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 .
Detailed Action
Summary
This is the Non-Final Office Action based on application 17/910700 RCE 04/07/2026.
Claims 54-57 have been examined, and fully considered.
Claims 1-53 are cancelled.
Claims 55-57 are newly added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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.
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 54-57 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11519899 in view of ZUCHMAN in Brain Phospholipid Precursors Administered Post-Injury Reduce Tissue Damage and Improve Neurological Outcome in Experimental Brain Injury and further in view of LICHTENBERGER in US 20110065677 and further in view of BAHADO-SINGH in US 20160377639.
With respect to Claims 54-57, U.S. Patent No. 11519899 teach of A method of diagnosing mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in a subject comprising: (a) obtaining a metabolite profile from the subject; (b) using machine learning to compare the subject's profile with a predetermined set of metabolite profiles of mTBI and a predetermined set of metabolite profiles of non-mTBI (referred to as “control” or “normal”) to determine if the subject has mTBI, the predetermined set of metabolite profiles of mTBI and non-mTBI comprise metabolites selected from: C0, C14:1, C14:2, C16, C18, C18:1, C18:2, C2, C3, C4, C5, C5-OH (C3-DC-M), C9, lysoPC a C16:0, lysoPC a C16:1, lysoPC a C17:0, lysoPC a C18:0, lysoPC a C18:1, lysoPC a C18:2, lysoPC a C20:3, lysoPC a C20:4, lysoPC a C26:0, lysoPC a C26:1, lysoPC a C28:0, lysoPC a C28:1, PC aa C24:0, PC aa C28:1, PC aa C30:0, PC aa C30:2, PC aa C32:0, PC aa C32:1, PC aa C32:2, PC aa C32:3, PC aa C34:1, PC aa C34:2, PC aa C34:3, PC aa C34:4, PC aa C36:0, PC aa C36:1, PC aa C36:2, PC aa C36:3, PC aa C36:4, PC aa C36:5, PC aa C36:6, PC aa C38:0, PC aa C38:1, PC aa C38:3, PC aa C38:4, PC aa C38:5, PC aa C38:6, PC aa C40:2, PC aa C40:3, PC aa C40:4, PC aa C40:5, PC aa C40:6, PC aa C42:0, PC aa C42:1, PC aa C42:4, PC aa C42:5, PC aa C42:6, PC ae C30:0, PC ae C30:1, PC ae C32:1, PC ae C32:2, PC ae C34:0, PC ae C34:1, PC ae C34:2, PC ae C34:3, PC ae C36:0, PC ae C36:1, PC ae C36:2, PC ae C36:3, PC ae C36:4, PC ae C36:5, PC ae C38:0, PC ae C38:1, PC ae C38:2, PC ae C38:3, PC ae C38:4, PC ae C38:5, PC ae C38:6, PC ae C40:1, PC ae C40:2, PC ae C40:3, PC ae C40:4, PC ae C40:5, PC ae C40:6, PC ae C42:1, PC ae C42:2, PC ae C42:3, PC ae C42:4, PC ae C42:5, PC ae C44:3, PC ae C44:4, PC ae C44:5, PC ae C44:6, SM (OH) C14:1, SM (OH) C16:1, SM (OH) C22:1, SM (OH) C22:2, SM (OH) C24:1, SM C16:0, SM C16:1, SM C18:0, SM C18:1, SM C20:2, SM C22:3, SM C24:0, SM C24:1, SM C26:0, SM C26:1, H1, Alanine, Arginine, Asparagine, Citrulline, Glutamine, Glutamic acid, Glycine, Histidine, Isoleucine, Leucine, Lysine, Methionine, Ornithine, Phenylalanine, Proline, Serine, Threonine, Tryptophan, Tyrosine, Valine, Acetyl-Ornithine, Asymmetricdimethylarginine, Total Dimethylarginine, alpha-Aminoadipic acid, Creatinine, Kynurenine, Methionine-Sulfoxide, trans-OH-Proline, Putrescine, Spermine, Taurine, 2-Hydroxybutyrate, 3-Hydroxybutyrate, 3-Hydroxyisovalerate, Acetate, Acetone, Betaine, Carnitine, Citrate, Creatine, Formate, Glucose, Glutamine, Glycerol, Lactate, Methanol, Propylene glycol, Pyruvate, and Succinate, and wherein the predetermined set of metabolite profiles of mTBI and non-mTBI include at least one phosphatidylcholine having one acyl- and one alkyl-bound fatty acids (PC ae); and (c) determining whether the subject is positive or negative for mTBI based on said comparison (abstract).
U.S. Patent No. 11519899 does not teach of the claimed treatment specifically with respect to decreased levels of the lipids in Claim 54.
ZUCHMAN teaches of using mouse subjects and inducing TBI on the subjects, therefore providing a patient diagnosed with TBI as instantly claimed (Page 26, column 1, Methods, paragraph 1-2),
ZUCHMAN further teaches of administration of phospholipid precursors to traumatic brain injury patients (abstract). The claimed species which are administered to the subject (PC…..) are phospholipids, and specifically phosphatidylcholines (PC’s).
Specifically, ZUCHMAN teaches that the compounds which are administered in a diet to the patients with TBI to include phosphatidylcholines (PCs) and phosphatidylethanolamines being some of these precursor compounds (Page 25, column 2, paragraph 2). ZUCHMAN specifically teaches of administering soy lecithine which is shown to contain phosphatidylcholines and phosphatidyethanolamines (Page 27, Table 1,5 lines from bottom and down) by way of a multi-nutrient called Fortasyn Connect.
ZUCHMAN does not specifically call out that the phosphatidylcholines which are used for treatment administration being specifically the claimed ones which are PC ae C36:0 or PC ae C36:2 or PC aa C32:0.
LICHTENBERGER is used to remedy this and teaches of methods for treating (specifically for inflammation—which this ispresent in TBI), with compositions comprising lecithin oils and soy lechithin (abstract, paragraph 0155, 0158), which is the same compound ZUCHMAN uses for treatment. More specifically, LICHTENBERGER teaches that the phospholipids used in the invention can be dipalmitophosphatidylcholine, which is another name for PC aa C32:0 (paragraph 0145), and that the phospholipids are used as a non-aqueous carrier with an NSAID for treating inflammation (Claim 1).
This shows that the compound used in ZUCHMANN for treatment soy lecithine has the claimed PC aa C32:0 in it as part of the treatment, therefore making ZUCHMANN teach both of the positively claimed steps of 1. providing a subject with TBI, 2. treating the patient with on BAHADO-SINGH is used to remedy this and teaches of methods for detecting, diagnosing and/or treating traumatic brain injury (TBI) by detecting in a biological sample from a patient the levels of one or more of the metabolites: methionine sulfoxide, PC aa C 34:4, ATP, AMP, NAD+, ADP, IMP, spermidine, lysoPC a C20:3, C18:1, and proline. In some embodiments, the method also includes diagnosing the patient with traumatic brain injury when the one or more metabolites in the biological sample is at a different level than a statistically validated threshold for the one or more metabolites, and CT, MRI, or PET indicates traumatic brain injury to the brain of the patient. In further embodiments, once traumatic brain injury is diagnosed, the patient is treated for the traumatic brain injury (abstract).
BAHADO-SINGH teaches of the TBI being a mild TBI from causes such as concussions (paragraph 0003-0005), and diagnosing to mild, moderate or severe stages of TBI (paragraph 0042, 0094, 0103). BAHADO-SINGH further teaches of comparing the levels of PC aa C 42:6, PC ae C 36:0, PC aa C 32:0 and PC ae C 36:2 (Tables 4 & 5) and further of diagnosing to mild, moderate or severe stages of TBI (paragraph 0042, 0094, 0103). Specifically, BAHADO-SINGH teaches of PC ae C 36:0 being significantly decreased in TBI patients in comparison to the Sham control (See table 4 and table 5, paragraph 0011-0012).
The diagnosis for the mild TBI can include obtaining a biological sample and measuring the level of lipid PC aa C 34:3 and some other similar lipids, and of detecting the levels of these lipids by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (Tables, 4, 5).
For the detection, 10 samples with TBI are compared to 8 controls (paragraph 0148), and it is shown that the level of PC aa C 34:3, is decreased indicated by the down arrow compared to the control (Tables 4, 5).
BAHADO-SINGH even further teaches of treating the patient if the biological sample measures a level that is different than a statistically validated threshold comparison when compared to a control (abstract, paragraphs 0102-01014, 0090). Further, BAHDO-SINGH teaches of looking for both reduced levels or elevated levels of the metabolites compared to the statistically validated threshold control (paragraph 0095). Again- BAHDO SINGH teaches of detection of levels of PC aa C 34:3 being decreased in TBI patient when compared to a control (Tables 4 & 5). BAHADO-SINGH further teaches that the biomarkers can be repeatedly assessed with low effort and low cost (paragraph 0057), and of monitoring the biomarkers with respect to treatment (so monitoring after/during treatment (paragraph 0019).
Claim Interpretation
Instant Claims 54-57 are drawn towards a method of treating. Claim 1 contains only two positive steps which are broadly--- (a) providing a subject (who was diagnosed with a TBI through some kind of detection outside the boundaries of the claim), and (b) administering to the subject one of the claimed treatments. Everything else that is claimed, including comparison to a reference to pull a statistically significant value, and the actual detection a single lipid species or cohort of the claimed lipid species, is not limiting in the instant claims. This is the case, so there is no diagnosis or natural correlation/law of nature judicial exception claimed, nor is there a comparison with a reference for diagnosis which would be an abstract idea judicial exception. Therefore, no 101 rejection is made for independent Claim 54, but also due to the above facts the instant claims read more broadly than the applicant might intend them to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 54-57 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.
With respect to Claim 54 is unclear as to whether the detection step is supposed to be a positive claim step or not. Claim 54 only contains two steps, (a) and (b), however step (a), is claimed as “on the basis of,” and therefore it is unclear if the detection is supposed to be limiting or not. It is noted, that if the claim is only supposed to have the current steps (a) and (b) without detecting being a positive step, then the claimed statistically significant decease and active diagnosis based on comparison to a reference is also not limiting. As claimed, it seems applicant wants the detection to be somewhat limiting in the sense of where the sample comes from, but to not actually have it be limiting in the claim. Since it is confusing what is going on, the claimed detection is read as not limiting for Claim 54. Correction is required to clear up the claims.
With respect to Claim 55 it states that the reference sample is obtained from the subject at baseline. Though, this is further limiting something mentioned in independent Claim 54, it is not clear if it’s limiting since the claimed detection and therefore comparison to reference is also not clear if it’s limiting. Therefore, this is unclear if it makes a difference for the positive claim steps or not.
With respect to Claim 56, this has the same problem as Claims 54 and 55. It is not clear if the taking a sample and detection is limiting for Claim 54 or not, so it is unclear if this is further limiting something which is limiting in Claim 54 or not.
With respect to Claim 57, it is unclear what is meant by “to follow the efficiency of treatment.” Does applicant mean that they are checking the efficiency of the treatment instead?
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.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by ZUCHMAN in Brain Phospholipid Precursors Administered Post-Injury Reduce Tissue Damage and Improve Neurological Outcome in Experimental Brain Injury and further in view of LICHTENBERGER in US 20110065677.
With respect to Claim 54, ZUCHMAN teaches of using mouse subjects and inducing TBI on the subjects, therefore providing a patient diagnosed with TBI as instantly claimed (Page 26, column 1, Methods, paragraph 1-2),
ZUCHMAN further teaches of administration of phospholipid precursors to traumatic brain injury patients (abstract). The claimed species which are administered to the subject (PC…..) are phospholipids, and specifically phosphatidylcholines (PC’s).
Specifically, ZUCHMAN teaches that the compounds which are administered in a diet to the patients with TBI to include phosphatidylcholines (PCs) and phosphatidylethanolamines being some of these precursor compounds (Page 25, column 2, paragraph 2). ZUCHMAN specifically teaches of administering soy lecithine which is shown to contain phosphatidylcholines and phosphatidyethanolamines (Page 27, Table 1,5 lines from bottom and down) by way of a multi-nutrient called Fortasyn Connect.
ZUCHMAN does not specifically call out that the phosphatidylcholines which are used for treatment administration being specifically the claimed ones which are PC ae C36:0 or PC ae C36:2 or PC aa C32:0.
LICHTENBERGER is used to remedy this and teaches of methods for treating (specifically for inflammation—which this ispresent in TBI), with compositions comprising lecithin oils and soy lechithin (abstract, paragraph 0155, 0158), which is the same compound ZUCHMAN uses for treatment. More specifically, LICHTENBERGER teaches that the phospholipids used in the invention can be dipalmitophosphatidylcholine, which is another name for PC aa C32:0 (paragraph 0145), and that the phospholipids are used as a non-aqueous carrier with an NSAID for treating inflammation (Claim 1).
This shows that the compound used in ZUCHMANN for treatment soy lecithine has the claimed PC aa C32:0 in it as part of the treatment, therefore making ZUCHMANN teach both of the positively claimed steps of 1. providing a subject with TBI, 2. treating the patient with one of the claimed PC’s.
However, if this is not apparent to one of ordinary skill, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the phospholipid composition as is done in LICHTENBERGER and administering it to a patient to treat inflammation as is done in LICHTENBERGER, in the methods of ZUCHMAN due to the advantage the phospholipid compound/adding a phospholipid to a treating compounds offers for providing low gastrointestinal toxicity and enhanced therapeutic activity in treating patient’s (LICHTENBERGER, abstract).
As mentioned in the Claim interpretation section of the office action above, the only steps that are really limiting in the instant claims are providing a sample of a subject diagnoses with TBI, and also the administration step. The claimed detection is not, and therefore the finding of the mentioned statistically significant decrease. Further, diagnosis/presence of a disease is a law of nature, however it’s also based on a natural correlation (mathematical concept/abstract idea)…which is the presence of biomarkers such as the claimed lipid species and their correlation with presence or absence of TBI/disease. Since they are a law of nature--- any patient who has a TBI (such as the TCI induced patients in ZUCHMAN), would also inherently have the claimed, “statistically significant decrease,” in comparison to a control. The examiner notes that the detection is not claimed as a positive claim step, and therefore also the “using a statistical threshold of p is less than or equal to 0.002, is also not limiting in the instant claims.
Claims 55-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by ZUCHMAN in Brain Phospholipid Precursors Administered Post-Injury Reduce Tissue Damage and Improve Neurological Outcome in Experimental Brain Injury and further in view of LICHTENBERGER in US 20110065677 and further in view of BAHADO-SINGH in US 20160377639.
With respect to Claim 55, ZUCHMAN and LICHTENBERGER teach of the claimed invention as shown above. They do not teach of comparison to a control from subject at baseline.
BAHADO-SINGH is used to remedy this and teaches of methods for detecting aabstract and title). BAHADO-SINGH further teaches of comparison to controls and using various control populations (paragraph 0090), and further of using statistically validated thresholds are related to the values used to characterize the level of the specific metabolite(s) in the biological sample obtained from the subject or patient(so baseline levels from the actual patient, which can be considered a reference of a control (paragraph 0090). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use the baseline control as is done in BAHADO-SINGH in the methods of ZUCHMAN and LICHTENBERGER due to the advantage this offers in showing whether a patient has TBI or not in comparison to normal (paragraph 0093, 0095).
With respect to Claim 56, ZUCHMAN teaches of the claims as shown above, but do not teach of using a blood sample. BAHADO-SINGH is used to remedy this and teaches of using a blood sample (paragraph 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a blood sample as is done in BAHADO-SINGH in the methods of ZUCHMAN and LICHTENBERGER due to the advantage this offers in that they can be easily obtained from a normal subject promoting ease of use (BAHADO-SINGH, paragraph 0041).
With respect to Claim 57, ZUCHMAN and LICHTENBERGER teach of the claimed invention as shown above. They do not teach of follow-up detection of the claimed lipids.
BAHADO-SINGH is used to remedy this and teaches of methods for detecting, diagnosing and/or treating traumatic brain injury (TBI) by detecting in a biological sample from a patient the levels of one or more of the metabolites: methionine sulfoxide, PC aa C 34:4, ATP, AMP, NAD+, ADP, IMP, spermidine, lysoPC a C20:3, C18:1, and proline. In some embodiments, the method also includes diagnosing the patient with traumatic brain injury when the one or more metabolites in the biological sample is at a different level than a statistically validated threshold for the one or more metabolites, and CT, MRI, or PET indicates traumatic brain injury to the brain of the patient. In further embodiments, once traumatic brain injury is diagnosed, the patient is treated for the traumatic brain injury (abstract).
BAHADO-SINGH teaches of the TBI being a mild TBI from causes such as concussions (paragraph 0003-0005), and diagnosing to mild, moderate or severe stages of TBI (paragraph 0042, 0094, 0103). BAHADO-SINGH further teaches of comparing the levels of PC aa C 42:6, PC ae C 36:0, PC aa C 32:0 and PC ae C 36:2 (Tables 4 & 5) and further of diagnosing to mild, moderate or severe stages of TBI (paragraph 0042, 0094, 0103). Specifically, BAHADO-SINGH teaches of PC ae C 36:0 being significantly decreased in TBI patients in comparison to the Sham control (See table 4 and table 5, paragraph 0011-0012).
The diagnosis for the mild TBI can include obtaining a biological sample and measuring the level of lipid PC aa C 34:3 and some other similar lipids, and of detecting the levels of these lipids by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (Tables, 4, 5).
For the detection, 10 samples with TBI are compared to 8 controls (paragraph 0148), and it is shown that the level of PC aa C 34:3, is decreased indicated by the down arrow compared to the control (Tables 4, 5).
BAHADO-SINGH even further teaches of treating the patient if the biological sample measures a level that is different than a statistically validated threshold comparison when compared to a control (abstract, paragraphs 0102-01014, 0090). Further, BAHDO-SINGH teaches of looking for both reduced levels or elevated levels of the metabolites compared to the statistically validated threshold control (paragraph 0095). Again- BAHDO SINGH teaches of detection of levels of PC aa C 34:3 being decreased in TBI patient when compared to a control (Tables 4 & 5). BAHADO-SINGH further teaches that the biomarkers can be repeatedly assessed with low effort and low cost (paragraph 0057), and of monitoring the biomarkers with respect to treatment (so monitoring after/during treatment (paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to monitor/follow up with monitoring after the treatment as is done in BAHADO-SINGH in the methods of ZUCHMAN and LICHTENBERGER due to the advantage this has in diagnosing the risk of developing certain conditions (BAHADO-SINGH, paragraph 0019).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the double patenting rejection, it is maintained for this time, but will be re-reviewed if the application approaches allowance. It is noted that the double patenting rejection is maintained, since it is not exactly clear what applicant is trying to claim or not claim with respect to detection of the time being.
With respect to the 101 rejection, it is overcome since applicant has cancelled all claims which the 101 rejection was priorly made for. This being as it is, the examiner notes that applicant’s attempt at still limiting the claim to include detecting and a statistically significant decrease in the sample, without claiming and actual comparison does not limit the claim as this is all done outside the boundaries of the instant claims.
The prior 112 rejection was overcome due to amendments made 04/07/2026, however further 112 rejections are made as shown above.
With respect to the prior art rejection--- the examiner notes that the same references used in the last office action are instantly used, however they are used in a completely different order given the significant amendments made 04/07/2026. As a completely new order of references are used, and since significant amendments were made, this is considered a new grounds of rejection. Applicant should see the rejections above with respect to how the instant claims are interpreted and how the instant prior art reads on the instant claims.
All claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. 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.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights