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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or
under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. This application claims benefit of
Application No. 63/168,837 filed 03/31/2021. Based on the filing receipt, the effective filing
date of this application is March 31, 2021 which is the filing date of Application No. 63/168,837.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement dated 06/02/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-23 have been withdrawn due to the restriction requirement dated 06/17/2025.
Claims 30-31 are cancelled by the applicant.
Claims 24-29 and 32 are examined herein.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claim 28 on the grounds of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn, necessitated by amendments filed 04/27/2026 which added the antecedent “an analyte of interest” to the substrate in claim 24.
New Rejections/Objections
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28 recites, “a RNA”. The claim should recite, “an RNA”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed. The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the application. These include: (1) Actual reduction to practice, (2) Disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas, (3) Sufficient relevant identifying characteristics (such as: i. Complete structure, ii. Partial structure, iii. Physical and/or chemical properties, iv. Functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed, and correlation between function and structure), (4) Method of making the claimed invention, (5) Level of skill and knowledge in the art, and (6) Predictability in the art. See MPEP 2163.
Independent claim 24 is directed to a product comprising capture molecules and detector molecules. The product includes an affinity binder such as an antibody, aptamer, or nanobody as the capture molecule and/or detector molecule, wherein one or both of the capture molecules or the detector molecules selectively bind an analyte of interest. The claims impose no restriction on the size of the capture and detector molecules, the analyte, or the capture or detector molecule-analyte complex.
The scope of the claims therefore covers products comprising a large genus of capture and detector molecules characterized by substantial variability; and further uses a large genus of analytes of interest that bind to complexes of the capture and detector molecules. Para. [00070] of the applicant’s specification discloses, “In some embodiments, the capture molecule 2 comprises a protein, a peptide, an antibody, an aptamers (RNA and DNA), a fluorophore, a nanobody, a darpin, a catalyst, a polymerization initiator, a polymer like PEG, an organic molecule, or combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the detector molecule 1 comprises a protein, a peptide, an antibody, an aptamers (RNA and DNA), a fluorophore, a nanobody, a darpin, a catalyst, a polymerization initiator, a polymer like PEG, an organic molecule, or combinations thereof”.
Regarding the predictability or unpredictability in the art, antibodies can often be functionally promiscuous or multi-specific which can lead to antibodies binding to more than one antigen, as evidenced by Jain (“Antibody specificity and promiscuity”, published 2019-02-05). Antibodies are capture and detector molecules with a level of unpredictability that requires the applicant to provide evidence that they have considered a sufficient number of capture and detector molecules.
The specification does not disclose actual reduction to practice of specific capture and detector molecules having the necessary functional characteristics. The specification merely suggests art-recognized methods of using capture and detector molecules and provides only prophetic examples; there is no disclosure of any specific species of capture and detector molecules falling within the claimed genus.
The disclosure general methods that use capture and detector molecules is insufficient to describe the claimed genus of capture and detector molecule. The Federal Circuit addressed an analogous situation in University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc., 358 F.3d 916, 927 (Fed. Cir. 2004), finding that disclosure of “assays for screening compounds, including peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product,” did not satisfy the written description requirement for claims requiring administration of a “compound that selectively inhibits PGHS-2.” Rochester, 119 F.3d at 918, 927; see also Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Eli Lilly and Company, 598 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (recognizing distinction between requirements for written description and enablement).
Furthermore, there is also no disclosure of any partial structure common to the members of the genus of capture and detector molecules that would correlate with function (in this case, the claimed function of selectively binding to the “analyte of interest”).
The importance of structure/function correlations was recently highlighted by the courts (Abbvie Deutschland v. Janssen Biotech and Centocor Biologics, App. No. 2013-1338, -1346 (Fed. Cir., July 1, 2014)). The Abbvie case involved antibodies and written description. The court stated: “We have held that “a sufficient description of a genus . . . requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Id. at 1350 (quoting Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568– 69).”. The courts then further stated: “With the written description of a genus, however, merely drawing a fence around a perceived genus is not a description of the genus. One needs to show that one has truly invented the genus, i.e., that one has conceived and described sufficient representative species encompassing the breadth of the genus. Otherwise, one has only a research plan, leaving it to others to explore the unknown contours of the claimed genus.” (emphasis added) and then state: " Functionally defined genus claims can be inherently vulnerable to invalidity challenge for lack of written description support, especially in technology fields that are highly unpredictable, where it is difficult to establish a correlation between structure and function for the whole genus or to predict what would be covered by the functionally claimed genus. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 (“[T]he level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology.”); see also Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting the technical challenges in developing fully human antibodies of a known human protein). It is true that functionally defined claims can meet the written description requirement if a reasonable structure-function correlation is established, whether by the inventor as described in the specification or known in the art at the time of the filing date. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 964 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
There is no partial structure or other identifying characteristics disclosed, common to the members of the genus of capture and detector molecules having sufficiently high binding affinity, that would allow one skilled in the art to envision that Appellant has truly invented the genus, i.e., that one has conceived and described sufficient representative species encompassing the breadth of the genus.
For all of these reasons, the specification does not demonstrate possession of the entire genus of capture and detector molecules having the claimed functional characteristics of selectively binding to an analyte of interest.
Claims 25-29 and 32 depend on independent claim 24 and are, therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as well.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 32 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 32 recites the broad recitation “an aptamer”, and the claim also recites “(RNA and DNA)” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim.
Modified Rejections
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 24-29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopinath (WO 2019059961 A1, published 2019-03-28, cited in IDS filed 2022-10-11) in view of Tsukanov, et al. (“Developing DNA Nanotechnology Using Single-Molecule Fluorescene”, published 2014-05-14, cited in PTO-892 dated 2026-01-28). The following rejections have been modified, necessitated by amendments filed 04/27/2026.
[AltContent: textbox ([img-media_image1.png])]With respect to claim 24, Gopinath teaches several embodiments of a bistable polynucleotide device for the sensing and quantification of molecular events as exemplified by Figure 1A.
With respect to claim 24, Gopinath teaches a substrate comprising a plurality of supramolecular structures (see, e.g., substrate – para. [0036]: “Devices that are open have available purification tags (Fig. 2A, e.g. biotin), which can bind an affinity column (e.g. comprising streptavidin beads)”; and sheet 1/23, under “FIG. 1A”, labeled “Purification tag”), each supramolecular structure comprising:
a core structure comprising DNA origami (see, e.g., para. [0030]; and sheet 1/23, under “FIG. 1A”, labeled “Polynucleotide shape 1” and “Polynucleotide shape 2”, and para. [0026]: “Polynucleotide platforms include but are not limited to scaffolded deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) origami”, and para. [0034]: “other embodiments comprise a single DNA origami wherein both polynucleotide shapes and the linker are all folded from a single long DNA scaffold strand”),
one or more capture molecules linked to the supramolecular core at a first set of locations (see, e.g., para. [0030]; and sheet 1/23, under “FIG. 1A”, labeled “Primary binding molecule”),
one or more detector molecules linked to the supramolecular core at a second set of locations (see, e.g., para [0030]; and sheet 1/23, under “FIG. 1A”, labeled “Secondary binding molecule”),
an analyte of interest attached with (i) the one or more capture molecules and (ii) the one or more detector molecules (see, e.g., para. [0030]: “two illustrative examples of the sandwich actuation mechanism (Fig. 1 A, "Solution Version", and Fig. 1 B "Surface Version"), each of the polynucleotide shapes carry a "binding molecule" (e.g. aptamer or antibody) that binds a unique non-overlapping region of the analyte molecule or particle”, and under “FIG. 2A”, labeled “Strong binding”); and
and one or more barcode sequences linked to the supramolecular core at locations other than the first set of locations and the second set of locations,
wherein the one or more barcode sequences identify the core structure, the capture molecules, the detector molecules, or combinations thereof and lastly (see, e.g., para. [0035]: “a unique DNA barcode which encodes the identity of the analyte being quantified”; and under sheet 1/23, under “FIG. 1A”, labeled “Barcode strand”),
one or both of the capture molecules or the detector molecules selectively bind to an analyte of interest, (see, e.g., para. [0030]: “each of the polynucleotide shapes carry a binding molecule (e.g. aptamer or antibody) that binds a unique non- overlapping region of the analyte molecule or particle”). It is understood that because the “Solution Version” embodiment of “FIG. 1A” contains purification tags, the device will be bound to a solid substrate comprising streptavidin beads as described in para. [0036]. It is also understood that due to the selectivity of binding molecules (capture molecules or detector molecules) such as antibodies and aptamers, the identification of the analyte (see, e.g., para. [0035]) also identifies the capture and detector molecules.
With respect to claim 25, Gopinath teaches the barcode sequences comprise nucleic acid sequences (see, e.g., para. [0030]: “In some embodiments, at least one of the origami carries a unique DNA barcode”; and para. [0036]: “For some "solution version" embodiments which provide detection via output of a DNA barcode signal”). A “solution version” embodiment is exemplified in Figure 1A.
With respect to claim 26, Gopinath teaches each core structure of the plurality of supramolecular structures is identical to each other (see, e.g., para. [0050]; and para. [0029]). Due to the miniscule size of supramolecular DNA structures, it is understood that an artisan would be unable to create a single supramolecular DNA structure, instead they would create a plurality of supramolecular DNA structures which are identical in structure.
With respect to claim 27, Gopinath teaches the substrates comprises a solid substrate, specifically a bead (see, e.g., para. [0036]: “Devices that are open have available purification tags (Fig. 2A, e.g. biotin), which can bind an affinity column (e.g. comprising streptavidin beads)”; and sheet 1/23, under “FIG. 1A”, labeled “Purification tag”). It is understood that because the “Solution Version” embodiment of “FIG. 1A” contains purification tags, the device will be bound to a solid substrate comprising streptavidin beads as described in para. [0036].
With respect to claim 28, Gopinath teaches the analyte of interest is protein (see, e.g., para. [0069]).
With respect to claim 29, Gopinath teaches each supramolecular structure is a nanostructure (see, e.g., para. [0031]).
With respect to claim 32, Gopinath teaches the one or more captures molecules and one or more detector molecules for each supramolecular structure comprises an antibody or aptamer (see, e.g., capture molecules - sheet 1/23, under “FIG. 1A”, labeled “Primary binding molecule”; detector molecule - sheet 1/23, under “FIG. 1A”, labeled “Secondary binding molecule”; binding molecules are aptamers or antibodies – para. [0030]: “each of the polynucleotide shapes carry a "binding molecule" (e.g. aptamer or antibody)”).
Gopinath fails to teach the substrate is contained within a flow-cell, as in claim 24. However, in a journal article on DNA nanotechnology, Tsukanov rectifies this deficiency. Tsukanov teaches DNA Origami used with a flow-cell, as in claim 1 (see, e.g., p. 1790, under “Figure 1.”, panel “D”).
Gopinath and Tsukanov are analogous to the field of the claimed invention because they are both in the field of DNA nanotechnology. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have found it obvious to use the flow cell of Tsukanov with the bistable polynucleotide device of Gopinath. An artisan would have been motivated to do so because Tsukanov discloses “by using a flow-cell,38,39 the surrounding solution can be replaced while the sample molecule remains in position and is continuously observed. This is a significant advantage because it enables introduction of various components” (see, p. 1791, col. 1, para. 1). An artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the given disclosures.
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 24-29 and 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 17, 22-26, 31, and 38 of copending Application No. 17/677,255 (referred to as ‘255 henceforth) in view of Gopinath (cited above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because '255 teaches all of the limitations of pending claims 24-29 and 32.
With respect to claim 24, ‘255 teaches a substrate with supramolecular structures comprising DNA origami, capture molecules linked to the supramolecular core at a first location, detector molecules linked to the supramolecular core at a second location, an analyte of interest attached to one or more capture molecules and detector molecules, and a barcode linked to the supramolecular core at a third location, wherein one or both of the capture molecules or detector molecules selectively bind to an analyte of interest (see, e.g., claim 1 of ‘255; and claims 9, 22, 24, 26, 31, and 38 of ‘255). Claim 1 of ‘255 recites, “associating the detected analyte molecule with the supramolecular structure based on an identity of the capture barcode”. It is understood that basing the detected analyte molecule with the supramolecular structure on an identify of the capture barcode allows the identification of the core molecules and capture molecules as well. Claim 24 of ‘255 recites, “each supramolecular structure has a unique capture barcode”. It is also understood that the unique capture barcodes of claim 22 of ’255 have the same function as the capture barcodes of claim 1 of ‘255.
With respect to claim 25, ‘255 teaches barcode sequences comprise nucleic acid sequences (see, e.g., claim 17 of ‘255).
With respect to claim 26, ‘255 teaches the core structures are identical to each other (see, e.g., claim 23 of ‘255).
With respect to claim 27, ‘255 teaches the substrate comprises a solid support (see, e.g., claim 25 of ‘255).
With respect to claim 28, ‘255 teaches the analyte molecule comprises a protein, a peptide, a peptide fragment, a lipid, a DNA, a RNA, an organic molecule, an inorganic molecule, complexes thereof, or any combinations thereof (see, e.g., claim 4 of ‘255).
With respect to claim 29, ‘255 teaches each supramolecular structure is a nanostructure (see, e.g., claim 5 of ‘255; and claim 26 of ‘255).
‘255 fails to teach the one or more captures molecules and one or more detector molecules for each supramolecular structure comprises an antibody or aptamer, as in claim 32.
Gopinath teaches the one or more captures molecules and one or more detector molecules for each supramolecular structure comprises an antibody or aptamer, as in claim 32 (see, e.g., capture molecules - sheet 1/23, under “FIG. 1A”, labeled “Primary binding molecule”; detector molecule - sheet 1/23, under “FIG. 1A”, labeled “Secondary binding molecule”; binding molecules are aptamers or antibodies – para. [0030]: “each of the polynucleotide shapes carry a "binding molecule" (e.g. aptamer or antibody)”).
‘255 and Gopinath are analogous to the field of the claimed invention because they are both in the field of DNA nanotechnology. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have found it obvious to use the capture and detector molecules of Gopinath with the nanostructure device of ‘255. An artisan would have been motivated to do so because Gopinath discloses “a "binding molecule" (e.g. aptamer or antibody) that binds a unique non- overlapping region of the analyte molecule or particle. In the absence of the target analyte the two origami move relative to each other via the flexible linker, a state which is referred to as "open". Upon capturing the analyte, however, the two origami bind to form a single semi-rigid unit, a state which is referred to as "closed"” (see, para. [0030]). An artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the given disclosures.
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 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection
The applicant begins arguments by asserting that the added claim limitations: “a core structure comprising DNA origami” and “an analyte of interest attached with (i) the one or more capture molecules and (ii) the one or more detector molecules” require the claimed substrate to comprise “a single core structure to be linked to both the capture molecule and the detector molecule”. The applicant then asserts that Gopinath (cited above) discloses two different core structures. However, Gopinath discloses “embodiments comprise a single DNA origami wherein both polynucleotide shapes and the linker are all folded from a single long DNA scaffold strand” (see, para. [0034]).
The applicant continues by arguing that one would not have been motivated to modify the combined teachings of Gopinath and Tsukanov (cited above). However, an artisan would have been motivated to do so because Tsukanov discloses “by using a flow-cell,38,39 the surrounding solution can be replaced while the sample molecule remains in position and is continuously observed. This is a significant advantage because it enables introduction of various components” (see, p. 1791, col. 1, para. 1). An artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the given disclosures.
Response to Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection
The applicant requests that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until at least one claim is found to be allowable. However, the rejection of claims 24-29 and 32 will apply as long as the claims remain unpatentable over the claims of copending U.S. Application No. 17/677,255.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C SVEIVEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday - 8AM to 5PM PST.
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, Gregory Emch can be reached at (571) 272-8149. 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.
/MICHAEL CAMERON SVEIVEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1678
/GREGORY S EMCH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1678
Prosecution Insights