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 .
This office action is in response to the paper filed on 12/09/2025. Claim 18-30 were previously presented and claim 34 is newly presented. Applicant elects the inventions of Group 1 (claims 18-30 and 34) without traverse as well as the species, SEQ ID NO: 1 (AS1).
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of the inventions of group 1 (claims 18-30, and 34) and the species, SEQ ID NO:1, in the reply filed 12/09/2025 are acknowledged. Claims 18-30 fall under the inventions of group 1, however, claims 21 and 26 are withdrawn. Since applicant elected species SEQ ID NO: 1, neither claim 21 or 26 recites SEQ ID NO: 1, therefore these claims have been withdrawn.
Claims 21, 26, and 31-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/09/2025.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be correct in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Application Status
The action is written in response to applicant’s correspondence received 12/09/2025. Claims 18-20, 22-25, 27-30, and 34 are currently pending in the instant application.
Priority
Current application is a national stage 371 application of PCT/EP2021/059313. The filing of the PCT application is 04/09/2021.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “FIG.” preceding figures in the title as the instant application spells out “Figure”, as described in the specification. Please view 37 CFR 1.84(1) where view numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG”. This applies to all figures (1-6).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Sequence Compliance
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). Sequence identifiers for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings. For Fig. 1 of the drawings, applicant does not disclose a SEQ ID NO.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Replacement and annotated drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 is a generic, genus claim in which the applicant recites a broad range of an antisense nucleic acid molecules. Applicant claims an antisense nucleic acid molecule targeting a C9orf72 transcript, wherein the antisense nucleic acid molecule is able to reduce the level of sense and antisense C9orf72-RNA foci. Based off broadest reasonable interpretation, this could refer to any nucleic acid molecule or sequence that binds to C9orf72 transcript or a fragment thereof and shows a reduction of RNA foci.
Applicant must show possession of a sufficient number of antisense nucleic acid molecules that reduces sense and antisense C9orf72 foci. Based off the specification, applicant discloses six antisense nucleic acid molecules in Table 1 comprised of SEQ ID NOs: 1-6, wherein AS-1, 2, 3 and 5 target the antisense C9orf72 transcript, and AS-4 and 6 target the sense transcript. Reverse compliment sequences of SEQ ID NO: 1 and 2 may also be used, disclosed as SEQ ID NO: 21 and 22. Further review of the specification shows all sequence target intron 1 of the human C9orf72 gene. Even within the applicant’s results, AS-7 and AS-8 shows a wide range of efficacy with only single-digit percentage reduction or no reduction compared to the 62% sense and 44% antisense reduction of AS-1.
As shown by Iyer et al. (A comparative bioinformatic analysis of C9orf72), the human C9orf72 extremely long with regards to nucleotide length. One skilled in the art cannot extrapolate that the same or similar result of reducing sense and antisense foci would been seen for antisense molecules targeting other introns or exons. Even within the applicant’s own experiments, AS-7 only provided approximately 3% reduction in sense and antisense foci while AS-8 had no change in sense and antisense foci (See Fig. 4A-4B). This is far different from the 62% sense or 44% antisense reduction provided by AS-1.
Applicant’s own experiments demonstrate the unpredictable nature of the claimed subject matter, and the species targeting exon 1A and intron 1A would not be deemed to represent a substantial variation of antisense molecules targeting other exons/introns of C9orf72, showing a lack of structure-function correlation for the genus claim.
Improper Markush Grouping
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of an antisense nucleic acid molecule of claims 19 and 20 are improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons:
Claims 19 and 20 recite alternatively recited SEQ ID NOs that do not share substantial nucleotide sequence similarity. As show in page 8 of the specification, SEQ ID NO: 6 targets the sense transcript while SEQ ID NO:1 targets the antisense transcript. Therefore, the different SEQ ID NOs do not have common use or a “single structure similarity”.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 18-20, 24, 25, 27, and 34 read on a product of nature.
PNG
media_image1.png
281
721
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 18 and 19 disclose an antisense nucleic acid molecule targeting a C9orf72 transcript where the antisense nucleic acid molecule is able to reduce levels of sense and antisense C0orf72-RNA foci. Claim 19 reads that the antisense nucleic acid molecule comprises of SEQ ID: NO 1. Shown below is Table 1 from the specification disclosing SEQ ID NO: 1.
Based off the description, SEQ ID NO: 1 (AS-1) targets the antisense C9orf72 transcript. By targeting the antisense transcript, SEQ ID NO: 1 is part of the sense transcript of C9orf72. Without evidence of modification to the nucleic acid sequence, SEQ ID NO:1 is identical to a fragment of the human C9orf72 transcript, as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
92
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, claims 18 and 19 read on a product of nature. For more information regarding laws of nature, natural phenomena, and products of nature, please refer to MPEP 2106.04(b), which reads laws of nature and natural phenomena, as identified by the courts, include naturally occurring principles/relations and nature-based products that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature. Examples of what courts have identified as examples of laws of nature or natural phenomena include: isolated DNA (See Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013)) . Please see MPEP 2106.4(b).
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites an antisense nucleic acid molecule where the antisense nucleic acid molecule consists of SEQ ID NO:1. Though close ended, claim 20 still encompasses a fragment of the human C9orf72 sequence. Therefore, it is still regarded as a product of nature, as exemplified by University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014), where the court identified claimed DNA fragments known as “primers” as product of nature, because they lacked markedly different characteristics. The claimed primers were single-stranded pieces of DNA, each which corresponded to a naturally occurring double-stranded DNA sequence in or near the BRCA genes. Please see MPEP 2106.04(c). Based off this ruling, claim 20 of the instant application, reads on a fragment of a naturally occurring sequence and is therefore a product of nature.
Regarding claim 24 and 25, the claims recite a nucleic acid construct is a macromolecule comprising at least two antisense nucleic acid molecules according to claim 18, where in the nucleic acid molecules target sense and antisense C9orf72 transcript. A nucleic acid construct can embody naturally occurring nucleic acid sequences that bind or target the C9orf72 transcript and the instant claim does not provide any evidence that the nucleic acid construct has molecules that are substantially different or lack markedly different characteristics than what would be found in nature.
Regarding claim 27, the interpretation of the claim reads on the use of any vector for delivering the antisense nucleic acid molecules of claim 18 or a nucleic acid construct encoding said antisense nucleic acid molecule. Without specific modifications showing markedly different characteristics, any vector for delivering nucleic acid molecules is deemed products of nature as it is delivering the unmodified human C9orf72 transcript.
Regarding claim 34, the claim recites a vector comprising a nucleic acid construct of claim 24. This claim reads on a product nature as it refers to any vector that can contain two antisense nucleic acid molecules. Without any modifications showing different characteristics, one with skill in the art would deem this as a product of nature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication US 2016/0230172 A1, herein referred to as Rigo, as disclosed in the applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).
With regards to claim 18 and 19, Rigo teaches compositions and methods for modulating levels of C9orf72 antisense transcript in cells, tissues, and animals (See paragraph 0006, under summary). In certain embodiments, C9orf72 anti-sense transcript specific inhibitors are nucleic acids, proteins or small molecules (see paragraph 0006).
Rigo further teaches that in certain embodiments, the C9orf72 antisense transcript specific inhibitor is a nucleic acid, where the nucleic acid is an antisense compound that is an antisense oligonucleotide. In certain embodiments, the antisense oligonucleotide is complementary to the antisense transcript (see paragraph 0010). One skilled in the art would know that complementary to the antisense transcript refers to the sense strand, therefore, this would anticipate an antisense nucleic acid molecule that reduces both the level of sense and antisense C9orf72-RNA foci.
Regarding claim 19, Rigo teaches where the antisense nucleic acid molecule comprises of SEQ ID NO: 10 which has 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 by matching the entire 40-bp fragment claimed in the instant application.
Regarding claim 24, Rigo further teaches that “C9orf72 foci” means nuclear foci comprising a C9orf72 transcript and in some embodiments, antisense C9orf72 foci comprise C9orf72 antisense transcripts comprising any of the following hexanucleotide repeats: GGCCC, CCCCCC, GCCCCC, and/or CGCCCC (see paragraph 0037). Rigo discloses an antisense C9orf72 nuclear foci that comprises of multiple antisense transcripts. Multiple transcripts read on claim 24 of instant application, wherein the applicant stats a nucleic acid construct comprising at least two antisense nucleic acid molecules according to claim 18.
Absent evidence to the contrary, the composition described in Rigo encompasses an antisense nucleic acid molecule capable of reducing sense and antisense C9orf72 foci claimed in the instant application. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction. See MPEP 211.2 and 2112. Thus, Rigo clearly anticipate instant claims 18, 19, and 24.
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.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigo (US 2016/0230172 A1) in view of Barman et al. (Mechanisms of Antisense Transcription Initiation with Implications in Gene Expression, Genomic Integrity, and Disease Pathogenesis, 2019).
Teachings of Rigo with regards to claim 18 and 24 have been described above.
Regarding claim 25, Rigo teaches that in certain embodiments, antisense C9orf72 foci comprise of multiple C9orf72 antisense transcripts (see paragraph 0037) as described above.
Rigo does not teach that, in certain embodiments, the nucleic acid construct comprises of first an antisense nucleic acid molecule targeting the sense transcript C9orf72 transcript and a second antisense nucleic acid molecule targeting the antisense C9orf72 transcript.
Barman teaches that an antisense transcript can function by itself and/or by the act of its transcription in Cis and/or in trans. The trans effect is usually mediated by the antisense transcript, while the cis effect is generally due to the act of antisense transcription (See section 4).
Barman also teaches antisense transcription regulates sense transcription by affecting DNA methylation at CpG islands at the promoter (see section 4). Overall, antisense transcripts regulate gene expression by promoter methylation, histone modifications, or interfering/blocking sense transcriptional machinery (see section 4).
It would have been obvious to use the information disclosed in Rigo to formulate a nucleic acid construct, with the information disclosed in Barman, that includes at least two antisense transcript as the antisense sequences would allow the applicant to target both sense and antisense transcripts of C9orf72 as a method of gene regulation. This regulation using antisense transcripts can regulate gene expression through the means as described above.
In view of the foregoing, claim 25, taken as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigo (US 2016/0230172 A1) in view of Gadgil et al. (U7 snRNA: A tool for gene therapy, 2/15/2021).
With regards to claim 21 and 22, Rigo teaches an antisense nucleic acid molecule targeting a C9orf72 transcript, wherein the antisense nucleic acid molecule is able to reduce the level of sense and antisense C9orf72-RNA foci, as described above.
Rigo does not teach where the antisense nucleic acid molecule is fused to a small nuclear RNA and wherein the small nuclear RNA is a U7 small nuclear RNA.
With regards to claim 21 and 22, Gadgil teaches of U7 Sm OPT-based therapy, where an antisense oligonucleotide is incorporated into the U7 snRNA. Gadgil discloses that the direct use of antisense oligonucleotides has certain benefits, it has some limitations because it is sensitive to degradation, may cause immunoreactivity, and usually needs repeat dosage (see introduction). Thus, incorporating antisense oligonucleotides into U7 snRNP and delivering it using viral vectors overcomes many limitations (see introduction).
Regarding claims 27, 28, 29, and 34, Gadgil teaches that delivery of engineered constructs is an important aspect in gene therapy. AAV are currently not known to cause any disease and thus AAV vectors can be used to deliver U7 Sm OPT to the nervous system, as well as other target organs. The delivery of U7 Sm OPT by AAV is now broadly used because it ensures high efficiency gene transfer and relatively stable expression (see section 4, U7 SnRNA in Gene Therapy).
Regarding claim 30, Gadgil discloses that there was a recent clinical trial where AAV9 U7 SnRNA gene therapy was used to treat boys with DMD exon 2 duplications (see section 5.2, U7 snRNA therapy for treating DMD).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the antisense molecules of Rigo by fusing them to an U7 small nuclear RNA, as described in Gadgil, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to fuse the nucleic acid construct with an U7 snRNA in order to prevent degradation of the antisense nucleic acid molecule and allow for long-term expression, reducing the need for re-administration, as described in Gadgil. Furthermore, delivery of the U7 Sm OPT snRNA via a viral vector, and specifically AAV9, would allow for a non-toxic method for expressing antisense nucleic acid molecules with high efficiency and relatively stable expression.
In view of the foregoing, claims 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 34, taken as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID YU whose telephone number is (571)272-1118. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am -5 pm.
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, Ram Shukla can be reached at 571-272-0735. 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.
/D.T.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 1635
/RAM R SHUKLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1635