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 .
Priority
This application was filed June 26, 2020, and is a 371 application of PCT/EP2021/066719 filed on June 18, 2021, which claims benefit to the foreign application EP20182747.4 filed on June 26, 2020.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-22 in the reply filed on September 23, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 23-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/23/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on Dec. 14, 2022, and Feb. 10, 2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
However, Applicant is reminded that the listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 3, 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “EGFL6” where the first recitation should spell out the abbreviation. It is suggested that the claim recite “epidermal growth factor-like protein 6 (EGFL6)”.
Claim 3 recites “5 vol.-%,” where the minus sign should be removed.
Claim 15 recites “analyzing the effect of the agent onto liver cells”, which is grammatically incorrect. It is suggested that the word “onto” be replaced with the words “on” or “with”.
Claim 18 recites “comprising injecting the liver stem cells into a non-human mammal having a defective liver for producing a non-human mammal having a liver that is in part or completely comprised of human liver cells”, which is grammatically incorrect. It appears that there is a comma or a coordinating conjunction that is missing in the sentence. For compact prosecution the claim will be interpreted as “a non-human mammal having a defective liver, for production a non-human mammal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The use of the term “HCM” (Hepatocyte Culture Medium”((see page 14), which is a trade name, or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claims 4 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation recites " the cell culture medium initially is devoid of added EGFL6" in lines 1-3. Claim 4 is being rejected because the cell culture medium can only refer to the culture medium that contains EGFL6. Since, the independent claim 1 only recites the limitation “incubating the primary liver cells in cell culture medium containing EGFL6 in order to produce liver cells which are liver stem cells”. Therefore, claim 4 can only refer to the culture medium that contains EGFL6. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the cell culture medium that is initially is devoid of added EGFL6” because there is only one cell culture medium in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitation recites “during the entire cultivation period”. However, the independent claim 1 does not recite a cultivation period. Claim 1 only recites an incubating period of primary cells in cell culture medium containing EGFL6. Thus, claim 4 is being rejected because it is unclear what “the cultivation period” that is being referred to in claim 1. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the entire cultivation period” because there is no cultivation period being recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the claim limitation recites “the process according to claim 1, comprising one of the contacting the liver stem cells”. Claim 15 is rejected because it is unclear what is being contacted in the claim because the claim does not state what is being contacted with the liver stem cells.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “contacting” in claim 15 is used by the claim to mean “adding,” while the accepted meaning is “communicating or touching.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 15, recites “the process according to claim 1, comprising one of the contacting the liver stem cells with an agent in a process for analyzing the effect of the agent onto liver cells”. Claim 15 is rejected for reciting that the liver cells will be analyzed for the effect of the agent, because it is unclear how the agent will be effecting the liver cells, which are obtained at the beginning of the process, when the agent is to be contacted with the liver stem cells, which are obtained at the end of the process. For compact prosecution the claim will be interpreted contacting the liver stem cells with an agent for analysis.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Dependent Claim 15 recites a process for producing liver cells, comprising isolating liver cells from a sample of liver tissue to generate primary liver cells and incubating the primary liver cells in cell culture medium containing EGFL6 in order to produce liver cells which are liver stem cells, “comprising one of the contacting the liver stem cells with an agent in a process for analyzing the effect of the agent onto liver cells”.
Claim 15 that recites the judicial exceptions: a process for analyzing the effect of the agent onto liver cells.
Per the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) published on January 7, 2019 (84 Fed. Reg. 50), if a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
The courts consider a mental process (thinking i.e. analyzing) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work' that are open to all.' " 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work' " (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Regarding claim 15, the analyzing step is considered to embrace a mental process. See also MPEP 2106.04(a-b).
Step 1-Statutory Category: According to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines (2019PEG), the claim is first analyzed to determine if it is directed to one of the acceptable statutory categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Claim 1 is drawn to a method for evaluating function, status and/or activity of an immune system of a subject. Thus, the process meets the requirements for step 1 of the analysis as it is drawn to a method.
Next the claim is assessed to determine if it is directed to a judicial exception under step 2A. Under 2019 PEG, “directed to" is determined via a two-prong inquiry: (1) Does the claim recite a law of nature, a product of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea; and (2) Does the claim recite additional element(s) that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The phrase, “integration of a practical application", requires the presence of an additional claim element(s) or a combination thereof to apply, rely on or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, such that the claim does not monopolize the judicial exception. (See MPEP § 210 6.05 for examples of integration of practical application).
Step 2A Judicial Exception-Prong 1 (claim is directed to a judicial exception): Prong 2A asks whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (product of nature).
Regarding claim 15, recites a judicial exception in the step of “the process according to claim 1, comprising one of the contacting the liver stem cells with an agent in a process for analyzing the effect of the agent onto liver cells”, which requires a mental step. The claim 15, “analyzing” step of comparing the processes product property with a correlative property of an agent exposed to the liver cells to generate an effect that can be measure by a comparative data value is an abstract idea involving mental processes because a simple comparison of the data values obtained can be performed mentally. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are described in the specification and/or claimed as being performed on a device. Hence, the claim relates to an abstract idea that is related observing a natural phenomenon involving laws of nature. Thus, the claim is directed to a judicial exception.
Furthermore, there is nothing about claim 15 that include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since the invention as claimed does not introduce or recite any step of compositions that is beyond that which is well understood, routine and conventional.
Step 2A Judicial Exception-Prong 2 (Judicial exception is integrated into a practical application): The phrase, "integration of a practical application", requires the presence of an additional claim element(s) or a combination thereof to apply, rely on or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful Iimitation on the judicial exception, such that the claim does not monopolize the judicial exception. (See MPEP § 2106.05 for examples of integration of practical application). Prong 2 asks whether a claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In claim 15, there is no step after the step of “a process for analyzing the effect of the agent onto liver cells”, there is no additional steps requiring a practical application (e.g. applying a treatment, action, or substance). The claim does not recite any additional elements or a combination thereof that integrated the judicial exception identified in prong 1 as being integrated into a practical application. Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations that might integrate the mental processes and laws of nature into a practical application.
Thus, claims 15 meets the requirements of step 2A as being directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2B Significantly More: The "significantly more" analysis determines that a claim is patent eligible if the claims recite structures or functions that transform the natural product in a manner that make the product markedly different from the judicial exception. The nature-based product is analyzed to determine whether it has markedly different characteristics from any naturally occurring counterpart(s) in their natural state.
Claim 15 does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites “a process for analyzing the effect of the agent onto liver cells.” Therefore, this step does not have an additional practical step performed in this embodiment. Thus, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements claimed. Therefore, claim 1 does not meet the requirement of step 2B and therefore does not meet patent subject matter eligibility requirements.
It is well established that data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant activity (see also MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).)
In conclusion, claims 15 recites abstract ideas which are not considered to disclose eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore are deemed not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 15, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gridelli, Bruno, et al.,(Liver Transplantation 18.2: 226-237, published 2012, hereinafter as “Gridelli”), as evidence by Yeung, George, et al. (Genomics 62.2: 304-307, published 1999, hereinafter as “Yeung”).
Regarding claim 1 and 7, Gridelli discloses a process for producing liver cells (see e.g. abstract, page 228), comprising isolating liver cells from a sample of human fetal liver tissue to generate primary liver cells (see e.g. fig. 1 and page 232-233) and incubating the primary liver cells in cell culture medium in order to produce liver cells which are liver stem cells (see e.g. pages 229-230, and table 1).
Gridelli does not explicitly state the cell culture medium containing EGFL6.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art to expect EGFL6 to be present in the cell culture medium as evidence by Yeung which discloses that EGFL6 is naturally expressed and secreted in fetal tissues (see e.g. abstract, page 306-307). Thus, the primary liver cells from human fetal liver tissue would naturally have EGFL6 present in the cell culture medium.
Regarding claim 5, as stated supra, Gridelli discloses primary liver cells (see e.g. fig. 1 and page 232-233) and Yeung provides evidence that EGFLG is naturally present (see e.g. abstract, page 306-307), therefore the primary liver cells are controlled to contain at least one cell that expresses EGFL6.
Regarding claim 15, Gridelli discloses contacting liver stem cells with an agent (fluorescent antibody) in a process for analyzing the effect of the agent onto liver cells (i.e. percentage of cells expressing fluorescent markers for specific cell types)(see e.g. page 323-233).
Thus, the instant claims are anticipated by Gridelli as evidence by Yeung.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 5-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sokal and Najimi (WO2007US2017/0354687A1, published 2017, cited IDS 12/14/2022; hereinafter as “Sokal”), Noh, et al., (Cell reports 21.10: 2785-2795, published 2017), and Lee, et al. (Journal of visualized experiments: JoVE 79: 50615, published 2013).
Regarding claim 1-2, 5, 11-12, and 20-21, Sokal discloses a process for producing liver cells (see e.g. abstract), comprising isolating liver cells from a sample of liver tissue to generate primary liver cells (see e.g. Example 1, page 62-64), and incubating the primary liver cells in cell culture medium containing that may or may not include a growth factor which is a member of the epidermal growth factor (EGF) family in order to produce liver cells which are liver stem cells (see e.g. Example 1, page 31, 34-35, 36-37, 45, 48, 62-64, and 71, claim 15). Further, Sokal discloses wherein EGFL6 is added during incubating the digested liver biopsy in cell culture medium in static culture (see e.g. page 45).
Sokal is silent regarding the cell culture medium containing EGFL6.
However, the prior art of Noh discloses that EGFL6 mediates angiogenesis and migration under hypoxic conditions (see e.g. pages 2786, 2789-2790, and fig. 3-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the methods (as taught by Sokal) to incorporate the step of adding EGFL6 ad taught by Noh because Sokal discloses incubating the primary liver cells in cell culture medium containing a growth factor which is a member of the epidermal growth factor (EGF) family in order to produce liver cells which are liver stem cells (see e.g. pages 31, 34-35, 36-37, 45, 48, 62-64, and 71). Noah discloses that EGFL6 has been shown to be expressed in early development such as the liver (page 2785). Further, Noh discloses that EGFL6 mediates angiogenesis and migration under hypoxic conditions (see e.g. pages 2786, 2789-2790, and fig. 3-5). Thus, the use of EGFL6 as taught by Noh in place of the EGF as taught by Sokal would be considered obvious since it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, an artisan of ordinary skill in the art of (i.e. cell culture) has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US 2007).
Regarding claim 3, Sokal discloses wherein the primary liver cells are not controlled to contain polynuclear liver cells or are devoid of polynuclear liver cells (i.e. nucleoli)(see e.g. page 5, 42).
Regarding claim 6, Sokal discloses wherein controlling the primary liver cells to contain at least one polynuclear liver cell comprises analyzing the primary liver cells for presence of polynuclear cells and selecting primary liver cells that contain at least one polynuclear cell (i.e. nucleoli)(see e.g. page 36, 43, 63, and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Sokal discloses wherein the sample of liver tissue is a sample of human liver tissue (see e.g. abstract, page 4, 15, 71, claim 15).
Regarding claim 8, and 19, Skol discloses wherein the primary liver cells are provided in the form of a liver biopsy (see e.g. page 17) that has been treated by digestion with a protease (see e.g. page 21, 23) for at least 6 h under static conditions (i.e. plating)(see e.g. page 25 and 28-29, 37), and directly incubating the resultant digested liver biopsy in cell culture medium in static culture (i.e. plating)(see e.g. Example 1, page 62-63).
Regarding claim 9, Skol discloses process according to claim 8, wherein prior to the digestion with a protease, the liver biopsy is incubated under static cell culture conditions for at least 6 h up to at least 72 h (i.e. three days)(see e.g. pages 12, 29, 37, 63-64, 71 and Example 1).
Regarding claim 10, Skol discloses wherein the primary liver cells are provided in the form of a liver biopsy (see e.g. page 17), the process comprising directly incubating the liver biopsy in cell culture medium in static culture for at least 6 h under static conditions (see e.g. pages 25-28) to facilitate adherence (see e.g. page 28-29), followed by treatment of the liver biopsy by digestion with a protease (see e.g. page 21, 23), and subsequently incubating the resultant digested liver biopsy in static culture for at least 6 h under static conditions (see e.g. page 37, 63-64, 71 and Example 1).
Regarding claim 13, Skol discloses after incubating the liver biopsy in cell culture medium in static culture for at least 6 h under static conditions in order to facilitate adherence (see e.g. pages 17, 21, 23, 37, 63-64, 71 28-29). Skol discloses treatment of the liver biopsy by digestion with a protease (see e.g. page 21, 23). Further, Skol teaches a digestion of the enzyme solution for 12 mins (pages 62-63, Example 1).
Skol does not explicitly state the treatment of the liver biopsy by digestion with a protease is for 30 min to 2 hours.
However, the prior art of Lee discloses that the liver tissue may be digested for 12minutes or until the liver is sufficiently digested (page 2).
Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the arts could have arrived at these concentrations by routine optimization and the disclosure does not point to a criticality in their percentages.
In regards to routine optimization, MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states, “generally differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. ‘[W]here 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.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (‘It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.’)”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the methods (as taught by Skol) to incorporate a longer digestion time as taught by Lee because Lee discloses that a person of ordinary skill in the art would optimize and choose a suitable digestion time (see page 7). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Skol and Lee disclose using two-step collagenase methods (see page 19 and claim 15 of Skol, and abstract of Lee). Furthermore, an artisan of ordinary skill in the art of (i.e. hepatocyte culture methods) has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (US 2007).
Regarding claim 14, Skol discloses wherein the liver stem cells are in vitro contacted with at least one differentiation factor (e.g. growth factors or HDAC inhibitor) initiating differentiation into hepatocytes (page 3, 13), or into cholangiocytes (pages 3, 13, 22, 67) or liver epithelial cells (see e.g. page 5, 22, 31, and 66)(see e.g. page 34, 47-48, and 64).
Regarding claim 15, Skol discloses contacting liver stem cells with an agent (e.g. antibody or bioactive agent) in a process for analyzing the effect of the agent on liver stem cells (see e.g. page 42-43, 57, 59 and 60).
Regarding claim 16, Skol discloses cultivating the liver stem cells for a time that is equivalent to at least 30 passages in static cell culture plates (e.g. 50 passages)(see e.g. page 44-48).
Regarding claim 17, Skol discloses wherein the liver stem cells are genetically manipulated (see e.g. page 49, 57, Example 2).
Regarding claim 18, Skol discloses comprising injecting the liver stem cells into a non-human mammal (i.e. mice) having a defective liver, for producing a non-human mammal having a liver that is in part comprised of human liver cells (i.e. human albumin detected in serum of mice)(see e.g. page 51, 57, 68, and fig. 4-5, Example 1).
Regarding claim 22, Skol discloses injecting a suspension of the liver stem cells into the portal liver vein (see e.g. page 55, 69) or the spleen (i.e. intrasplenic injection) of an experimental animal having a defective liver (i.e. liver disease(e.g. liver transplant)(see e.g. abstract, pages 1,4,7 50).
Hence, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
The prior art is made of record and not relied upon for art rejections: Art cannot be applied to the claims without reading limitations into the claims.
Chim, Shek Man, et al. ("EGFL6 promotes endothelial cell migration and angiogenesis through the activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase." Journal of Biological Chemistry 286.25: 22035-22046, published 2011).
Yeung G, Mulero JJ, et al., (Cloning of a novel epidermal growth factor repeat containing gene EGFL6: expressed in tumor and fetal tissues. Genomics. 1999 Dec 1;62(2):304-7, published 1999, hereinafter as “Yeung”).
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE GONZALES whose telephone number is (571)272-1794. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9AM - 5:00PM (EST). Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Doug Schultz can be reached at 571-272-0763. 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.
JOSEPHINE GONZALES
Examiner
Art Unit 1631
/JOSEPHINE GONZALES/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
/JAMES D SCHULTZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1631