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 . Claims included in the prosecution are claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 29 and 30.
Sequence Requirements
This application contains sequence disclosure that is encompassed by the definitions for nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.821(a)(1) and (a)(2). This application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.821-1.825. Claim 11 and paragraphs [0017], [0235], and [0315] of the specification (substitute specification filed 5/9/2023) contain sequences that are encompassed by the sequence rules and require a sequence identifier, e.g., SEQ ID No. Applicant is reminded to check the entire disclosure to ensure that the application is in sequence compliance.
Any questions regarding compliance with the sequence rules requirements specifically should be directed to the departments listed at the bottom of the Notice to Comply.
APPLICANT IS GIVEN THE TIME ALLOTED IN THIS OFFICE ACTION WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLY WITH THE SEQUENCE RULES, 37 C.R.F. §§ 1.821-1.825. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in ABANDONMENT of the application under 37 C.F.R. § 1.821(g). Extensions of time may be obtained by filing a petition accompanied by the extension fee under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. In no case may an applicant extend the period for response beyond the six-month statutory period. Direct the response to the undersigned. Applicant is requested to return a copy of the attached Notice to Comply with the response.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of a cosmetic article in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. 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)).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “wherein” should be recited after “claim 1,” in the first line. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “1where” in the first line should be recited as --- 1 wherein ---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an amino acid sequence” should be amended to “the amino acid sequence,” since the former encompasses fragments or less than the full sequence of claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: “nay” in the last line should be recited as --- any ---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " said metal chelating group" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites only a chelating agent and it is unclear whether the metal chelating group further limits the chelating agent of claim 13 or is an additional agent.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " said metal oxide chelating group" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 recites only a chelating agent and it is unclear whether the metal oxide chelating group further limits the chelating agent of claim 13 or is an additional agent.
To obviate these issues, it is suggested that Applicant amend claim 16 to depend from claim 15.
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.
1. Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittah et al. (WO 2017/138002, Aug. 17, 2017) (hereinafter Ittah) in view of Martínez Rovira et al. (US 2021/0401685, Dec. 30, 2021) (hereinafter Martínez Rovira) and Radu et al. (Grafting versus Crosslinking of Silk Fibroin-g-PNIPAM via Tyrosine-NIPAM Bridges, Nov. 13, 2019) (hereinafter Radu).
Ittah discloses composite materials based on proteins derived from a MaSp (major ampullate spidroin) protein (¶ [002]). The composite comprises a mixture of proteins in the form of a fiber (claim 3). The fiber is characterized by a porous structure (¶ [190]). Each protein in the mixture comprises repeats of a repetitive region (¶ [010]). The repetitive region has a first moiety and a second moiety (¶ [112]). The second moiety comprises tyrosine (¶ [0115]). Each of the proteins comprise, independently, an amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO:1 (X1)ZX2GPGGYGPX3X4X5GPX6GX7GGX8GPGGPGX9X10, wherein X1 is independently, at least instance A or G, Z is an integer between 5 to 30, X2 is S or G, X3 is G or E, X4 is G, S or N, X5 is Q or Y, X6 is G or S, X7 is P or R, X8 is Y or Q, X9 is G or S, and X10 is S or G (¶ [015]). In some embodiments, the mixture of protein is attached to or deposited on at least one surface of a polymer (i.e., claimed functional moiety) via a linker (¶ [271]). The term “linker” refers to a bond, e.g., a covalent bond (¶ [276]). In some embodiments, the linker functionalizes the fibers with other functional groups (¶ [275]). In some embodiments, the polymer is a synthetic polymer, such as a polyamide (¶ [021]). In some embodiments, the mixture of protein is attached to or deposited on at least one surface of an inorganic substrate. Exemplary inorganic substrates include titania (¶ [270]). The fibers may coat the metal (¶ [285]). The term “coat” is used to identify at least 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or 100% covering of an outer coated part (substrate) (¶ [285]). The composite may be a cosmetic composition (¶ [304]). The cosmetic composition may be a sun skin-protection product or a face cream (i.e., claimed cosmetic article) (¶ [305]). The composite is characterized by an improved mechanical property as compared to a reference material. In some embodiments, the term "reference material" refers to a same chemical composition as in the composite, being free of the one or more proteins (¶ [203]).
Ittah differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the fiber has a BET surface area of at least 10 m2/g.
However, Martínez Rovira discloses a graphene nanomaterial such as graphene nanofibers (¶ [0012]) having a BET specific surface area of between 100 and 500 m2/g (¶ [0013]). The graphene nanomaterial is a cosmetic for the treatment of the skin (¶ [0016]).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the fiber of Ittah to have a BET specific surface area of between 100 and 500 m2/g since Ittah does not disclose a surface area for the fiber and this is a known and effective surface area for fibers used cosmetically as taught by Martínez Rovira.
The combined teachings of Ittah and Martínez Rovira do not disclose wherein the polymer is bound to the tyrosine of the fiber.
However, Radu discloses polymeric networks based on the crosslinking of Bombyx mori silk fibroin via poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) bridges (abstract). Silk fibroin have amino acids with aromatic side chains such as tyrosine (pages 9-10). NIPAM monomer binds on the tyrosine benzene ring in the orto-position aromatic ring through the generation of PNIPAM bridges (page 4).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the polymer of Ittah covalently bound to the tyrosine of the fiber since binding to tyrosine is a known and effective method of attaching a polymer and a fiber together as taught by Radu.
In regards to instant claim 2 reciting a loading of said functional moiety, Ittah discloses in paragraph [318] that the polymer affects mechanical properties. Accordingly, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to have arrived at the claimed amount based on the mechanical properties desired. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to instant claim 11 reciting wherein said MaSp-based fiber is characterized by a degradation temperature between 280°C and 350°C and a glass transition temperature between 200°C and 250°C, the claim appears to the recite wherein only the MaSp-based fiber has these properties. Therefore, since Ittah discloses substantially the same fiber as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the fiber of Ittah to have the claimed properties.
2. Claims 3, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittah et al. (WO 2017/138002, Aug. 17, 2017) (hereinafter Ittah) in view of Martínez Rovira et al. (US 2021/0401685, Dec. 30, 2021) (hereinafter Martínez Rovira), Radu et al. (Grafting versus Crosslinking of Silk Fibroin-g-PNIPAM via Tyrosine-NIPAM Bridges, Nov. 13, 2019) (hereinafter Radu), and further in view of Murphy et al. (Modification of silk fibroin using diazonium coupling chemistry and the effects on hMSC proliferation and differentiation, Apr. 15, 2008) (hereinafter Murphy).
The teachings of Ittah, Martinez Rovira, and Radu are discussed above. Ittah, Martinez Rovira, and Radu do not disclose wherein the polymer (i.e. claimed functional moiety) is bound to the tyrosine via a diazo bond and wherein the composite comprises an amine.
However, Murphy discloses a simple chemical modification method using diazonium coupling chemistry to tailor the structure and hydrophilicity of silk fibroin protein (abstract). As illustrated in Scheme 1, diazonium reactions with silk involve an electrophilic aromatic substitution reaction between the tyrosine phenolic side chains and a diazonium salt resulting in an azobenzene derivative.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While there are many more commercially available derivatives, the anilines shown in Fig.1 are used here to demonstrate the range of functional groups that could be incorporated into silk using this chemistry. These anilines contain carboxylic acid (1), amine (2), ketone (3), sulfonic acid (4), and alkyl (5) functional groups.
PNG
media_image2.png
310
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 2831, 3.1 Diazonium coupling reaction).
Accordingly, regarding claim 3, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had the polymer bound to the tyrosine via a diazo bond since a diazonium reaction is a known method to attach groups to a silk fiber as taught by Murphy.
Additionally, regarding claims 4 and 10, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have attached the amine as shown in Fig. 1 of Murphy onto the fiber of Ittah via a diazonium reaction since Ittah discloses wherein the fiber may comprise other functional groups and the amine is a known and effective functional group for silk fibers as taught by Murphy.
In regards to the formula I of instant claims 4 and 10, formula I comprises a tyrosine residue, an azobenzene, and an amine. As discussed above, the protein has a tyrosine moiety, it would have been obvious to have used diazonium coupling chemistry, which forms an azobenzene, to attach groups to the fiber, and it would have been obvious to have attached the amine shown in Fig. 1 of Murphy to the fiber. The claimed formula would have been obvious from these teachings in the prior art.
3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittah et al. (WO 2017/138002, Aug. 17, 2017) (hereinafter Ittah) in view of Martínez Rovira et al. (US 2021/0401685, Dec. 30, 2021) (hereinafter Martínez Rovira), Radu et al. (Grafting versus Crosslinking of Silk Fibroin-g-PNIPAM via Tyrosine-NIPAM Bridges, Nov. 13, 2019) (hereinafter Radu), and further in view of Hardy et al. (Composite materials based on silk proteins, Sep. 2010) (hereinafter Hardy) and Chen et al. (TWI290930, Dec. 11, 2007).
The teachings of Ittah, Martinez Rovira, and Radu are discussed above. Ittah, Martinez Rovira, and Radu do not teach wherein the composite comprises the fiber, the polymer, and the inorganic substrate together.
However, Hardy discloses man-made composite materials incorporating silk proteins in combination with other polymers (both natural and synthetic) and/or inorganic particles (abstract).
Ittah discloses wherein the fiber may be attached to the surface of a polymer or of an inorganic substrate (e.g., titania). Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the composite of Ittah to comprise the silk fiber, the polymer, and the inorganic substrate (i.e., titania) together since it was known in the art that silk proteins may be in combination with other polymers and inorganic particles to form a composite as taught by Hardy. Additionally, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose; the idea for combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06.
The combined teachings of Ittah, Martínez Rovira, Radu, and Hardy do not teach wherein the polymer is covalently bound to a metal oxide chelating group.
However, Chen discloses a method for producing nanoparticles. The method comprises providing a chelating groups-containing polymer template, and producing nanoparticles on the surface of said polymer template by a chelating reaction between the chelating groups and matrix of said nanoparticles (abstract). The material of the nanoparticles may be nanometals (claim 17).
Ittah discloses wherein the composite comprises linkers that provides covalent bonds. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have covalently bound a chelating agent to the polymer of Ittah since the composite of Ittah comprises titania and polymer and one would be able to attach the polymer and titania together through chelating agents as taught by Chen. The chelating agent would be a metal oxide chelating agent since it is attaching titania, which is a metal oxide.
4. Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittah et al. (WO 2017/138002, Aug. 17, 2017) (hereinafter Ittah) in view of Martínez Rovira et al. (US 2021/0401685, Dec. 30, 2021) (hereinafter Martínez Rovira), Radu et al. (Grafting versus Crosslinking of Silk Fibroin-g-PNIPAM via Tyrosine-NIPAM Bridges, Nov. 13, 2019) (hereinafter Radu), and further in view of Hardy et al. (Composite materials based on silk proteins, Sep. 2010) (hereinafter Hardy).
The teachings of Ittah, Martinez Rovira, and Radu are discussed above. Ittah, Martinez Rovira, and Radu do not teach wherein the composite comprises the fiber, the polymer, and the inorganic substrate together.
However, Hardy discloses man-made composite materials incorporating silk proteins in combination with other polymers (both natural and synthetic) and/or inorganic particles (abstract).
Iitah discloses wherein the fiber may be attached to the surface of a polymer or of an inorganic substrate (e.g., titania). Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the composite of Ittah to comprise the silk fiber, the polymer, and the inorganic substrate (i.e., titania) together since it was known in the art that silk proteins may be in combination with other polymers and inorganic particles to form a composite as taught by Hardy. Additionally, it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose; the idea for combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06.
5. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittah et al. (WO 2017/138002, Aug. 17, 2017) (hereinafter Ittah) in view of Martínez Rovira et al. (US 2021/0401685, Dec. 30, 2021) (hereinafter Martínez Rovira), Radu et al. (Grafting versus Crosslinking of Silk Fibroin-g-PNIPAM via Tyrosine-NIPAM Bridges, Nov. 13, 2019) (hereinafter Radu), Hardy et al. (Composite materials based on silk proteins, Sep. 2010) (hereinafter Hardy), and further in view of Chen et al. (TWI290930, Dec. 11, 2007).
The teachings of Ittah, Martinez Rovira, Radu, and Hardy are discussed above. Ittah, Martinez Rovira, Radu, and Hardy do not teach wherein the titania is covalently bound to the polymer (i.e., functional moiety) via a metal oxide chelating agent.
However, Chen discloses a method for producing nanoparticles. The method comprises providing a chelating groups-containing polymer template, and producing nanoparticles on the surface of said polymer template by a chelating reaction between the chelating groups and matrix of said nanoparticles (abstract). The material of the nanoparticles may be nanometals (claim 17).
Ittah discloses wherein the composite comprises linkers that provides covalent bonds. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have covalently bound a chelating agent to the polymer of Ittah since the composite of Ittah comprises titania and polymer and one would be able to attach the polymer and titania together through chelating agents as taught by Chen. The chelating agent would be a metal oxide chelating agent since it is attaching titania, which is a metal oxide.
In regards to instant claim 15 reciting wherein a molar ratio of said chelating agent to the derivatized porous MaSp-based fiber is between 0.01 and 1, since the fiber, which comprises mixtures of proteins, provides improved mechanical property compared to a reference material, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed ratio depending on the mechanical property desired since amount of fiber attached to titania would affect the amount of chelating agent present.
6. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittah et al. (WO 2017/138002, Aug. 17, 2017) (hereinafter Ittah) in view of Martínez Rovira et al. (US 2021/0401685, Dec. 30, 2021) (hereinafter Martínez Rovira), Radu et al. (Grafting versus Crosslinking of Silk Fibroin-g-PNIPAM via Tyrosine-NIPAM Bridges, Nov. 13, 2019) (hereinafter Radu), Hardy et al. (Composite materials based on silk proteins, Sep. 2010) (hereinafter Hardy), Chen et al. (TWI290930, Dec. 11, 2007), and further in view of Tennican (US 2022/0062335, Priority Date: Jan. 28, 2019).
The teachings of Ittah, Martinez Rovira, Radu, Hardy, and Chen are discussed above. Ittah, Martinez Rovira, Radu, Hardy, and Chen do not teach wherein the chelating agent is salicylic acid.
However, Tennican discloses an antimicrobial agent including one or more compounds that are chelating agents. Examples of chelating agents include salicylic acid (¶ [0057]). Chelators are primarily known to act to form strong bonds to a wide variety of inorganic or organic ions (¶ [0058]).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated salicylic acid to the composite since it is a known and effective chelating agent for forming bonds as taught by Tennican.
7. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittah et al. (WO 2017/138002, Aug. 17, 2017) (hereinafter Ittah) in view of Martínez Rovira et al. (US 2021/0401685, Dec. 30, 2021) (hereinafter Martínez Rovira), Radu et al. (Grafting versus Crosslinking of Silk Fibroin-g-PNIPAM via Tyrosine-NIPAM Bridges, Nov. 13, 2019) (hereinafter Radu), Hardy et al. (Composite materials based on silk proteins, Sep. 2010) (hereinafter Hardy), and further in view of Osawa et al. (US 2015/0376247, Dec. 31, 2015) (hereinafter Osawa).
The teachings of Ittah, Martinez Rovira, Radu, and Hardy are discussed above. Ittah, Martinez Rovira, Radu, and Hardy do not teach wherein the titania size is between 10 and 5,000 nm.
However, Osawa discloses particles of a polypeptide derived from spider silk proteins and having an average particle size of 1000 nm or less (abstract). Since the average particle size of the polypeptide particles is sufficiently small, more particles can adhere to a predetermined substrate surface such as medicament and perfume, as compared with particles having a larger average particle size. Therefore, when the polypeptide particles are attached to the substrate surface such as a medicament and perfume, they can effectively delay an exposure of the substrate surface even if their individual decomposition rate on the substrate surface and the desorption speed from the substrate surface are the same as those of particles having a larger average particle size. As a result, the polypeptide particles can exhibit an excellent property of slowly releasing an effect of the medicament or perfume advantageously (¶ [0009]). The particles may be used in cosmetics (¶ [0010]).
Accordingly, since size affects amount of adherence, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to have arrived at the claimed particle size depending on the amount fiber desired to be attached to the titania. One of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the amount since fiber affects mechanical properties as taught by Ittah.
In regards to instant claim 18 reciting wherein a w/w ratio of said derivatized porous MaSp-based fiber to said metal oxide particle is between 0.01 and 100, since Ittah discloses wherein the fiber may coat 10%-100% of the substrate, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to have arrived at the claimed ratio depending on the level of coating desired. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
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 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 29 and 30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,453,688. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims recite a more specific version of the instant claims (i.e., the conflicting claims recite specific use and additional limitations) and thus read on the instant claims.
Conclusion
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 29 and 30 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/TRACY LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614