DETAILED ACTION
The receipt is acknowledged of applicant’ amendment and request for continued examination (RCE) filed 04/07/2026.
Claims 97, 99, 133-142 previously presented. Claims 144 and 145 are currently added. Claims 97, 99, 133-142 and 144-145 are pending and subject of this office 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)-Written Description
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 97, 99, 133-142, 144-145 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 97 recites “organic compound having molecular weight of less than or equal to 1000 gm/mol” and claims 139-140 recite broad categories of and classes of compounds which are very broad genus comprising myriad of organic compounds, known and unknown, yet all used in the claimed method. The specification gives no guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art regarding which organic compound within the claimed genus can sublimate and can be used in the claimed method of organic vapor jet printing (OVJP). The specification does not describe what organic compounds that are capable of sublimation and dissolving in what solvents present in liquid target. The recited organic compounds without partial or complete description of which compounds can be sublimated to be used in the claimed method does not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicants were in possession of the claimed subject matter. The broad disclosure of organic compounds do not meet the written description requirement for the claimed limitations as one of ordinary skill in the art could not recognize or understand what of the claimed organic compounds, known and unknown, can be sublimated because not all organic compounds embraced by the recited genus claimed by claims 97, 139-140 have the claimed molecular weight or can be sublimated under the same conditions of the claimed method and deposited and dissolve in a liquid target comprising solvent(s). Not all the claimed organic compound can dissolve in aqueous solvents, polar, non-polar solvents claimed by claims 134-138 and 144-145. Further, some of organic compounds fall within the scope of claims, e.g. claim 139, have molecular weight less than even that claimed by claim 41 of 100-900 g/mol. For example, claim 139 recites free radical scavenger”, and e.g. of compounds fall under this category is hydrogen peroxide that has molecular weight of 34 g/mol. Further, claim 140 recites anticoagulants that include agent having compounds with molecular weight more than 1000 as claimed by claims 97 and 142, e.g. low molecular weight heparin has molecular weight of 4000-5000 g/mol that above the claimed molecular weight. Further, the claims embrace myriad of organic molecules, polymers, drugs, herbs, micro-organisms, natural molecules, etc., known and unknown.
Claims’ limitations at the point of novelty, such as applicants’, neither provide those elements required to practice the inventions, nor “inform the public” during the life of the patent of the limits of the monopoly asserted. The claimed organic compound genus could encompass myriad of compounds, known and unknown and applicants claimed expressions in the context of the claimed method represents only an invitation to experiment regarding possible organic compounds encompassed by the claims and are suitable for the claimed method. Applicants disclosed several methods, other than the claimed OVJP, and it is not disclosed which organic compounds are suitable for which method. The disclosure does not assure one skilled in the art that all the broad range of genus of chemical compounds would have the claimed molecular weight, can sublimate, and dissolve in the liquid target, or applicants are in possession of all organic molecules in the world.
Regarding the requirement for adequate written description of pharmaceuticals and chemical entities, Applicants' attention is directed to MPEP § 2163. In particular, Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F. 3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert denied, 523 U.S. 1089, 118 S. Ct. 1548 (1998), holds that an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, "not a mere wish list or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention." Eli Lilly, 119 F. 3d at 1566. The Federal Circuit has adopted the standard set forth in the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications under the U.S.C. 112.1 "Written Description" Requirement ("Guidelines"), 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001), which state that the written description requirement can be met by "showing that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics," including inter alia, "functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure..." Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 296 F. 3d 316, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Guidelines, 66 Fed. Reg. At 1106 (emphasis added)). Moreover, although Eli Lilly and Enzo were decided within the factual context of DNA sequences, this does not preclude extending the reasoning of those cases to chemical structures in general. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 249 Supp. 2d 216,225 (W.D.N.Y. 2003).
To satisfy the written description requirement, the applicant does not have to utilize any particular form of disclosure to describe the subject matter claimed, but the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed. Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed.Cir.2008) (quoting In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1172 (Fed.Cir.1996)). In other words, the applicant must `convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and demonstrate that by disclosure in the specification of the patent.
Written description requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed. Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.Cir. 2005). The requirement serves a teaching function, as a quid pro quo in which the public is given meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing the invention for a limited period of time. (Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 922 (Fed.Cir.2004) (quoting Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 970 (Fed.Cir.2002)). A patentee can lawfully claim only what he has invented and described, and if he claims more his patent is void; Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345-46 (Fed.Cir.2000). The purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude and does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.
Regardless whether a compound is claimed per se or a method is claimed that entails the use of the compound, the inventor cannot lay claim to that subject matter unless he can provide a description of the compound sufficient to distinguish infringing compounds from non-infringing compounds, or infringing methods from non-infringing methods. Where the specification provides only constructive examples in lieu of working examples, it must still "describe the claimed subject matter in terms that establish that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, including all of the elements and limitations." Id. (citing Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed.Cir. 1998)).
Further, it has been held that In Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996), a (“laundry list” disclosure of every possible moiety does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not “reasonably lead” those skilled in the art to any particular species).
A genus such as "pharmaceutical agents categories, chemical entities and new chemical entities" can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus that can be used in the claimed method. If the genus has substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient number of species to reflect the variation within that genus. See MPEP 2163. Although the MPEP does not specifically define what constitutes a representative number of species, courts have indicated what does not constitute same. See, e.g., In re Gostelli, 10 USPQ 2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989), holding that the disclosure of two compounds within a subgenus did not adequately describe such subgenus. The instant specification does not describe specific "organic molecules" that can be sublimated by heat and used in the claimed OVJP under the claimed conditions. Accordingly, the expressions "organic compounds" as used currently by instant claims are deemed so indistinct that it fails to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that applicant was in possession of a representative number of species within that genus.
Federal Circuit decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc v. Eli Lilly. 598 F. 3d 1336 - Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2010 – It explains that the written description requirement applies to both original and amended claims. It had further explained that the test for written description is “possession as shown in the disclosure” and embraced past ways for judging the adequacy of the disclosure, including whether the specification discloses a representative number of species, sufficient structure, and/or a sufficient correlation of function to structure.
The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See, e.g., In re Wilder, 22 USPQ 369, 372-3 (Fed. Cir. 1984). (Holding that a claim was not adequately described because the specification did ‘little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate.’)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)- Scope of Enablement
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 97, 99, 133-142, 144-145 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for depositing a film on cooled target liquid, does not reasonably provide enablement for depositing any other form of materials. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to practice the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to: (a) the nature of the invention; (b) the breadth of the claims; (c) the state of the prior art; (d) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (e) the existence of working examples; (f) the relative skill of those in the art; (g) whether the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is "undue"; and (h) the level of predictability in the art (MPEP 2164.01 (a)).
Nature of the invention and Breadth of the claims: The claims are directed to an organic vapor jet printing deposition method comprising: entraining an organic compound having a molecular weight of less than or equal to 1000 g/mol in an inert gas stream by heating a source of a solid organic compound to sublimate the organic compound and passing the inert gas stream over, by, or through the source; directing the organic compound in the inert gas stream through a nozzle towards a cooled target liquid comprising one or more solvents; and contacting the organic compound with the cooled target liquid, thereby dissolving the organic compound as it contacts the cooled target liquid, wherein the entraining and directing are conducted at atmospheric pressure conditions. The enabling disclosure must teach the skilled artisan how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. “Although not explicitly stated in section 112, to be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without "undue experimentation." Vaeck, 947 F.2d at 495, 20 USPQ2d at 1444; Wands, 858 F.2d at 736-37, 8 USPQ2d at 1404; In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970) (the first paragraph of section 112 requires that the scope of protection sought in a claim bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of enablement provided by the specification).” In re Wright (CAFC) 27 USPQ2d 1510 at 1513.
With regard to scope, the specification places clear boundaries on the product produced by the organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) embraced by the claims and makes clear that film is produced. For examples at least paragraphs: [0046], [0047], [0054]-[0064], [0071], [0082]-[0122], [0130]-[0134], of the published application, and figures. Given the disclosed process and produced product, one would conclude that product produced by the claimed process is a film. The claims embrace essentially all kind of products, films, particles, pharmaceutical forms, etc. Thus, it is incumbent upon the disclosure to teach the skilled artisan how to make and use the full scope of the claimed method and produced product such that it can be used in vast array of products embraced by the claims without undue experimentation.
Amount of direction provided by the inventor and existence of working examples: At the outset, it is noted that the instant disclosure does not provide a working example wherein any the claimed method within the scope of the claims is used to produce other than film. Although, the specification need not contain an example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such manner that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (CCPA 1970), lack of a working example is a factor to be considered, especially in a case involving an unpredictable and undeveloped art. As will be discussed below, the pharmaceutical art using OVJP arts are generally viewed as unpredictable and achieving a useful therapeutic outcome is highly unpredictable. Thus, the relevant question in light of the failure of the application to provide a working example is whether the manner and claimed process, is otherwise disclosed such that the skilled artisan would be able to use the invention commensurate with the full scope of what is claimed.
The instant disclosure describes only film produced by the claimed process of OVJP. With regard to forming any product with the claimed method, the application provides only speculation.
State of the prior art and level of predictability in the art: The “predictability or lack thereof” in the art refers to the ability of one skilled in the art to extrapolate the disclosed or known results to the claimed invention. If one skilled in the art can readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, then there is predictability in the art. On the other hand, if one skilled in the art cannot readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which that claimed invention pertains, then there is lack of predictability in the art. Accordingly, what is known in the art provides evidence as to the question of predictability.
The pharmaceutical art and molecular art are unpredictable. (MPEP 2164.03.) In cases involving predictable factors, such as mechanical or electrical elements, a single embodiment provides broad enablement in the sense that, once imagined, other embodiments can be made without difficulty and their performance characteristics predicted by resort to known scientific laws. In cases involving unpredictable factors, such as most chemical reactions, molecular behavior, and pharmacological activity, the scope of enablement obviously varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved.
Relative skill of those in the art and quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention: Although the relative level of skill in the art is high, one of ordinary skill would not have been able to develop the claimed method of OVJP to achieve any product, regardless of shape, form, etc., encompassed by the claims without undue experimentation. The instant application describes producing a film in particular. The guidance provided in the specification for any product having any shape or form is no more than generic statements that the claimed process utilizing any molecules is lacking. However, given the highly unpredictable state of the art, the skilled artisan clearly would not be able to extend these teachings and develop method useful for any molecules to produce any broad scope of product covered by the claims without extensive trial and error experimentation.
In fact, what is disclosed in the instant application with respect to the deposited material amounts to no more that theoretical speculation in a highly unpredictable art. The law is clear that the first paragraph of 35 USC § 112 requires more that the disclosure of a theoretical possibility. “Patent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable. See Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519, 536, 148 USPQ 689, 696 (1966) (stating, in context of the utility requirement, that ‘a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its successful conclusion.’) Tossing out the mere germ of an idea does not constitute enabling disclosure. While every aspect of a generic claim certainly need not have been carried out by an inventor, or exemplified in the specification, reasonable detail must be provided in order to enable members of the public to understand and carry out the invention.” Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S (CA FC) 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1005. See also Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (In response to Rasmusson’s argument that the enablement requirement of section 112 does not mandate a showing of utility or, if it does, it mandates only a showing that it is “not implausible” that the invention will work for its intended purpose, the Court states, “As we have explained, we have required a greater measure of proof, and for good reason. If mere plausibility were the test for enablement under section 112, applicants could obtain patent rights to ‘inventions’ consisting of little more than respectable guesses as to the likelihood of their success. When one of the guesses later proved true, the ‘inventor’ would be rewarded the spoils instead of the party who demonstrated that the method actually worked. That scenario is not consistent with the statutory requirement that the inventor enable an invention rather than merely proposing an unproved hypothesis.”)
In view of the broad scope of the claims, the nascent and unpredictable state of the art and the failure of the application to teach one of skill in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention as asserted in the disclosure in clear, concise and exact terms, it must be concluded that one would not be enabled to make and use the invention as broadly as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 97, 99, 133-142, 144-145 are 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. Claims 97 and 139-141, recite “less than or equal to 1000 g/mol” without lower limit to the claimed molecular weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Written Description Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicants argue that actual reduction to practice of the OVJP method onto a liquid target is described in paras. [0025] and [0081] of the specification as filed. Specifically, the disclosure describes the results of using the claimed OVJP method to jet fluorescein (molecular weight 332 g/mol) into phosphate buffer saline solution to yield a solution with micromolar concentrations of dissolved fluorescein. The results of this experiment are shown in Fig. 5B-C. As discussed in paras. [0025] and [0081], these solutions were produced by heating powdered fluorescein (an organic molecule having a molecular weight of less than 1,000) to sublimate it, entraining the vaporized fluorescein to a cooled liquid target (buffer solution) through a nozzle, and dissolving the fluorescein in the buffer. That is, Applicant actually "performed a process that met all the limitations of the claim and determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose," as required. Accordingly, the person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Applicant was in possession of the claimed process at the time the application was filed because the specification includes a description of an actual reduction to practice of the claimed process.
In response to this action, it is argued that while the claimed process is described, however, it is very broad in terms of the used ingredients and materials. The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See, e.g., In re Wilder, 22 USPQ 369, 372-3 (Fed. Cir. 1984). (Holding that a claim was not adequately described because the specification did ‘little more than outline goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate.' ) Applicants were not in possession of the claimed subject matter as broadly as claimed. For example, applicants were not in possession of all the organic molecules, known and unknown, just because they have a molecular weight within that claimed. Applicants did not show reasonable number of organic molecules that were used to practice the claimed method to assure one skilled in the art that reasonable number of the organic molecules can be used in the claimed method and applicants were in possession of the claimed subject matter.
Applicants argue that claims 139 and 140 depend from claim 97 and therefore contain all features and limitations of claim 97. A person of skill in the art would readily understand that the compounds recited in claims 139 and 140 are inherently limited to compounds having a molecular weight range of less than 1,000 g/mol (as recited in claim 97) and belonging to one of the recited classes. Further, in an effort to advance prosecution, claims 139 and 140 have been amended to explicitly include the molecular weight feature.
In response to this argument, it is argued that the claims embrace organic molecules having molecular weights outside the claimed range. Not all the claimed organic compound can dissolve in aqueous solvents, polar, non-polar solvents claimed by claims 134-138 and 144-145. Further, some of organic compounds fall within the scope of claims, e.g. claim 139, have molecular weight less than even that claimed by claim 41 of 100-900 g/mol. For example, claim 139 recites free radical scavenger”, and e.g. of compounds fall under this category is hydrogen peroxide that has molecular weight of 34 g/mol. Further, claim 140 recites anticoagulants that include agent having compounds with molecular weight more than 1000 as claimed by claims 97 and 142, e.g. low molecular weight heparin has molecular weight of 4000-5000 g/mol that above the claimed molecular weight. Further, the claims embrace myriad of organic molecules, polymers, drugs, herbs, micro-organisms, natural molecules, etc., known and unknown.
Applicants argue that physical properties of compounds, such as molecular weight, vapor pressure, and solubility are well known to those skilled in the art and can easily be found in reference materials such as Lange's Handbook of Chemistry, material safety data sheets (MSDS), and supplier websites, among many, many other sources. Further, the instant specification explicitly describes both the properties of compounds suitable for use in the instantly-claimed methods and how to determine these properties if they are unknown. See e.g., paras. [0050] and [0119] of the instant specification. Applicant describes a wide variety of compounds that can be used in the claimed methods, both class and as specific examples thereof (see para. [0082] of the instant specification, and by physical properties (see e.g., para. [0050]).
In response to this argument, it is argued that while the specification describes and claims sufficient number of molecules, however, it was not described that reasonable numbers of these organic molecules are suitable for the claimed method.
Applicants argue that a person of skill would readily understand the kinds of organic molecules suitable for use with the instantly-claimed methods in view of both ordinary knowledge in the art and the specific description provided in the instant specification, he or she would have recognized Applicant's possession of the claimed methods. This is further evidenced by the actual reduction to practice demonstrated by e.g., the working example in paras. [0025] and [0080], which again satisfies the written description requirement as discussed above.
In response to this argument, it is argued that applicants reduced to practice only few organic molecules and these molecules do not span to cover the broadly claimed molecules. Further, it has been held that In Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996), a (“laundry list” disclosure of every possible moiety does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not “reasonably lead” those skilled in the art to any particular species). A genus such as "pharmaceutical agents categories, chemical entities and new chemical entities" can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus that can be used in the claimed method. If the genus has substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient number of species to reflect the variation within that genus. The instant specification does not describe specific "organic molecules" that can be sublimated by heat and used in the claimed OVJP under the claimed conditions. Accordingly, the expressions "organic compounds" as used currently by instant claims are deemed so indistinct that it fails to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that applicant was in possession of a representative number of species within that genus.
Definiteness Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Regarding claim 97, applicants argue that the Office asserted that "less than or equal to 1000 g/mol" without lower limit to the claimed molecular weight is indefinite. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the implied lower limit is 0, because an organic compound having a molecular weight of less than 0 g/mol would be impossible.
In response to this argument, it is argued that it is not clear how low the molecular weight need to be in order to be suitable to be used in the claimed method.
The boundaries of coverage is not imposed by the disclosure. It is important that a person of ordinary skill in the art be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the claims so as to understand how to avoid infringement of the patent that ultimately issues from the application being examined. See MPEP § 2173.02.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isis A D Ghali whose telephone number is (571)272-0595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/ISIS A GHALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611 /I.G./
Prosecution Insights