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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 13-29 are pending and under examination.
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.
Samuels et al. and Fan et al.
Claim(s) 13,14,16-20,24-26, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels et al. (US20120220494) in view of Fan et al. (US20150299784; filed 28 August 2014).
Samuels et al. teach generating libraries of double-stranded barcoded molecules are known in the art (e.g. Entire Samuels reference and especially... This library type consists of droplets containing oligonucleotide strands that encode barcodes and contain ligation competent ends, enabling the modular linking of barcodes by specific hybridization (also referred to as 'annealing' or 'binding') in droplets followed by ligation into a covalently bonded strand (or duplex) of bases... as in para 0232,pg. 16-17;... Pairs of overhanging complimentary oligonucleotide barcodes are chemically synthesized (using standard commercial manufacturing
methods) such that the complementary barcoding sequences are flanked by 'sticky-ends' for subsequent annealing and ligation to the target species or other barcodes, or for polymerase
or other enzymatic priming... as in para 0235,pg. 17; annealing and ligating multiple barcoded labels together through sticky end hybridization as in para 0240-0244,pg. 17; ... By combining complimentary sticky-ends from two barcode sets, the four oligonucleotide types present in the final combined droplet will specifically hybridize to create a sticky-ended tandem barcode (e.g., droplet 1or2 in FIG. 5).This can then be ligated together... This is illustrated in FIG. 6, with 'single sticky-ended' barcoded oligonucleotide pairs shown on the left, where one end is capped such that there is no overhang, and 'double sticky-ended' barcode oligonucleotides shown in the middle panel (either different or similar sticky-ends can be used, with different ends precluding promiscuous concatamer formation). Additional modifications of the sticky-ends can also be included (e.g. biotin or desthiobiotin, shown on the bottom left of the figure)... as in para 0240,pg. 17; ... This modular construction is not limited to the combinations shown, with any composite sticky-ended barcode library able to be combined with additional barcodes in subsequent rounds of droplet combination... as in para 0243; Fig. 5 and 6).
Furthermore, Samuels et al. teach the barcoded members of the library bind to particles , i.e. beads. Furthermore, Samuels et al. teach an embodiment comprising providing streptavidin coated beads and using biotinylated nucleic acid sequences to attach barcodes to beads(e.g. Entire Samuels reference and especially para 0228, pg. 16; Fig. 39). Furthermore, Samuels aet al. teach barcoded magnetic beads are known in the art ( e.g. para 0205,pg. 14).
Furthermore, Samuels et al. teach libraries comprising at least 4000 different barcodes is known in the art ( e.g. para 0217-0220,pg. 15-16; for example, that if barcodes
are to be five nucleotides long, then 1,024 unique barcodes are possible. Six, seven, and eight nucleotides in a barcode allow for 4096, 16384, and 65536 unique barcodes... At 15
nucleotides, then N is greater than one billion. Combining such barcodes using sticky ends (shown in FIG. 5) gives N'=NxN. In creating a barcode droplet library, a number of
droplets are formed, each preferably containing copies of a uniquely-barcoded construct... as in para 0217; para 0235-0245,pg. 17; This modular construction is not limited to the combinations
shown, with any composite sticky-ended barcode library able to be combined with additional barcodes in subsequent rounds of droplet combination. Even a low number of combinations can result in a very high level of barcode-plex... 16 million-plex tandem barcode library (made from 4000 N x4000 M barcoded oligos) can be combined with another sticky-ended set of 4000 Z barcoded oligos to form a 64 billion-plex barcode library (16 million NM membersx4000 Z-members=64 billion). As shown in FIG. 6, the oligonucleotides can be designed such that the
resulting annealed oligo set can have a single or double sticky-ends (with different or similar ends)... as in para 0244).
Furthermore, Samuels et al. teach generating barcode libraries of higher complexity by combining nucleic acid constructs containing a unique n-mer and repeating the addition of constructs containing a unique n-mer, wherein each round, another n-mer is introduced to a chain of n-mers. Samuels et al. teach high-plex bead based molecular labeling method (e.g. para 0081,pg. 5; Fig. 39) wherein a high-plex method comprises attaching n-mer barcode sequence molecules, i.e. segments, to growing chains of barcode sequences, i.e. barcode molecule (e.g. n-mers are 4-20 nucleotides in length as in para 0205, pg. 14; para 0209, pg. 15; construction of 'secondary' or higher order binding barcode libraries through the successive combination of droplet libraries as in para 0232, pg. 16-17; para 0323, pg. 25, Fig. 34).
Samuels et al. teach an embodiment in which a collection of droplets comprising nucleic acid molecules is combined with a second collection of droplets comprising barcodes, i.e. barcode droplet library, wherein the barcode sequences are releasably connected to beads. Samuels teaches individual droplets have different labels (e.g. capture sequences comprising barcodes as in para 0023-0025, pg.3; biotinylated sequences comprising barcodes are bound to streptavidin coated beads as in para 0272-0276,pg. 20; para 0282,pg. 21).
Samuels et al. teach the barcode sequence are linked to the beads within a sequence that is subject to photocleavage or restriction digestion (e.g. para 0304, pg. 23; restriction barcoding as in para 0344-0346,pg. 27).
However, Samuels et al. does not expressly bead diameter as recited in claim 13.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Fan et al. also teach barcoded beads ( e.g. Fig. 1). Furthermore, Fan et al. teach the barcoded oligonucleotides comprise uracil (e.g. para 0286, pg. 30). Furthermore, Fan et al. teach the beads are magnetic and have a diameter of 5-50 microns( e.g. para 0147,pg. 12). Furthermore, Fan et al. teach methods of removing nucleic acid from a solid support include treating with an enzyme to remove the nucleic acid, such as uracil-deglycosylase with nucleic acid sequences comprising uracil residues ( e.g. para 0340, pg. 36).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Samuels et al. comprising providing a barcoded library associated with beads, comprising modular linking of barcodes by specific hybridization, wherein pairs of overhanging complimentary oligonucleotide barcodes are chemically synthesized such that the complementary barcoding sequences are flanked by 'sticky-ends' for subsequent annealing and ligation to other barcodes, such that multiple barcoded labels are annealed together, including combining complimentary sticky-ends of barcode sets to create a sticky-ended tandem barcode and to include generating barcode libraries of higher complexity , and to include high-plex bead based molecular labeling , and to include attaching n-mer barcode sequence molecules, i.e. segments, to growing chains of barcode sequences and to include barcode sequences that are releasably connected to beads , wherein barcode sequences are linked to the beads within a sequence that is subject to photocleavage or restriction digestion as taught in other embodiments of Samuels et al. and to include providing barcoded oligonucleotides comprising uracil and providing magnetic beads having a diameter of 5-50 microns and techniques for removing nucleic acid associated with solid support, such as the barcoded beads of Samuels, using an enzyme to remove the nucleic acid, such as uracil-deglycosylase with nucleic acid sequences comprising uracil residues as taught by Fan et al. as a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these claim elements were known in the art and one of skill in the art could have combined these elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable outcome of the claimed method.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. render obvious claim 13.
Furthermore, as Samuels et al. teach generating tandem barcodes and higher plex composite barcodes are known in the art and using biotinylated nucleic acid sequences to attach barcodes to streptavidin coated beads, the combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. render obvious claims 14,16, 17, 19 and 20.
Furthermore, as Fan et al. also teach providing magnetic beads having a diameter of 5-50 microns and techniques for removing nucleic acid associated with solid support, such as the barcoded beads of Samuels, using an enzyme to remove the nucleic acid, such as uracil-deglycosylase with nucleic acid sequences comprising uracil residues, the combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. render obvious claims 18 and 26.
Furthermore, as Samuels et al. teach generating tandem barcodes and higher plex composite barcodes are known in the art, wherein the barcode sequence are linked to the beads within a sequence that is subject to photocleavage or restriction digestion and compartmentalizing the barcoded reagents in droplets, i.e. dividing, the combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. render obvious claims 24 and 25.
Furthermore, as Samuels et al. also teach large libraries of barcodes ( e.g. 16 million-plex tandem barcode library ), the combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. render obvious claims 28 and 29.
Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Hindson et al.
Claim(s) 15 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels et al. and Fan et al. as applied to claims 13,14,16-20,24-26, 28 and 29 above, and further in view of Hindson et al.(US20140378349).
The combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. as applied in the previous rejection above are incorporated in this rejection.
The combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. render obvious a method of providing multimeric barcoding reagents as recited in claim 13.
However, they do not expressly teach claims 15 and 21-23.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Hindson et al. teach multifunctional beads comprising barcodes, wherein barcodes are synthesized from templates comprising barcodes and comprise a sequence with a first barcode, i.e. sequence 408 , and a second barcode , i.e. sequence 414. Furthermore, Hindson et al. teach sequences are denatured by heat (e.g. para 0185-0188, pg. 21; Fig. 4; ... the beads comprising sequences 403, 408, and 415 can then be combined with template random sequences (e.g., random N-mers) 413 each linked to a sequence 412 complementary to capture primer binding site 415, as shown in FIG. 4I. As shown in FIG. 41, capture primer binding site 415 can prime oligonucleotides comprising template random sequences 413 at sequence 412 upon heating. Following priming, capture primer binding site 415 can be extended (e.g., via polymerase) to link capture primer binding site 415 with a random sequence 414 that is complementary to template random sequence 413. Oligonucleotides comprising template random sequences 413 and sequence 412 can be denatured from the bead using heat or chemical means, including chemical means described herein. Centrifugation and washing of the beads, for example, may be used to separate the beads from denatured oligonucleotides. Following removal of the denatured oligonucleotides, beads comprising a barcode sequence 408 and a random sequence
414 are obtained, as shown in FIGS. 4K, 4L, and4M... as in para 0188).
Hindson et al. teach multifunctional beads that comprise sample index sequences as well as barcodes, wherein these sequences are incorporated by primer extension (e.g. In one example, random N-mer sequences may then be added to the barcoded beads, 108, via primer extension or other amplification reaction and a diverse library of barcoded beads, 110, may thereby be obtained, where such random n-mer sequences can provide a universal primer sequence. Likewise, functional sequences may include immobilization sequences for immobilizing barcode containing sequences onto surfaces, e.g., for sequencing applications. For ease of discussion, a number of specific functional sequences are described below, such as P5, P7, Rl, R2, sample indexes, random Nmers, etc. as in para 0097, pg. 8-9; para 0149,pg. 15-16). Hindson et al. also teach the sample index can be added to a sample of target nucleic acid molecules prior to barcoding (e.g. para 0299,pg. 39; para 0328,pg. 42-43)or at the same time as the barcode(e.g. para 0311,pg. 40). Hindson et al. also teach the sample index and barcode are the same sequence(e.g. para 0321,pg. 42).Hindson teaches the barcode sequence and the sample index sequence facilitate identification of an individual nucleic acid molecule, as the barcode serves as a molecular tag and the sample index serves as a sample tag (e.g. para 0298,pg. 39; para 0417, pg. 55). Furthermore, Hindson teaches the sample index/barcode sequence is unique and facilitates tracking sample through a process(e.g. para 0163, pg. 18). Furthermore, Hindson teaches beads are associated with multiple copies of the same sample index/barcode sequence which uniquely identify the bead(e.g. para 0167, pg. 18).
Therefore, as Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Hindson et al. all teach methods comprising providing barcoded beads, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. to include providing multifunctional beads comprising barcodes, wherein barcodes are synthesized from templates comprising barcodes and comprise a sequence with a first barcode, i.e. sequence 408, and a second barcode, i.e. sequence 414, wherein these sequences are denatured by heat as taught by Hindson et al. as a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these claim elements were known in the art and one of skill in the art could have combined these elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable outcome of the claimed method.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Hindson et al. render obvious claims 15 and 21-23.
Samuels et al. Fan et al. and Fu et al.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuels et al. and Fan et al. as applied to claims 13,14,16-20,24-26, 28 and 29 above, and further in view of Fu et al.(US20160312276; filed 21 April 2016).
The combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. as applied in the previous rejection above are incorporated in this rejection.
The combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. render obvious a method of providing multimeric barcoding reagents as recited in claim 13.
Furthermore, Samuels et al. teach the barcode sequence are linked to the beads within a sequence that is subject to photocleavage or restriction digestion . Furthermore, Fan et al. teach methods of removing nucleic acid from a solid support include treating with an enzyme to remove the nucleic acid, such as uracil-deglycosylase with nucleic acid sequences comprising uracil residues.
However, the combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. do not expressly teach claim 27.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Fu et al. also teach barcoded beads ( e.g. Fig. 5). Furthermore, Fu et al. teach DNase can be used to remove barcoded sequences from solid supports(e.g. para 0199, pg. 26).
Therefore, as Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Fu et al. teach all methods comprising providing barcoded beads, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. to include techniques for removing nucleic acid associated with solid support, such as the barcoded beads of Samuels and Fan, using an enzyme to remove the nucleic acid, and to include using DNase to remove barcoded sequences from solid supports as taught by Fu et al. as a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these claim elements were known in the art and one of skill in the art could have combined these elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable outcome of the claimed method.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Fu et al. render obvious claim 27.
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.
Application No. 17/620,526
Claims 13-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 17/620,526 in view of Samuels et al. (US20120220494); Fan et al. (US20150299784; filed 28 August 2014); Hindson et al.(US20140378349) and Fu et al.(US20160312276; filed 21 April 2016).
Claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 17/620,526 teach multimeric barcoding reagents but do not expressly teach all the features of the claimed invention, such as supports comprising a bead that is 10 nanometers to 100 microns in diameter.
However, these features are known in the art. As noted in the current rejections, the combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. render obvious claims 13,14,16-20,24-26, 28 and 29. Furthermore, the combined teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Hindson et al. render obvious claims 15 and 21-23. Furthermore, the combined teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Fu et al. render obvious claim 27.
Therefore, as claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 17/620,526, Samuels et al., Fan et al. , Hindson et al. and Fu et al. all disclose methods using barcoding reagents, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claims 1-23 of copending Application No. 17/620,526 and to include the teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. , Hindson et al. and Fu et al. as discussed in the rejections above because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these claim elements were known in the art and one of skill in the art could have combined these elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable outcome of the claimed method.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
U.S. Patent No. 10,287,624
Claims 13-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,287,624 in view of Samuels et al. (US20120220494); Fan et al. (US20150299784; filed 28 August 2014); Hindson et al.(US20140378349) and Fu et al.(US20160312276; filed 21 April 2016).
Claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,287,624 teach multimeric barcoding reagents but do not expressly teach all the features of the claimed invention, such as supports comprising a bead that is 10 nanometers to 100 microns in diameter.
However, these features are known in the art. As noted in the current rejections, the combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. render obvious claims 13,14,16-20,24-26, 28 and 29. Furthermore, the combined teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Hindson et al. render obvious claims 15 and 21-23. Furthermore, the combined teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Fu et al. render obvious claim 27.
Therefore, as claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,287,624, Samuels et al., Fan et al. , Hindson et al. and Fu et al. all disclose methods using barcoding reagents, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 10,287,624 and to include the teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. , Hindson et al. and Fu et al. as discussed in the rejections above because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these claim elements were known in the art and one of skill in the art could have combined these elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable outcome of the claimed method.
U.S. Patent No. 11,242,522
Claims 13-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,242,522 in view of Samuels et al. (US20120220494); Fan et al. (US20150299784; filed 28 August 2014); Hindson et al.(US20140378349) and Fu et al.(US20160312276; filed 21 April 2016).
Claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,242,522 teach multimeric barcoding reagents but do not expressly teach all the features of the claimed invention, such as supports comprising a bead that is 10 nanometers to 100 microns in diameter.
However, these features are known in the art. As noted in the current rejections, the combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. render obvious claims 13,14,16-20,24-26, 28 and 29. Furthermore, the combined teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Hindson et al. render obvious claims 15 and 21-23. Furthermore, the combined teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Fu et al. render obvious claim 27.
Therefore, as claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,242,522, Samuels et al., Fan et al. , Hindson et al. and Fu et al. all disclose methods using barcoding reagents, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,242,522 and to include the teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. , Hindson et al. and Fu et al. as discussed in the rejections above because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these claim elements were known in the art and one of skill in the art could have combined these elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable outcome of the claimed method.
U.S. Patent No. 12,084,714
Claims 13-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,084,714 in view of Samuels et al. (US20120220494); Fan et al. (US20150299784; filed 28 August 2014); Hindson et al.(US20140378349) and Fu et al.(US20160312276; filed 21 April 2016).
Claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,084,714 teach multimeric barcoding reagents but do not expressly teach all the features of the claimed invention, such as supports comprising a bead that is 10 nanometers to 100 microns in diameter.
However, these features are known in the art. As noted in the current rejections, the combined teachings of Samuels et al. and Fan et al. render obvious claims 13,14,16-20,24-26, 28 and 29. Furthermore, the combined teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Hindson et al. render obvious claims 15 and 21-23. Furthermore, the combined teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. and Fu et al. render obvious claim 27.
Therefore, as claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,084,714, Samuels et al., Fan et al. , Hindson et al. and Fu et al. all disclose methods using barcoding reagents, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,084,714 and to include the teachings of Samuels et al., Fan et al. , Hindson et al. and Fu et al. as discussed in the rejections above because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these claim elements were known in the art and one of skill in the art could have combined these elements by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded the predictable outcome of the claimed method.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHANA S KAUP whose telephone number is (571)272-6897. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HEATHER CALAMITA can be reached on 571-272-2876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAHANA S KAUP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684