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 .
Claims 1, 4-15, 18-20 and 45-47 are pending in this application, Claims 7-15 and 18-20 are acknowledged as withdrawn, Claims 1, 4-6 and 45-47 were examined on their merits.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
With regard to Claim 1, the newly added limitation “wherein the cell culture storage and transport medium is formulated for storage and transport of cells having a 3D spheroid or organoid form”, is drawn to an intended use of the claimed composition. Similar to apparatus claims, composition claims cover what the composition is, not what the composition does. Limitations directed to the manner in which the composition is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed composition from a prior art composition. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See the MPEP at 2114, II.
With regard to Claim 45, the newly added limitation “…and remain in place when the cell storage and transport medium is subjected to a drop test”, the instant claims are drawn to a composition and not a method. Therefore, there is no requirement that a drop-test take place and the claim has been construed thusly for purposes of examination.
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 47 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 47 requires that the composition of Claim 45 be in a solidified form. However, Claim 45 indicates that the composition comprises an ultra-low gelling temperature agarose comprising a gelling temperature from 8-17 °C. The claim does not indicate that the composition has been cooled to that temperature range, therefore it is unclear how the composition can be in solidified form.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2006/0088935 A1), in view of Xu (US 6,410,244 B1) and Bates (2013), all of record.
Fan et al. teaches a nutrient medium comprising a carbohydrate nutrient (Pg. 20,
Claim 1) and an embodiment thereof further comprising agar, agarose and
methylcellulose (Pg. 20, Claim 39) wherein the concentrations of the agar, agarose and
methylcellulose in the nutrient medium ranges from between 0-6% w/v (thus overlapping and rendering obvious the claimed concentration ranges of about 0.5-1% agarose and about 0.5-0.7% methylcellulose) (Pg. 20, Claim 40). See the MPEP at 2131.03, II. and 2144.05, I., and reading on Claim 1.
The teachings of Fan et al. were discussed above.
Fan et al. did not reach a composition wherein the agarose is an ultra-low gelling temperature agarose, the agarose having a gelling temperature of 8-17 °C, or wherein the cell culture storage and transport medium is formulated for storage and transport of cells having a 3D spheroid or organoid form, as now required by Claim 1;
wherein the composition is a firm gel at 4 °C, as required by Claim 4;
wherein the composition is a soft gel at 2.5 °C, as required by Claim 5;
or wherein the composition is a viscous liquid at 37 °C, as required by Claim 6.
Xu teaches a composition for growing microorganism comprising nutrient media and a gelling agent such as agar or agarose has been added (Column 3, Lines 44-55) wherein a preferred gelling agent is SEAPREP™ agarose as well as commercially available gelling agents from Sigma (Column 3, Lines 61-67) wherein SEAPREP™ agarose is an ultra-low gelling temperature agarose (Column 5, Lines 26-27).
Bates teaches 3D cell culturing with Sigma A5030 agarose type IX ultra-low gelling temperature with a sol-gel transition state between 8-17 °C and wherein agarose hydrogels are advantageous for 3D cell culture, are thermosensitive and non-toxic towards cells, transparent and non-adhesive (Pg. 3, Lines 2-20).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell culture composition of Fan et al. comprising agarose, methylcellulose and nutrient media to substitute the ultra-low gelling temperature agarose of Xu for the unspecified agar of Fan et al. because Fan et al. is not particularly limited to the type of agar/agarose used in the composition and Xu teaches a specific agarose type which is suitable for cell culture applications. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification based on the availability of compounds and artisan preference. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because Fan et al. is drawn to a cell culture composition comprising a generic agar and Xu teaches a specific agarose suitable for cell culturing.
It would have been further obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell culture composition of Fan et al. and Xu comprising ultra-low temperature gelling agarose, methylcellulose and nutrient media to substitute the ultra-low gelling temperature agarose of Bates for the ultra-low gelling temperature agarose of Xu because this would provide an ultra-low temperature gelling agarose in the composition suitable for 3D cell culturing.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order prepare a suitable 3D cell culturing composition. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because Fan et al. is drawn to a cell culture composition comprising a generic agar, Xu teaches a specific ultra-low temperature gelling agarose suitable for cell culturing and Bates teaches a specific ultra-low temperature gelling agarose suitable for 3D cell culturing.
With regard to Claim 1, consistent with the Claim Interpretation above, the prior art medium composition would be “capable” of storage and transport of cells having a 3D spheroid or organoid form, thus meeting the claim.
With regard to the claimed properties and characteristics of the agarose set forth
in Claims 1 and 4-6, the instant Specification states that the ultra-low temperature
gelling agarose may be Sigma A5030 (Pg. 35, Paragraph [0161]. As the agarose of
Bates is the same as the exemplary agarose of the disclosure, it would be expected to
have the same properties and characteristics. See the MPEP at 2112.01, II.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 2006/0088935 A1), in view of Xu (US 6,410,244 B1) and Bates (2013), all of record, as applied to Claims 1 and 4-6 above, and further in view of Mayer (US 2009/0325178 A1).
The teachings of Fan et al., Xu and Bates were discussed above.
None of the above references taught a composition comprising cell having a three-dimensional spheroid or organoid form, wherein the cells are contained within the cell storage and transport medium and remain in place when the cell storage and transport medium is subjected to a drop test, as required by Claim 45;
wherein the cells are mammalian cells, as required by Claim 46;
or the composition being in a solidified form, as required by Claim 47.
Mayer teaches an inert matrix to support or aid the formation of spheroids during incubation wherein the inert matrix is added to culture medium in an amount of 2-50 vol. % based on the total volume of the medium and wherein the inert matrix may be methylcellulose, agarose or SEAPLAQUE™ agarose (a low temperature gelling agarose) (Pg. 4, Paragraph [0048]), and wherein the cells may be mammalian cells (Pg. 2, Paragraph [0022]).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Fan et al., Xu and Bates of a cell culture composition comprising nutrient medium, methylcellulose and an ultra-low temperature agarose with the inclusion of mammalian cells having a spheroid shape as taught by Mayer because none of Fan et al., Xu and Bates limit the type of cells or their formation which can be used in their cell culture compositions and Mayer provides specific cell types and aggregates thereof which can be cultured in a cell culture composition comprising a nutrient medium and an inert matrix.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to support or aid the formation of spheroids from suspended cells in a nutrient medium. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because all of the references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, that is, cell culture compositions comprising agarose.
With regard to Claim 45, as discussed in the Claim Interpretation above, the newly added limitation “…and remain in place when the cell storage and transport medium is subjected to a drop test”, the instant claims are drawn to a composition and not a method. Therefore, there is no requirement that a drop-test take place and the claim has been construed thusly for purposes of examination.
With regard to Claim 47, it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Fan et al., Xu, Bates and Mayer of a cell culture composition comprising mammalian cells, nutrient medium, methylcellulose and an ultra-low temperature agarose to expose the composition to a temperature of 8-17 °C because Bates teaches this is the gelling/solidification temperature of ultra-low gelling temperature agarose. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to induce gelling of the cell culture composition, if so desired. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because the gelling temperature of the composition is a known characteristic of ultra-low temperature agarose.
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, 4-6 and 45-47 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims1, 2, 3 and 7-9 of copending Application No. 19/685,393 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are drawn to:
A three-dimensional (3D) cell culture storage and transport medium comprising a mixture of cell culture medium, agarose, and methylcellulose, wherein the final agarose concentration in the three-dimensional cell culture storage and transport medium is about 0.5 to about 1.0% and the final methylcellulose concentration in the three-dimensional cell culture storage and transport medium is about 0.5 to about 0.7%, wherein the agarose is an ultra-low gelling temperature agarose comprising a
gelling temperature from 8°C to 17°C; wherein the cell culture storage and transport medium is formulated for storage and transport of cells having a 3D spheroid or organoid form;
and a composition formulated for storage and transportation of cells, the
composition comprising: cells having a three-dimensional (3D) spheroid or organoid form; and a 3D cell storage and transport medium comprising a mixture of cell culture
medium, agarose, and methylcellulose, wherein the final agarose concentration in the
storage and transport medium is about 0.5 to about 1.0% and the final methylcellulose
concentration in the storage and transport medium is about 0.5 to about 0.7%,
wherein the agarose is an ultra-low gelling temperature agarose comprising a
gelling temperature from 8°C to 17°C, wherein the cells are contained within the cell storage and transport medium and remain in place when the cell storage and transport medium is subjected to a drop test.
These are made obvious respectively by Claims 1, 7 and 8 & 1, 2, 7 and 8 of the copending ‘393 Application which recites:
A method for transporting cells comprising transporting at least one cell storage and transportation system, the at least one cell storage and transportation system comprising: cells; a cell culture article including a chamber comprising an array of microcavities; and a cell storage and transport medium disposed in one or more of the microcavities and comprising a mixture of cell culture medium, agarose and methylcellulose, wherein a final agarose concentration in the cell storage and transport medium is about 0.5 to about 1.0% and a final methylcellulose concentration in the cell storage and transport medium is about 0.5 to about 0.7%; wherein the cells are suspended in the cell storage and transport medium; wherein each microcavity is structured to constrain the cells to grow in a three-dimensional spheroid conformation,
wherein the agarose is an ultra-low gelling temperature agarose and wherein the ultra-low gelling temperature agarose has a gelling temperature from 8°C to 17°C; and
A method for transporting cells comprising transporting at least one cell storage and transportation system, the at least one cell storage and transportation system comprising: cells; a cell culture article including a chamber comprising an array of microcavities; and a cell storage and transport medium disposed in one or more of the microcavities and comprising a mixture of cell culture medium, agarose and methylcellulose, wherein a final agarose concentration in the cell storage and transport medium is about 0.5 to about 1.0% and a final methylcellulose concentration in the cell storage and transport medium is about 0.5 to about 0.7%; wherein the cells are suspended in the cell storage and transport medium; wherein each microcavity is structured to constrain the cells to grow in a three-dimensional spheroid conformation,
wherein the agarose is an ultra-low gelling temperature agarose and wherein the ultra-low gelling temperature agarose has a gelling temperature from 8°C to 17°C and
wherein the cells remain in place within the cell storage and transport medium when the at least one cell storage and transportation system is subjected to a drop test.
With respect to instant Claim 46, the ‘393 application does not teach that the cell are mammalian cells.
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the ‘393 application to use mammalian cells because this is no more than the selection from a finite number of possibilities with a reasonable expectation of success. See the MPEP, citing KSR, at 2143, I., E.
There are only a limited number of possible cell types, of which mammalian cells are a possibility. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to store/transport desired mammalian cells. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because the ‘393 application is not limited to any particular cell type, and mammalian cells are a specific cell type in need of transport and storage.
Instant Claims 4, 5, 6 and 47 correspond to Claims 9&3 of the ‘393 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Fan is directed to a composition for growing plant embryos while Xu is drawn to culturing and growing plasmid containing microorganisms,
thus, the ordinary artisan would not have found obvious the substitution of the unspecified agar/agarose used therein for the specific cell culture application agarose of Xu and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so
(Remarks, Pg. 8, Lines 21-34 and Pg. 9 and Pg. 10, Lines 1-2 and Pg. 10, Lines 31-32 and Pgs. 11-13 and Pg. 14, Lines 1-7).
In response to Applicant's argument that Fan and Xu are non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, while Fan may specifically utilize its’ cell culture composition for the preferred embodiment of culturing plant embryos, the reference does not teach that the composition is only applicable to that narrow use or actively teach away from its’ use in other culture applications. Similarly, Xu is directed to the preferred embodiment of culturing microorganisms does not teach that the composition is only applicable to that narrow use or actively teach away from its’ use in other culture applications. In fact, both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as Applicant, which is a cell culture composition comprising a nutrient medium and agarose. Therefore the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to substitute the ultra-low gelling temperature agarose of Xu for the unspecified agar of Fan because Fan is not particularly limited to the type of agar/agarose used in the composition and Xu teaches a specific agarose type which is suitable for cell culture applications. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification based on the availability of compounds and artisan preference.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because Fan is drawn to a cell culture composition comprising a generic agar and Xu teaches a specific agarose suitable for cell culturing
The Applicant argues that neither Xu or Bates discuss the desirability to modify the nutrient medium of Fan even if the materials were available. Applicant again opines that the ordinary artisan would only desire to use the agarose of Xu for microbial cell culture while Bates only discusses enhancing cell growth not cell storage and transport. Applicant asserts that Fan discusses the use of agarose to form a flowable or semi-solid nutrient composition for plant embryos so that ordinary artisan would have no desire to modify a plant embryo nutrient medium with an agar for microbial culture or mammalian cell culture. Applicant concludes that the Fan reference does not provide any indication that use of another agarose would be desirable or beneficial and does not articulate “artisan preference” (Remarks, Pg. 10, Lines 4-29).
This is not found to be persuasive for the following reasons, as discussed above, while Fan teaches the use of the nutrient medium for a specific purpose, the reference does not limit the nutrient medium only to that purpose or teach away from its’ use in other cell culture applications. The ordinary artisan therefore seeking/desiring a specific agarose to use in the generic composition of Fan would look to other agarose formulations used in the prior art for culturing applications and select those formulations based on their availability or as a matter of personal taste/preference.
For example, in preparing the generic composition of Fan, the practitioner may have on hang or familiarity with the use of the ultra-low gelling agarose of Xu or Bates in cell culture applications. The Examiner notes that the “cell storage and transport” language in the preamble is an intended use which is not structurally limiting to the composition.
The Applicant argues that the invention is not directed to “any cells” but as amended, formulated for cells having a 3D spheroid or organoid form in a ultra-low temperature agarose having a gelling temperature from 8-17 °C (Remarks, Pg. 15, Lines 2-9).
This is not found to be persuasive for the following reasons, as discussed above, the newly added limitation “wherein the cell culture storage and transport medium is formulated for storage and transport of cells having a 3D spheroid or organoid form”, is drawn to an intended use of the claimed composition. Similar to apparatus claims, composition claims cover what the composition is, not what the composition does. Limitations directed to the manner in which the composition is intended to be employed do not differentiate the claimed composition from a prior art composition. If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this instance, the prior art cell culture formulation is “capable” of storage and transport of cells having a 3D spheroid or organoid form, and thus meets the limitation.
The Applicant argues that Example 1 of the Specification provides evidence of testing various concentrations of agarose and methylcellulose for criticality which are commensurate in scope with the claimed invention of the composition being used for the transport and storage of 3D spheroid culture (Remarks, Pg. 15, Lines 10-34 and Pg. 16, Lines 1-3).
This is not found to be persuasive for the following reasons, the entirety of Example 1 is drawn to the routine optimization of concentrations of a particular low temperature gelling agarose and methylcellulose for a putative cell storage and transport composition.
The Examiner notes that the showing is not a comparison with the closest prior art which is the composition of Fan et al., and the evidence of unexpected results/criticality drawn to cell storage and transport (see Example 2 and Example 3) is only shown with regard to a single embodiment which is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, being drawn to storage/transport of particular cells (HT-29 spheroids) in a particular percentage (0.5%) of low temperature gelling agarose and particular percentage range of methylcellulose (0.7%) in a 1:1 ratio under particular storage/transport conditions while Claim 1 is drawn to a medium which does not comprise cells (therefore not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention) and Claim 45 is drawn to any cell spheroid/organoid in any ultra-low gelling temperature agarose in a concentration of about 0.5-1% and methylcellulose at a concentration range of about 0.5-0.7% and does not require any cell storage or transport at all.
Secondly, the Applicant's evidence does not show any evidence of criticality for cell storage or transport over the entirety of the claimed ranges such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a trend in the exemplified data. See the MPEP at 716.02(d).
The Applicant argues that Example I shows “unexpected results” and criticality with regard to the concentration of methylcellulose and ultra-low gelling agarose (Remarks, Pg. 16, Lines 5-32 and Pg. 17 and Pg. 18, Lines 1-13).
This is not found to be persuasive for the following reasons, the entirety of Example 1 is drawn to the routine optimization of concentrations of a particular low temperature gelling agarose and methylcellulose for a putative cell storage and transport composition. The showing does not indicate that the obtained results are “unexpectedly” superior to concentration ranges outside the claimed ranges for “transportation” and “storage”. For example, it would not be unexpected that a low concentration range of a agarose and methylcellulose would be too liquid and fail to solidify at low temperatures or that a high concentration of agarose/methylcellulose would provide an overly viscous composition. The evidence of criticality is lacking over the entire claimed range as Applicant only provides data (Fig. 16) for HT-29 spheroid size for the upper and lower limits of the claimed range of agarose (0.5 or 1% AGR-L) and upper and lower limits of methylcellulose (0.5 or 0.7%) with a single exemplar below the claimed range of methylcellulose (35%).
The evidence does not show any evidence of criticality for cell storage or transport over the entirety of the claimed ranges such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a trend in the exemplified data. See the MPEP at 716.02(d).
The Applicant argues that Bates as a whole, would be considered by the skilled artisan to teach that ultra-low gelling agarose was unsuitable for cell culture, was unstable and would not likely work predictably to store or transport cells (Remarks, Pg. 18, Lines 15-35 and Pg. 19 and Pg. 20, Lines 1-5).
This is not found to be persuasive for the following reasons, Bates teaches that the agarose composition only liquified (became unstable) at a temperature outside the gelling range (e.g. 37 °C) and was solidified at a temperature within the gelling range
(4 °C) (Pg, 5, Paragraph 4.1). This is entirely predictable. Therefore, the artisan could readily recognize that even if the exemplar cell agarose composition proved unsuitable for cell culturing applications as long as the compositions were kept within the gelling temperature range the composition would be suitable for cell transport and storage,
Bates further taught agarose hydrogels are advantageous for 3D cell culture, are thermosensitive and non-toxic towards cells, transparent and non-adhesive (Pg. 3, Lines 2-20). This teaching would provide motivation for the ordinary artisan to utilize the ultra-low gelling agarose in the application Fan and Xu as set forth above.
The Applicant argues that New Claims 45-47 are patentable (Remarks, Pg. 20, Lines 7-25).
This is not found to be persuasive for the reasoning provided in the above rejections.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAUL C MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3348. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-8pm 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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/PAUL C MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1653 07/01/2026
Prosecution Insights