DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's response filed 5/6/2026 has been fully considered. The following rejections
and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-14, and 20-22 pending and examined on the merits.
Claims 4-5, 8, and 15-19 canceled.
Claims 21-22 newly added.
Priority
The instant application filed on 3/10/2022 claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/159,888 filed on 3/11/2021. Thus, the effective filing date of the claims is 3/11/2021.
The applicant is reminded that amendments to the claims and specification must comply with 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.121 to maintain priority to an earlier-filed application. Claim amendments may impact the effective filing date if new subject matter is introduced that lacks support in the originally filed disclosure. If an amendment adds limitations that were not adequately described in the parent application, the claim may no longer be entitled to the priority date of the earlier filing.
Withdrawn Rejections
35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-14, and 20 under 35 USC 112(b) withdrawn in view of Applicant's claim amendments filed on 5/6/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-14, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process, a mathematical concept, organizing human activity, or a law of nature or natural phenomenon without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
Claims 1 and 20: “docking the proxy compounds to the target receptor structure by docking of a flexible ligand to predict binding scores and ligand-receptor interaction information and to select a first set of best-scoring proxy compounds, wherein said selection comprises assessing the distance from the capped R position(s) to selected dummy atoms or water molecules within dead-end subpockets of the target receptor and selecting only those proxy compounds in which the capped R position(s) is positioned within a binding pocket of the target receptor such that the cap can be replaced with one or more synthons in a manner that would allow the proxy compound to largely fill the binding pocket of the target receptor” (claim 1) and “docking the proxy compounds to at least one of a cannabinoid CB1 receptor and a cannabinoid CB2 receptor by docking of a flexible ligand to select a first set of best-scoring proxy compounds, wherein the selection comprises assessing the distance from the capped R position to selected dummy atoms or water molecules within dead-end subpockets of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor or the cannabinoid CB₂ receptor and selecting only those proxy compounds in which the capped R position is positioned within a binding pocket of cannabinoid CB₁ receptor or the cannabinoid CB₂ receptor such that the cap can be replaced with one or more synthons in a manner that would allow the proxy compound to largely fill the binding pocket of the cannabinoid CB1 receptor or the cannabinoid CB₂ receptor” (claim 20); and “performing docking for the fully enumerated compounds in at least two R positions to select a first set of best docking compounds” (claim 1) and “performing docking of the fully enumerated compounds in at least two R positions to select compounds that dock to at least one of a cannabinoid CB1 receptor and a cannabinoid CB2 receptor” (claim 20) provides an evaluation and organizing information (predicting binding scores, organizing interaction information, and selecting best-scoring compounds) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Claim 6: “filtering or screening the first best set of proxy compounds for diversity” provides an evaluation (filtering requires an evaluation or comparison) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
Claim 12: “filtering for physical-chemical properties, drug-likeness, novelty, and chemical diversity to select a final set of best docking compounds” provides an evaluation (filtering and selecting requires an evaluation or comparison) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or are mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. As such, claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-14, and 20-22 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exceptions listed above are not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflects an improvement to technology. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 1 and 20: “generating a list of proxy compounds comprising reaction scaffolds at least two R positions, identified as R1 and R2, respectively, and corresponding synthons, wherein only one of R1 and R2 is enumerated with the corresponding synthons and R2, and any other R positions are capped with a synthon cap to become a capped R position” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (generating a list is a pre-solution activity involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
“iteratively enumerating the first set of best-scoring proxy compounds so that at least one capped R position is replaced with a full range of corresponding synthons to produce fully enumerated compounds” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (iterative enumeration is a pre-solution activity involving data gathering and manipulation steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim 12: “synthesis and testing that is a subset of the first set of best docking compounds” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (synthesis and testing of a subset of compounds is a post-solution activity involving sample manipulation and data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
The steps for generating lists, iterative enumeration, and synthesis and testing of compounds are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application because they are pre- and post-solution activities involving data gathering, and data and sample manipulation steps (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-14, and 20-22 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, or equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment.
The limitations for generating lists, iterative enumeration, and synthesis and testing of compounds are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. Furthermore, no inventive concept is claimed by these limitations as they are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No). As such, claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-14, and 20-22 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/6/2026 are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the amended independent claims, now "expressly call[ing] out the 'significantly more' that is implicitly in the steps of the Claims [as] advantageously allow[ing] a more streamlined identification of compounds that bind a target receptor and result not only in higher numbers of such compounds but also improved compound-receptor binding characteristics, when compared to traditional virtual library screening", now recite "significantly more" than the identified judicial exceptions (Remarks 5/6/2026 pages 2-3). Examiner notes that these amendments to the independent claims are result-oriented language that still do not serve to integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Applicant further asserts that the amendments to the independent claims are analogous to those of Example 40, in that "Claims 1 and 20 provide specific improvements that integrate an alleged mental process into a practical application" by not having to screen "an entire library, rather the focus is on only the best identified and selected best-scoring proxy compounds that results in higher performing the fully enumerated compounds and a reduced computing cost" (Remarks 5/6/2026 page 4). Examiner notes below in section "Claim Rejections - 35 USC 103" that the alleged improvement of focusing on a subset of identified compounds that then go on to a more rigorous evaluation process is already present in the art, thus the present claims are not an improvement over existing methods.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-14, and 20-22 under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-12, 14, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lobanov et al. (US-7416524) in view of Zhou et al. (Zhou et al. "Pharmacophore-based 3D-QSAR modeling, virtual screening and molecular docking analysis for the detection of MERTK inhibitors with novel scaffold." Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening 19.1 (2016): 73-96).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Lobanov teaches a method for efficiently screening of large libraries of compounds to identify the best compounds that dock to receptor (Abstract "A system, method, and computer program product for fast and efficient searching of large virtual combinatorial libraries based on a fitness function").
Lobanov also teaches generating a list of proxy compounds comprising reaction scaffolds and enumerated with corresponding synthons only in a first R position while a second R position is capped with a minimal synthon cap to become a capped R position (Page 33 col 1 line 49 "Generally, a universally applicable program has been developed for generating virtual libraries. As input, this program takes lists of reagents supplied in Structure-Data File (SDF) format, [], or Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry Specification (SMILES) format").
Lobanov also teaches docking the proxy compounds to the target receptor structure by docking of a flexible ligand to predict binding scores and ligand-receptor interaction information and to select a first set of best-scoring proxy compounds (Page 33 col 2 line 46 "Besides similarity and diversity (i.e., dissimilarity), other selection criteria can also be employed. Examples include selecting compounds having desired properties or property distributions as determined by a property prediction algorithm or a quantitative structure-activity model, or exhibiting an optimal fit to a biological receptor as determined by a biomolecular docking algorithm. Compound can also be selected based on 2D and 3D QSAR predictions, and receptor complementarity", and page 36 col 2 line 48 "the desired number (e.g., K) of the highest-ranking (most similar) compounds are selected from the enumerated "focused" library (i.e., second set of enumerated compounds) based on their similarity scores or dissimilarity scores. Alternatively, the highest-ranking K compounds can be selected without prior sorting. For example, any compound having a dissimilarity value lower than a threshold value can be selected").
Lobanov also teaches iteratively enumerating the first set of best-scoring proxy compounds so that at least one capped R position is replaced with a full range of corresponding synthons to produce fully enumerated compounds (Page 41 col 1 line 1 "The list of "preferred" reagents was then used to produce the "focused" library (Step 112) and all reagent combinations associated with that "focused" library were enumerated").
Lobanov does not explicitly teach performing docking for the fully enumerated compounds in at least two R positions to select a first set of best docking compounds.
However, Zhou teaches performing a docking procedure for high-throughput virtual screening using at least two key elements contributing to ligand activity (Page 1 Abstract "For the pharmacophore model, two hydrogen bond donors (D), one hydrogen bond receptor (A), and two hydrophobic groups (H) were considered as the key elements contributing to ligand activity. [] Subsequently, docking procedure was applied on these hits, and 840 compounds were obtained through high-throughput virtual screening (HTVS)").
Zhou also teaches docking the compounds to the target receptor structure further includes selecting of compounds with higher chances for successful enumeration, as defined by distances to specific atoms of a pocket (Page 2 col 1 first paragraph "The scaling of van der waals radii and other parameters was set as default values", page 2 col 2 paragraph 2 "The prepared ligands were then subjected to generating conformer in the Macromodel module of Schrödinger using a Macromodel torsion angle search approach. OPLS_2005 was employed as force field for minimization of returned conformers with solvent using None, “Electrostatic Treatment” using Distance-dependent", and page 21 col 1 paragraph 1 " The returned hits were required to satisfy all the five pharmacophore features within the intersite distance matching tolerance"). Additionally, Figure 2 of Zhou clearly shows distances being evaluated, as well as a "scaling" component of this process which implies evaluating a range of distances between atoms/compounds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Lobanov as taught by Zhou in order to efficiently and effectively search large virtual combinatorial libraries (page 1 col 2 last paragraph "To screen from the drug-like database and discover MERTK inhibitors with new scaffold, the pharmacophore model was used in searching hits matched with all the pharmacophoric features"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both approaches are concerned with virtually screening compounds utilizing 3D QSAR modeling.
Regarding claim 2, Lobanov in view of Zhou teach the methods of Claims 1 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Lobanov also teaches the minimal synthon cap is methyl or phenyl (Figure 3 shows a portion of a large virtual combination library that includes compounds containing methyl and/or phenyl groups, which could be a first or second R position).
Regarding claim 6, Lobanov in view of Zhou teach the methods of Claims 1 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Lobanov also teaches filtering or screening the first best set of proxy compounds for diversity (Page 30 col 2 line 59 "Examples of fitness functions that can be used with the present invention include, but are not limited to, similarity to one or more query structures, diversity, and presence of desired properties").
Regarding claim 7, Lobanov in view of Zhou teach the methods of Claims 1 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. While the referenced prior art does not explicitly state a 20% threshold for reaction diversity specifically, the claimed feature is simply the result of optimizing a known parameter (diversity), which is routinely cited by Lobanov as a specific desired result-effective variable of the screening process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize the percent of selected resulting compounds to achieve the desired performance.
Regarding claims 9-11, Lobanov in view of Zhou teach the methods of Claims 1 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Lobanov also teaches: the iteratively enumerating comprises a single iteration for two-component reactions with only two R groups (claim 9); the iteratively enumerating comprises a plurality of iterations for three-component reactions with three R groups (claim 10); and the iteratively enumerating comprises repeatedly enumerating a plurality of iterations when the compounds are 4- and 5- component compounds until the compounds are fully enumerated with library synthons (claim 11) (The section titled "Virtual Combinatorial Libraries" on page 32 col 1 line 61 outlines the distinction between enumerated and non-enumerated virtual combinatorial libraries, the former of which they give an example out to a three-dimensional combinatorial matrix of reagents which could easily be expanded to any number of reagent dimensions desired).
Regarding claim 12, Lobanov in view of Zhou teach the methods of Claims 1 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Lobanov also teaches the performing the docking for the fully enumerated compounds further includes filtering for physical-chemical properties, drug-likeness, novelty, and chemical diversity to select a final set of best docking compounds for synthesis and testing that is a subset of the first set of best docking compounds (Page 30 col 2 line 59 "Examples of fitness functions that can be used with the present invention include, but are not limited to, similarity to one or more query structures, diversity, and presence of desired properties" and page 33 col 2 line 4 "The role of virtual combinatorial libraries in drug discovery is to provide computational access to compounds that can be readily synthesized and tested for biological activity. The role of the computational tools is to identify which compounds from the library need to be tested to achieve the desired objective").
Regarding claim 14, Lobanov in view of Zhou teach the methods of Claims 1 on which this claim depends/these claims depend, respectively. Zhou also teaches the receptors have receptor structures represented by 3D coordinates of the receptor atoms (The software used here, Schrödinger, represents molecular structures using 3D coordinates).
Regarding claim 22, the reduction in screening time is interpreted as described in the instant specification on para.0049, and summarized as filtering an initial library down to a remaining 0.02% of compounds to be further interrogated. Lobanov in view of Zhou teach the methods of Claim 1 on which this claim depends. While the cited performance gain in the specification of Lobanov is not precisely "at least 5000-fold" (page 42 col 2 line 55 "An important quality of the algorithm presented herein is the ability to produce very good hit lists in a short period of time. When less than 1% of the virtual compounds need to be enumerated and characterized, the effective performance gain is 100 fold"), it is conceivable and obvious that the method would be able to achieve a filtering of 1 in 5000 compounds for certain screening libraries and therefore the routine optimization of these statistics could lead to the claimed values. The person of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at these statistical values as a matter of course given a particular library (one of enormous size to be filtered down to just the said at least 0.02%).
Claims 13 and 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lobanov et al. (US-7416524) in view of Zhou et al. (Zhou et al. "Pharmacophore-based 3D-QSAR modeling, virtual screening and molecular docking analysis for the detection of MERTK inhibitors with novel scaffold." Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening 19.1 (2016): 73-96) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14 above, and further in view of Sapundzhi (Sapundzhi, "Scoring functions and modeling of structure-activity relationships for cannabinoid receptors." (2019): 139-145).
Lobanov et al. in view of Zhou et al. are applied to claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Lobanov in view of Zhou teach the method of Claim 1 on which claim 13 depends, and which claim 20 shares significant limitations.
Lobanov nor Zhou explicitly teach the receptors are a cannabinoid CB1 receptor and a cannabinoid CB2 receptor.
However, Sapundzhi teaches designing a ligand-receptor model for CB1 and CB2 receptors (Abstract "Computer-aided drug design could help much in the field of bioinformatics and biomedical engineering if there is a good model of CB1 and CB2 receptors and a suitable algorithm for the obtained ligand-receptor complex. The purpose of this article is to find the most appropriate scoring function and model for docking between cannabinoid ligands and cannabinoid receptors that correlate well with the data from biological activity of the compounds").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Lobanov and Zhou as taught by Sapundzhi in order to find the most appropriate scoring function and model for docking of ligands with specific receptors (Sapundzhi, page 1 abstract "The purpose of this article is to find the most appropriate scoring function and model for docking between cannabinoid ligands and cannabinoid receptors that correlate well with the data from biological activity of the compounds" and Lobanov, Page 33 col 2 line 46 "Besides similarity and diversity (i.e., dissimilarity), other selection criteria can also be employed. Examples include selecting compounds having desired properties or property distributions as determined by a property prediction algorithm or a quantitative structure-activity model, or exhibiting an optimal fit to a biological receptor as determined by a biomolecular docking algorithm"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both methods use a scoring function for docking between molecules and receptors.
Regarding claim 22, the reduction in screening time is interpreted as described in the instant specification on para.0049, and summarized as filtering an initial library down to a remaining 0.02% of compounds to be further interrogated. Lobanov in view of Zhou and Sapundzhi teach the methods of Claim 20 on which this claim depends. While the cited performance gain in the specification of Lobanov is not precisely "at least 5000-fold" (page 42 col 2 line 55 "An important quality of the algorithm presented herein is the ability to produce very good hit lists in a short period of time. When less than 1% of the virtual compounds need to be enumerated and characterized, the effective performance gain is 100 fold"), it is conceivable and obvious that the method would be able to achieve a filtering of 1 in 5000 compounds for certain screening libraries and therefore the routine optimization of these statistics could lead to the claimed values. The person of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at these statistical values as a matter of course given a particular library (one of enormous size to be filtered down to just the said at least 0.02%).
Response to Arguments under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/6/2026 are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that "[t]he cited art fails to disclose, teach or suggest not only these [amended] method steps, as presently claimed, but also fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the resulting advantages", that of filtering down a list of initial ligands to then apply to the claimed scoring and distance method steps (Remarks 5/6/2026 pages 5-6). Applicant also asserts that "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable expectation of success of achieving the claimed methods based on the cited art" because "Zhou's disclosure of using Van der Waals radii as a default (among 'other parameters') doesn't cure the deficiency of Lobanov nor does it disclose, teach or even suggest" the amended limitations of claims 1 and 20 (Remarks 5/6/2026 pages 7-8). Examiner notes that Lobanov does in fact teach a filtering down of their list of reagents for testing into a "focused library" (Lobanov page 35 col 2 line 4 "The building blocks are then combined into lists of "preferred" reagents that are used to produce a smaller "focused" library [. . .]. All the compounds in the "focused" library are enumerated to produce a second set of enumerated compounds"), and Zhou teaches applying a distance tolerance metric for screening (Zhou page 21 col 1 paragraph 1 "The returned hits were required to satisfy all the five pharmacophore features within the intersite distance matching tolerance"). Examiner also notes the motivation and reasonable expectation of success statements in the above section for why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the two references to arrive at the instant (amended) claims. Additionally, filling using water molecules is suggested my Zhou using Schrödinger (page 2 col 2 paragraph 4 "Filling for the missing side chains and missing loops was carried out using prime. Water molecules were deleted, and minimization was done using the OPLS_2005 force field [17]"). As previously stated by Examiner, the reasonable expectation of success for the obvious combination of Lobanov and Zhou is because both approaches are concerned with virtually screening compounds utilizing 3D QSAR modeling, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have a clear reason for attempting a combination of any step of these methods with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant also argues that "[t]he Office Actions' conclusions are based on impermissible hindsight" and "submits that it is only based on the disclosure of the present application that one of ordinary skill in the art would have any motivation to arrive at the presently claimed methods" (Remarks 5/6/2026 pages 8-9). Examiner notes above the motivation for combining Lobanov and Zhou. Applicant also asserts that "simply using Van der Waals radii as a default" does not teach or suggest the amended limitation regarding testing and evaluating positioning within a binding pocket (Remarks 5/6/2026 pages 9-10). Applicant notes that Figure 2 of Zhou clearly shows distances being evaluated, and with respect to "simply using Van der Waals radii as a default", there is also a "scaling" component of this process which implies evaluating a range of distances between atoms/compounds.
Applicant argues that "[i]t is this selection that provides the efficiency of the Claimed method because the entire library need not be screened" because "[b]y identifying those proxy compounds that have capped R positions that would prevent replacement of the cap with one or more synthons to largely fill the binding pocket of the target receptor, the method eliminates proxy compounds that are unlikely to be successful binders" (Remarks 5/6/2026 page 10). Examiner notes that this process is merely using a methyl or phenyl group (a "synthon" as interpreted in the Office Action filed 1/6/2026) in the secondary position while the primary position is being enumerated. This approach is suggested by the cited art and is implicit to any method that is using a virtual screening approach of enumeration over more than one position.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-14, and 20-22 under 35 USC 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the TH REE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this finaI action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A. Player whose telephone number is (571)272-6350. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Karlheinz R. Skowronek can be reached on 571-272-9047. 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.
/R.A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights