DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant's Response to Election / Restriction filed on August 25, 2025.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, 13,15-26 are pending, with claims 3-4, 6-8,11, 13, 15-16 and 25-26 withdrawn.
Claims 1-2 and 17-24 are under examination. This is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/02/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the following species in the reply filed on August 25, 2025 is acknowledged:
Species of method: A) method determining risk of a kidney transplant rejection, comprising determining expression level of at least two of 15 biomarkers comprise CXCL11, CD74, IL32, STAT1, CXCL14, SERPINAl,B2M, C3, PYCARD, BMP7, TBP, NAMPT, IFNGR1, IRAK2 and IL18BP (claim 1) 1;
Species of step (a) of Species A: A14) wherein step (a) comprises:(i) determining the expression level of at least one reference biomarker; (ii) normalizing the expression level of the at least two biomarkers to the expression level of the at least one reference biomarker, and wherein inputting the expression levels from step (a) into an algorithm to generate a score comprises inputting the normalized expression levels from step (a) into an algorithm to generate a score (claim 19) 2.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3-4, 6-8,11, 13, 15-16 and 25-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Examination on the merits commences on claims 1-2 and 17-24.
Priority
The priority date of the instant claims 1-2 and 17-24 is 05/29/2020, filling date of the US provisional application NO. 63/032,267.
Claim Interpretation
In evaluating the patentability of the claims presented in this application, claim terms have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, as outlined in MPEP§ 2111.
For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 1 recites a "score" in the limitation "inputting the expression levels from step (a) into an algorithm to generate a score."
The application's disclosure does not expressly define the term "score." Therefore, under BRI and within the context of the claim, the term "score" is interpreted to encompass any numerical value.
Claim 22 recites "wherein the algorithm is the product of a feature selection wrapper algorithm, a machine learning algorithm, a trained classifier built from at least one predictive classification algorithm."
The application's disclosure does not explicitly define the terms "feature selection wrapper algorithm" and "predictive classification algorithm," nor does it provide any description of features that could distinguish these algorithms from any algorithm known in the art. In addition, there is no commonly-understood, established definitions in the art for the terms "feature selection wrapper algorithm" and "predictive classification algorithm" at the time of filling.
Therefore, in the absence of any distinguishing features, the terms "feature selection wrapper algorithm" and "predictive classification algorithm" are interpreted to encompass any algorithm. 3
Regarding the term "machine learning algorithm," it is not expressly defined in the application's disclosure. The following definition for the term was available in the art at the time of filling:
"Machine-learning algorithms use statistics to find patterns in massive (Note: Okay, there are technically ways to perform machine learning on smallish amounts of data, but you typically need huge piles of it to achieve good results) amounts of data." (Hao 4, page 2)
Therefore, under BRI, the term "machine learning algorithm" is interpreted to encompass any algorithm that use statistics to find patterns in data.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A) Regarding claim 1, it recites "determining the expression level of at least two of 15 biomarkers," which is indefinite.
The phrase "the expression level" lacks antecedent basis, as the claim does not previously recite any expression level. Furthermore, the use of singular form "the expression level," followed by "of at least two of 15 biomarkers" creates ambiguity as to whether it refers to a single combined expression level of at least two biomarkers, or individual expression level for each biomarker.
Claim 1 further recites "wherein the 15 biomarkers comprise CXCL11, CD74, IL32, STAT1, CXCL14, SERPINAl,B2M, C3, PYCARD, BMP7, TBP, NAMPT, IFNGR1, IRAK2 and IL18BP." This limitation is indefinite because it recites "comprise," which is an open-ended transitional phrase, but in the context of a closed set of 15 biomarkers. Thus, it is unclear whether the claimed "15 biomarkers" is limited to exactly 15 biomarkers consisting of CXCL11, CD74, IL32, STAT1, CXCL14, SERPINAl,B2M, C3, PYCARD, BMP7, TBP, NAMPT, IFNGR1, IRAK2 and IL18BP, or whether additional biomarkers beyond the listed genes in the claim may be included.
As a result, the scope of the claim is unclear. Claims 2 and 17-24 are rejected for depending from claim 1 and not remedying the indefiniteness.
B) Claim 23 recites a wherein clause describing "the predetermined cutoff value," but the recitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 23 depends from claim 1, which does not recite any "predetermined cutoff value" or introduce any step that requires it. Therefore, it is unclear what "the predetermined cutoff value" refers to, and the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
For the purpose of compact prosecution and applying prior art under 35 USC§ 102 and 103, the wherein clause in claim 23 is interpreted as not further limiting, because the claimed method does not require any pre-determined cutoff value.
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 1-2 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites:
A method of determining the risk of a kidney transplant rejection in a subject who has undergone a kidney transplant, the method comprising:
a) determining the expression level of at least two of 15 biomarkers in microvesicular RNA isolated from a biological sample from the subject, wherein the 15 biomarkers comprise CXCL11, CD74, IL32, STAT1, CXCL14, SERPINAl,B2M, C3, PYCARD, BMP7, TBP, NAMPT, IFNGR1, IRAK2 and IL18BP;
b) inputting the expression levels from step (a) into an algorithm to generate a score;
c) determining the risk of a kidney transplant rejection in the subject based on the score.
Therefore, the claims are directed to steps to observe expression levels of biomarkers in biological sample from a subject, wherein the biomarkers are associated with kidney transplant rejection status.
Following the analysis below the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1 - Whether the Claim is to a Statutory Category : YES. The claims are drawn to a method, therefore to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 - Whether the Claim Recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon: Yes. The claims relies on the natural correlation of gene expression biomarkers and a subject having a physiological condition (i.e., kidney transplant rejection), which is a naturally occurring relationship. As stated in MPEP 2106.04(b)(I), 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. A subject naturally possesses a gene expression pattern, associated with a physiological condition is classified as naturally occurring principles/relations.
In conclusion, the claims recite laws of nature and natural phenomena.
Step 2A Prong 2- Whether the Claim Recite Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application: No. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
While claim 1 broadly recites steps of determining the expression level of biomarkers, and inputting the expression levels into an algorithm to generate a score, the steps are recited at a high level of generality and reflect extra-solution activities for data gathering, without any additional elements that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The step of determining the risk of a kidney transplant rejection in the subject based on the score involves the mental step of reading the data gathering results and comparing them to a known relationship, or otherwise observing a natural law. See Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that observation of the relationship between the sample and known phenomena does not involve an inventive concept).
Thus, these method steps merely observe the judicial exception and do not integrate it into a practical application.
Step 2B- Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More: No.
According to MPEP§ 2106.05, The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)). An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
In this instant case, the claims, when considered as a whole, do not recite any inventive concept with additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not appear to add markedly different characteristics that significantly modify or use the naturally occurring correlation in a manner that is not naturally occurring.
As discussed above, claim 1 recites steps at a high level of generality without specifying any particular techniques for measuring biomarker expression levels, any specific algorithm for generating a score, or any detailed approach for carrying out the risk-determining step, representing a mere general linkage of the judicial exception to the additional elements in the claims (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As such, these steps merely observe natural laws and constitute abstract ideas.
Furthermore, as recognized by the courts, determining the marker expression level through molecular biology techniques such as PCR amplification and sequencing, represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts. See University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 764, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Inputting gene expression levels into any generic algorithm to generate an score is a well-known approach to observe and analyze gene expression, at the time of filling for the present application (see Skog et al. WO2017192945A1 - Profiling microvesicle nucleic acids and uses thereof as signatures in diagnosis of renal transplant rejection; Published on 2017-11-09; cited as Foreign Patent Document #027 in IDS filed on 08/02/2023, para. [00094] ; Salomon et al. US20170137885A1 - Gene expression profiles associated with sub-clinical kidney transplant rejection; published on 2017-05-18, Fig 1; [0041]; [0010] ; MODLIN et al, WO2019018540A1 - Methods for detection of plasma cell dyscrasia ; published on 2019-01-24, entire document).
The dependent claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as they either further describe the judicial exception or represent mere general linkage of the judicial exception to the additional elements in the claims (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
In conclusion, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-2, 17-19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salomon (Salomon et al.; US20170137885A1 - Gene expression profiles associated with sub-clinical kidney transplant rejection; Published on 2017-05-18).
Regarding claim 1, Salomon teaches a method of determining the risk of a kidney transplant rejection in a subject who has undergone a kidney transplant (entire document, FIG 1; [0013] for examples), the method comprising:
a) determining the expression level of at least two of 15 biomarkers in microvesicular RNA isolated from a biological sample from the subject ([0009] “ (a) determining or detecting expression levels in a subject of at least 5 genes”; [0013 – 0014] “at least five genes are selected from one or more of Tables 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, or 18,” e.g., IL32 (Table 8 at page 87); B2M (Table 7 at page 82); PYCARD (Table 7 at page 82); NAMPT (Table 4 at page 66); IRAK2 (Table 8 at page 83); [0073] sample comprising exosomes; [0075-0076] isolate RNA from cell-free source), wherein the 15 biomarkers comprise CXCL11, CD74, IL32, STAT1, CXCL14, SERPINAl,B2M, C3, PYCARD, BMP7, TBP, NAMPT, IFNGR1, IRAK2 and IL18BP;
b) inputting the expression levels from step (a) into an algorithm to generate a score (Fig 1; [0041]; [0010] combining the values or designations for each of the genes to provide a combined value or designation providing an indication whether the subject has or is at risk of SCAR, has acute rejection (AR), or has well-functioning normal transplant (TX); [0108-0109]; [0139] );
c) determining the risk of a kidney transplant rejection in the subject based on the score (Fig 1; [0041]; [0010]; [0108-0109]; [0139]; [0190] generating predictive value for transplant rejection conditions using Nearest Centroid Algorithm).
Regarding claim 2, Salomon teaches any-cause kidney transplant rejection ([0010] for example).
Regarding claim 17, Salomon teaches urine sample ([0013]lines 10-11; [0016]; [0073]; [0076]).
Regarding claim 18, it recites "wherein the urine sample comprises first-catch urine, second voided urine or any combination thereof."
This limitation is anticipated by Salomon because it does not further limit the claimed method.
Per MPEP 2111.04, a wherein clause can limit a method claim if it contributes meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps.
In this instant case, the wherein clause does not limit the method claim because the base claims of claims 1 and 17 do not recite any step of obtaining or collecting the sample. As such, this clause merely describes a source of the sample, without modifying any step of the claimed method. Therefore, this claim language is interpreted as descriptive statement without any associated active steps and do not distinguish the claims from the prior art
Regarding claim 19, Salomon teaches (i) determining the expression level of at least one reference biomarker ([0091]; claim 6; [0082] line17); (ii) normalizing the expression level of the at least two biomarkers to the expression level of the at least one reference biomarker, and wherein inputting the expression levels from step (a) into an algorithm to generate a score comprises inputting the normalized expression levels from step (a) into an algorithm to generate a score ([0093-0096] commercial software is available for performing normalization, which generates a score).
Regarding claim 21, Salomon teaches microarray analysis ([0085]) and sequencing ([0147]).
Regarding claim 22, Salomon teaches random forest (RF) algorithm ([0111]).
Regarding claim 23, it is anticipated by Salomon because it does not further limit the claimed method 5.
Regarding claim 24, Salomon teaches administering to a subject identified as being at risk for a kidney transplant rejection at least one kidney transplant rejection therapy ([0127]; claim 24; [0020] for examples).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salomon (Salomon et al.; US20170137885A1 - Gene expression profiles associated with sub-clinical kidney transplant rejection; Published on 2017-05-18), in view of
Falkenberg (Falkenberg et al. Identification of Phosphoglycerate Kinase 1 (PGK1) as a reference gene for quantitative gene expression measurements in human blood RNA. BMC Res Notes. 2011 Sep 6;4:324. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-324).
The teachings of Salomon are recited above and applied as for base claims 1 and 19.
While Salomon teaches determining expression level of at least one reference biomarker ([0091]; claim 6; [0082] line17), it does not explicitly teach the reference biomarker being PGK1.
Falkenberg teaches PGK1 as a stable reference gene for analyzing RNA biomarkers (entire document, Abstract for example), and suggests potential benefit such using a single gene for normalization rather than two or three (Abstract: conclusion).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the stable reference gene PGK1, as taught by Falkenberg, for the reference biomarker disclosed in Salomon.
The use of stable reference gene PGK1 in place of the general reference biomarker in Salomon, is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established application, leading to the predictable result of gene expression normalization using a stable reference gene. This rationale aligns with the principle of KSR for a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, see MPEP 2141.
Double Patenting- Obvious Type
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 1-2, 17-18 and 23-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11214833B2 in view of Salomon (Salomon et al. US20170137885A1 - Gene expression profiles associated with sub-clinical kidney transplant rejection; Published on 2017-05-18).
While the ‘833 Patent claims steps of determining risk of a kidney transplant rejection in a subject based on gene expression levels of at least two (‘833 Patent, claim 1 “STAT1, IL32, PYCARD, C3, BMP7”) of 15 biomarkers in microvesicular RNA isolated from a biological sample from the subject, by comparing the gene expression levels from the subject to a control level of expression, it does not specifically claim analyzing gene expression levels using an algorithm, thereby generating a score.
Salomon fills this gap by teaching methods of sample data analysis for determining the risk of kidney transplant rejection in a subject (entire document), comprising comparing data pertaining to the sample to data pertaining to one or more control samples using algorithm ([0097-0100]), and generating a score such as the possibility of the subject of having a condition ([0109]).
Given these teachings, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use an algorithm to generate a score for determining transplant rejection risk as taught by Salomon in the claimed process in the ‘833 patent, because both references are in the overlapping field of minimally invasive, nucleic acid diagnostic assays, specifically useful for determining risk associated with kidney transplant rejection.
The use of an algorithm to analyze biomarker gene expression levels in a method as claimed in the ‘833 patent represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP §2143).
Therefore, the instant claim 1 lacks patentable distinction over the ‘833 patent in view of Salomon. Therefore, instant claims 1-2, 17-18 and 23-24 are obvious over claim 1 of the '833 patent, in view of Salomon.
Claims 1-2, 17-20 and 23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 32-34 of copending Application No. 18/839,547 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the claims (filed on 08/28/2025) of the '547 application.
Instant claim 1 recites:
a method of determining the risk of a kidney transplant rejection in a subject who has undergone a kidney transplant (‘547 Application, claim 1), the method comprising:
a) determining the expression level of at least two of 15 biomarkers in microvesicular RNA (‘547 Application, claim 32) isolated from a biological sample from the subject, wherein the 15 biomarkers comprise CXCL11, CD74, IL32, STAT1, CXCL14, SERPINAl,B2M, C3, PYCARD, BMP7, TBP, NAMPT, IFNGR1, IRAK2 and IL18BP (‘547 Application, claim 1);
b) inputting the expression levels from step (a) into an algorithm to generate a score (‘547 Application, claim 1);
c) determining the risk of a kidney transplant rejection in the subject based on the score (‘547 Application, claim 1).
Therefore, instant claims 1, 2, 19 and 23 are anticipated by claims 1 and 32 of the '547 application. Instant claims 17-18 and 20 are anticipated by claims 33 and 34 of the '547 application, respectively.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIAN NMN YU whose telephone number is (703)756-4694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Gary Benzion can be reached at (571) 272-0782. 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.
/TIAN NMN YU/Examiner , Art Unit 1681 /AARON A PRIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681
1 Claims 6-8, 11, 13, 15-16 and 25-26 are withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected species B-D.
2 Claims 3-4 are withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected species A1-A13.
3 See also In re Gardiner 171 F.2d 313 (C.C.P.A. 1948) (CCPA 12/07/48) (in a claim reciting “A valve comprising an annular seat, a ball adapted to close the seat, and a central jet passage ahead of the seat …,” “the word ‘jet’ is not a definition of the structure, but merely indicates the purpose for which the passage is used,” and thus did not impart patentability over prior art lacking a “jet” passage)"
4 Karen Hao; What is machine learning?; MIT technology review ; published November 17, 2018
5 see "Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)" for detailed claim interpretation discussion