issued December 26, 2017).
This rejection is made under interpretation (“a”, see above).
Claim 14 requires a kit comprising a reagent, wherein the reagent comprises a stem-loop reverse transcription primer, a semi-nested qPCR primer, or both.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Too et al., 2017a teach kits comprising stem-loop reverse transcription primers and hemi-nested (i.e. semi-nested) qPCR primers for detecting miRNA markers (Too et al., 2017a, figure 5, see below; and column 2, line 39-column 4, line 10).
PNG
media_image3.png
539
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Too et al., 2017a teach kits comprising pairs of stem-loop reverse transcription primers and semi-nested qPCR primers for multiplex amplification of 24 different miRNA targets (i.e. at least twelve oligonucleotides that specifically bind to miRNA markers) (Too et al., 2017a, column 17, line 66-column 18, line 58).
Therefore, Too et al., 2017a teach all of the positively recited structural limitations of the kits as presently recited by the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Too et al., 2017b US 2017/0233822 A1 (published August 17, 2017) in view of Too et al., 2017a US 9,850,527 B2 (issued December 26, 2017).
Regarding claim 1, Too et al., 2017b teaches miRNA biomarkers (and reagents/primers for their detection) for diagnosing gastric cancer (Too et al., paragraph 0129) in blood (Too et al., 2017b paragraph 0127), comprising reagents for measuring differential expression of (i.e. detecting) a combination of miRNAs comprising all of the miRNAs listed on Table 18 (Too et al., 2017b, paragraph 0060). Table 18 lists 70 up-regulated miRNAs and 40 down-regulated miRNAs which may be used to determine the likelihood of a patient developing or having gastric cancer (i.e. diagnosing gastric cancer). The miRNAs of table 18 include all of: hsa-miR-29c-3p (up), hsa-miR-424-5p (up), hsa-miR-103a-3p (down), hsa-miR-93-5p (up), hsa-miR-181a-5p (down), hsa-miR-21-5p (up), hsa-miR-140-5p (up), hsa-miR-142-5p (up), hsa-miR-126-3p (down), and hsa-miR-183-5p (up). Table 18 does not include hsa-miR-30e-5p and hsa-miR-340-5p. However, Too et al., 2017b further teach reagents for measuring the expression level of (i.e. detecting) at least one negative control miRNA whose expression level does not differ between healthy controls and subjects with gastric cancer (Too et al., 2017b, paragraph 0108). Too et al., 2017b teach table 20 is a list of 10 such invariant miRNAs, which comprises both hsa-miR-30e-5p and hsa-miR-340-5p. Too et al., 2017b further teach methods of use of the primers wherein all 10 of the negative control miRNAs on table 20 are detected (Too et al., 2017b, paragraph 0116).
Too et al. 2017b do not teach that the reverse transcription primers for detection of the miRNAs comprise stem-loop reverse transcription primers or semi-nested qPCR primers.
However, Too et al., 2017a teach kits comprising stem-loop reverse transcription primers and hemi-nested (i.e. semi-nested) qPCR primers for detecting miRNA markers (Too et al., 2017a, figure 5, see below; and column 2, line 39-column 4, line 10).
PNG
media_image3.png
539
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Too et al., 2017a teach kits comprising pairs of stem-loop reverse transcription primers and semi-nested qPCR primers for multiplex amplification of 24 different miRNA targets (i.e. at least twelve oligonucleotides that specifically bind to miRNA markers) (Too et al., 2017a, column 17, line 66-column 18, line 58).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Too et al., 2017b, comprising kits and methods for diagnosing gastric cancer comprising reagents for specifically detecting each of the recited biomarker miRNAs with the teachings of Too et al., 2017a comprising principles for designing stem-loop reverse transcription primers and semi-nested qPCR primers for amplifying and detecting miRNA biomarkers. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine the primers and biomarkers for diagnosis of gastric cancer taught by Too et al., 2017b with the primer design principles of Too et al., 2017a because of the teaching of Too et al., 2017a that such hemi-nested real-time RT-PCR assays were simple to design and showed excellent performance, provided flexibility for the design of any miRNAs that may be identified in the future, and was capable of extremely fast thermocycling (~10s per cycle) without modification of reaction mixtures and without the need for hydrolysis probes.
Regarding claim 15, Too et al., 2017a teach embodiments wherein 24 miRNAs are simultaneously amplified and detected in a multiplex assay using stem-loop reverse transcription primers and semi-nested qPCR primers (Too et al., 2017a, column 17, line 66- column 18, line 58) (i.e. at least twelve oligonucleotides). Similarly, Too et al., 2017b teach embodiments wherein all of the miRNAs on table 18 and the negative control miRNAs on table 20 are simultaneously detected for diagnosis of gastric cancer (i.e. at least 12 oligonucleotides).
Response to arguments
The response argues that Too et al. teaches away from the claimed invention “by disclosing hsa-miR-340-5p as a “gastric cancer unrelated miRNA” and “the action acknowledges that hsa-miR-340-5p is a “control miRNA” “not differentially expressed in gastric cancer” and further asserts: “The Office Action states that "Too teaches that all of the presently claimed markers are among a set of miRNAs that are each informative as to the presence of gastric cancer in a subject." (Office Action at 10, emphasis added.) Applicant respectfully submits that the statement is an erroneous characterization of Too's disclosure and contradicts the Office's earlier statement.”
These arguments/assertions have been reviewed and are not persuasive. As described in the previous office action, Too does teach that hsa-miR-340-5p is a control miRNA whose expression is not significantly different between healthy controls and subjects having gastric cancer. As described in the 103 rejection above, Too expressly teaches methods and kits comprising measuring the expression of miRNAs known to be differentially expressed in gastric cancer relative to healthy controls and miRNAs known to be similarly (i.e. not differentially expressed) among the two groups. This characterization is not an erroneous description of Too’s disclosure, nor is it contradictory within the context of the office action. In the context of measuring the expression of genes known to be differentially expressed between two groups (i.e. disease vs. healthy) it is necessary to utilize an internal control that is invariant between the two groups in order to normalize measurements for technical artifacts. Furthermore, in the context of diagnostics, it is necessary to measure an internal control that is present and invariant between two cohorts/conditions in order to ascertain whether a particular expression level is elevated without requiring healthy volunteer samples when running each instance of a diagnostic (i.e. is the gene of interest elevated/reduced relative to an invariant internal control?). Too et al. expressly teach that the invariant, “insignificant[ly]” different miRNAs of table 20 are useful (read: informative) in diagnosis (quoting from Too et al., 2017b paragraph 0139): “The technical variations introduced during RNA isolation and the processes of RT-qPCR were normalized by the spike-in control RNAs. For the analysis of single miRNA, the biological variations were further normalized by a set of validated endogenous reference miRNAs stably expressed across all control and disease samples.” (emphasis added).
The response further asserts that Too provides no teaching or motivation to the twelve specific miRNAs of the claims and “the only way to arrive at the pending claims necessarily relies on a hindsight analysis” and asserts “these arguments… were not addressed… [and] the 103 rejections were formed without considering the record as a whole.”
These assertions are not persuasive. In the cited office action, the teachings of Too describing how an ordinary artisan would have selected and compared particular subsets of the disclosed miRNA markers (of which all of the presently claimed miRNA markers are disclosed specifically as markers of the presence of gastric cancer or invariant controls necessary for normalizing across multiple samples) were discussed at length and in detail entirely from the teachings of Too et al.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY MARK TURPIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 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, Winston Shen can be reached at 5712723157. 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.
/Z.M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1682
/WU CHENG W SHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights