Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt and entry of the communication filed on Dec. 29, 2025. Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-17, 21-22, 24 and 26 are pending and are currently examined.
Drawing Objection
(Previous objection- withdrawn) The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Some texts presented in the rectangle boxes in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 in the drawing are difficult to read. Therefore, the Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 must clearly show the words.
This objection is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on Dec. 29, 2025.
Claim Objection
(Previous objection- withdrawn) Claim 22 is objected for reciting “integrated into a genome of the insect cell”, which should be “integrated into the genome of the insect cell”.
This objection is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on Dec. 29, 2025.
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.
(Previous rejection- withdrawn) Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.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 19 and 20 are directed to a use/application of the claimed vector (without active steps), which does not belong to the four categories.
This rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on Dec. 29, 2025.
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.
(Previous rejection- maintained) Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-17, 21-22, 24 and 26 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
264
919
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The base claim 1 recites a phrase “…the first intron and the second intron share a 5’ part or 3’ part…”, which renders the claim indefinite. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_splicing) teaches that the intron is a segment of DNA that is located between two exons of a gene (See page 1 and below). Therefore, without clarifying if the two introns are adjacent to each other or if there is a further process that is required, it is unclear how the first intron and the second intron can share a 5’ part or 3’ part as claimed.
In addition, the instant drawing disclosed on Jan. 18, 2023, Fig. 2 (See below) and Fig. 3 (See below), does not show there are two introns and only shows a first and a second 5’-terminal intron donors, which is not a same concept as “a first intron and the second intron” as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
688
1040
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
698
1124
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Previous rejection- withdrawn) Regarding claim 2, it recites the phrase “the first intron or the second intron is located between any adjacent two nucleotides in ATG”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the two nucleotides in ATG are inside the intron or in the exon (it is not clear where the ATG is located).
This rejection is withdrawn in view of the argument filed on Dec. 29, 2025.
(Previous rejection- withdrawn) Regarding claim 3, it requires that “wherein the artificial construction sequence comprises from 5' to 3' and operably linked: a 5' part of the first intron, an adenine nucleotide, a 5' part of the second intron, the shared 3' part, a thymine nucleotide, and a guanine nucleotide; or the artificially constructed sequence comprises from 5' to 3' and operably linked: a 5'part of the first intron, an adenine nucleotide, a thymine nucleotide, a 5' part of the second intron, the shared 3' part, and a guanine nucleotide”, where the terms of “a adenine nucleotide”, “a thymine nucleotide”, and “a guanine nucleotide” render the claim indefinite, it is not clear if the “a adenine nucleotide”, “a thymine nucleotide”, and “a guanine nucleotide” belong to an intron or exon (See the instant Fig. 2 and 3 above).
This rejection is withdrawn in view of the argument filed on Dec. 29, 2025.
(Previous rejection- withdrawn) Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
This rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed on Dec. 29, 2025.
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.
(Previous rejection- maintained) Claims 1-11, 13-14, 16-17, 21-22, 24 and 26 are 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.
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. However, a showing of possession alone does not cure the lack of a written description. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 969-70, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 2002). For example, it is now well accepted that a satisfactory description may be found in originally-filed claims or any other portion of the originally-filed specification. See In re Koller, 613 F.2d 819, 204 USPQ 702 (CCPA 1980); In re Gardner, 475 F.2d 1389, 177 USPQ 396 (CCPA 1973); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). However, that does not mean that all originally-filed claims have adequate written support. The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings. See MPEP 2163. I.
In Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co. 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the Court decided that adequate written description of genetic material "requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention." Id. 43 USPQ2d at 1404 (quoting Fiefs, 984 F.2d at 1171, 25 USPQ2d at 1606). In AbbVie Deutschland GMBH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc. (Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2014), the Court ruled that “[W]ith the written description of a genus, however, merely drawing a fence around a perceived genus is not a description of the genus. One needs to show that one has truly invented the genus, i.e., that one has conceived and described sufficient representative species encompassing the breadth of the genus. Otherwise, one has only a research plan, leaving it to others to explore the unknown contours of the claimed genus. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353 (The written description requirement guards against claims that “merely recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it and . . .cover any compound later actually invented and determined to fall within the claim' s functional boundaries.”).”
The base claim 1 is directed to an expression cassette for expressing a gene comprising overlapping open reading frames in an insect cell, comprising a promoter capable of driving transcription in the insect cell; an artificially constructed sequence; an overlapping open reading frame missing a first translation start codon; wherein the artificially constructed sequence comprises a native or engineered first intron and second intron with splicing activity in the insect cell, the first intron and the second intron share a 5’ parts or a 3’ parts, and the artificially constructed sequence does not comprise a translation start codon; during a post-transcriptional processing process, through an alternative splicing function of the first intron and the second intron, a translation start codon AUG is formed in the artificially constructed sequence to regulate translation and expression of different protein encoding genes in the overlapping open reading frames.
Based on the claims above, an expression cassette for expressing a gene in an insect cell comprising a generic overlapping open reading frames with a generic promoter, generic artificial sequence. However, the instant specification discloses that the overlapping open reading frames are specific genes/sequences such as a cap gene and a rep gene of AAV, a specific promoter such as the p10 promoter and polh promoter and the artificially constructed sequences are with specific SEQ ID NOs (See e.g., examples 1 and 2). There is no evidence to support or demonstrate that any overlapping open reading frames and any promoters can produce a translation start codon AUG can be formed, during a post-transcriptional processing process, in any artificially constructed sequence to regulate translation and expression of different protein encoding genes.
Accordingly, the full breadth of the claims does not meet the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. The specification does not provide sufficient written description support for the invention as claimed.
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.
(Previous rejection- maintained) Claims 1, 5-11, 13-14, 16-17, 21-22, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 8,945,918 B2, patented on Feb. 3, 2025).
The base claim 1 is directed to an expression cassette for expressing a gene comprising overlapping open reading frames in an insect cell, comprising from 5' to 3' and operably linked:
a promoter capable of driving transcription in the insect cell;
an artificially constructed sequence;
an overlapping open reading frame missing a first translation start codon; wherein the artificially constructed sequence comprises a native or
engineered first intron and second intron with splicing activity in the insect cell, the first intron and the second intron share a 5’ parts or a 3’ parts, and the artificially constructed sequence does not comprise a translation start codon;
during a post-transcriptional processing process, through an alternative splicing function of the first intron and the second intron, a translation start codon AUG is formed in the artificially constructed sequence to regulate translation and expression of different protein encoding genes in the overlapping open reading frames.
Chen et al. teaches an expression cassette of 5' to 3' order for expressing a gene in insect cells with overlapping open reading frame (ORFs) (See Abstract). It teaches the base claim as follows:
1). Teaches an insect cell-operable promoter (See e.g., Abstract).
2). Teaches an artificial intron sequence (See column 7, Fig. 1).
3). Teaches expressing an overlapping open reading frame missing a first translation start codon by incorporating the artificial intron sequence into the Cap coding sequence, all three Cap proteins, VP1, VP2, and VP3, can be expressed from a single Cap coding sequence (See column 9, lines 19-356).
4). Teaches the first intron and second intron without translation start codon because Chen et al. disclose an expression cassette with an intron comprising the insect cell-operable promoter and a 5’ portion of the gene comprising a first ORF of the gene (See e.g. column 4, lines 45-50), where the start codon is not present inside the introns. Chen et al. also teaches that mature VP2 mRNA is formed when both the first and second introns are removed through splicing and mature VP3 mRNA is formed when the second intron is removed through splicing. The VP1 mRNA is transcribed from the promoter located inside the second intron (See column 8, lines 20-27) which indicates a single protein is transcribed and the first intron and the second intron share the same 5’ part and an AUG is built through the alternative splicing (See Fig. 14 and below).
PNG
media_image4.png
539
859
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al. teaches that the overlapping open reading frames is a cap gene of AAV or a rep gene of AAV (See column 9, lines 19-23).
Regarding claims 6-8, Chen et al. teaches that the insect cell-operable promoter of a cassette can be a p10 promoter or a polh promoter (See column 5, lines 5-9) (teach claim 6). Chen et al. teaches that in other configurations, a nucleic acid cassette can include a Cap gene in which a first ORF can be a VP1 ORF and a second or additional ORF can be a VP2/VP3 ORF, as described infra. In Some configurations, both the first and the second promoters of a nucleic acid cassette can be a polh promoter (See column 5, lines 21-26) (teach claim 7). Chen et al. also teaches that the AAV2 Rep coding sequence comprising an artificial intron comprising a polyhedrin (polh) promoter (See Fig. 8, column 7, lines 55-59), where the Rep is an overlapping gene (See column 9, lines 19-22) (teach claim 8).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Chen et al. teaches that the present teachings also include methods of expressing multiple genes in an insect cell, wherein each gene comprises overlapping ORFs. These methods comprise providing one or more insect cells harboring both a first nucleic acid cassette comprising a first gene, a first insect-operable promoter and an intron comprising a second insect-operable promoter as described herein, and a second nucleic acid cassette comprising a second gene, a third insect-operable promoter and a second intron comprising a fourth insect-operable promoter. In various aspects, the cassettes of these methods can be comprised by the same or different nucleic acids (See column 6, lines 46-59).
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al. teaches that the second cassette is in an anti-sense orientation relative to the first cassette (See column 36, claim 24).
Regarding claims 13-14, Chen et al. teaches a transgene/exogenous gene and AAV ITRS at in some configurations, an insect cell can further include an additional nucleic acid comprising a transgene of interest to be expressed by the host insect cell. Such a nucleic acid can comprise, in some aspects, an additional cassette comprising, in 5' to 3' order, a first inverted terminal repeat (ITR) of an AAV, a mammalian cell-operable promoter, a transgene, a polyadenylation signal, and a second ITR of an AAV (See column 5, lines 60-67), where the transgene can be can be a reporter gene. Such as a chloramphenicol acetyltransferase, a B-galactosidase, a B-glucoronidase, a renilla luciferase, a firefly luciferase, a green fluorescent protein (GFP), a red fluorescent protein (RFP) (See column 6, lines 2-12).
Regarding claims 16-17, Chen et al. teaches a mammalian cell-operable promoter; a transgene, and a second ITR of an AAV. In various configurations, one or more of the cassettes and the additional nucleic acid can be comprised in one or more vectors (See column 7, lines 5-9) (claim 16), and the results, presented in Table 1, show that high titers of rAAV vectors can be produced in Sf9 cells using the recombinant baculoviruses that carry the Rep and Cap coding sequences comprising the artificial intron, respectively (See column 19, lines 48-52), where the engineered baculovirus can be the insect cytocompatible vector (teach claim 17).
Regarding claims 21-22, Chen et al. discloses nucleic acid cassettes for expressing in an insect cell (See Abstract) (claim 21), and a nucleic acid comprising a transgene of interest or a cassette comprising a gene having multiple ORFs such as a Rep gene and/or a Cap gene of an AAV can be integrated into the genome of a host insect cell (See column 6, paragraph 2) (claim 22).
Regarding claims 24 and 26, Chen et al. teaches that they demonstrate that VP1, VP2, and VP3 proteins are properly packaged in virions by using AAV Cap coding sequences comprising the artificial intron (See Example 6, column 22) (claim 26), and these methods further comprise culturing the insect cells in a culture medium (See claim 24).
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.
(New Rejection) Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 8,945,918 B2, patented on Feb. 3, 2025) as applied to claims 1, 5-11, 13-14, 16-17, 21-22, 24 and 26 above, in view of Stoilov et al. (US20100233685 A1, published on Sep. 16, 2010).
Claims 2-3 require the expression cassette according to claim 1, wherein the first intron or the second intron is located between any adjacent two nucleotides in ATG (claim 2), where the artificial construction sequence comprises from 5' to 3' and operably linked: a 5' part of the first intron, an adenine nucleotide, a 5' part of the second intron, the shared 3' part, a thymine nucleotide, and a guanine nucleotide, or 5' part of the first intron, an adenine nucleotide, a thymine nucleotide, a 5' part of the second intron, the shared 3' part, and a guanine nucleotide (claim 3).
Relevance of Chen et al. is set forth above. However, it is silent on the first intron or the second intron is located between any adjacent two nucleotides in ATG.
Stoilov et al. teaches a cassette comprising a nucleic acid with alternative splice sites (e.g., an exon flanked by two introns, an intron with two 5' splice sites and one 3' splice site, an intron with one 5' splice site and two 3' splice sites, etc.) can be inserted into a cloning site (e.g., an intronic sequence containing multiple restriction sites) which disrupts (e.g., interrupts, splits, etc.) the start (ATG) codon (See [0054]). In an example, Stoilov et al. teaches that the GFP start codon is interrupted between the "A" and "T" nucleotides by a reporter intron carrying EcoRI and BamHI restriction sites (SEQ ID NO:2) See [0138] and Fig. 1 below), which teaches that a first intron (between 110 and 140 of Fig. 1) linked to A (adenine nucleotide) and a second intron (between 140-120 of Fig. 1) linked to TG (thymine nucleotide, and a guanine nucleotide) with two 5' splice sites and one 3' splice site. Here Stoilov et al. further teaches that the present invention provides reporter constructs which advantageously detect or monitor alternative pre-mRNA splicing with increased specificity, sensitivity, and versatility over currently available splicing reporter systems. In particular, the use of two fluorescent reporter molecules that are specific for the two alternative mRNAs generated by alternative splicing enables clear separation of alternative splicing events from other cellular processes such as transcription, translation, constitutive splicing, and the like (See [0044]).
PNG
media_image5.png
455
570
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the alternative pre-mRNA splicing construct of Stoilov into Chen’s expression cassette for expressing a gene comprising overlapping open reading frames in an insect cell as claimed. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Stoilov teaches that their construct provides more specificity and sensitivity roles, and there would be a reasonable expectation of success to develop such an expression cassette as claimed.
(Previous rejection- maintained) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 8,945,918 B2, patented on Feb. 3, 2025) as applied to claims 1, 5-11, 13-14, 16-17, 21-22, 24 and 26 above, in view of S. Clancy (Nature Education 1(1):31, 2008) as evidenced by RNA splicing (Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_splicing).
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al. teaches that the 5'-terminus nucleotides of the intron sequences of SEQ ID NO. 1 (See Table 1) has 5'-terminus nucleotide GTNN and 3'-terminus nucleotides NNAG. Chen et al. also teaches that 12 oligos are used to form the artificial intron (See table 2 below and column 18, lines 20-65), where SEQ ID NO: 5 has the GTNN, and SEQ ID NOs: 2 and 8 have the NNAG.
PNG
media_image6.png
291
581
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
823
711
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Nevertheless, Clancy teaches that most commonly, the RNA sequence that is removed begins with the dinucleotide GU at its 5′ end, and ends with AG at its 3′ end. These consensus sequences are known to be critical, because changing one of the conserved nucleotides results in inhibition of splicing. Another important sequence occurs at what is called the branch point, located anywhere from 18 to 40 nucleotides upstream from the 3′ end of an intron (See page 1, paragraph 4). This teaching can be evidenced by Wikipedia ‘s RNA splicing. Wikipedia teaches that within introns, a donor site (5' end of the intron), a branch site (near the 3' end of the intron) and an acceptor site (3' end of the intron) are required for splicing. The splice donor site includes an almost invariant sequence GU at the 5' end of the intron, within a larger, less highly conserved region. The splice acceptor site at the 3' end of the intron terminates the intron
PNG
media_image1.png
264
919
media_image1.png
Greyscale
with an almost invariant AG sequence (See page 1, paragraph 4 and below).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen and Clancy to arrive at the invention as claimed. Because Clancy teaches that the consensus sequences are known to be critical for RNA splicing, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to introduce the GTNN at 5’-teminus and NNAG at 3’-teminus based on Clancy’s teachings, and there would be a reasonable expectation of success to develop an expression cassette as claimed.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed on Dec. 29, 2025 has been received and fully considered.
1). Applicant’s amendments on the drawing and claim objections are considered and the objections are withdrawn.
2). Applicant’s amendment on rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is considered and the rejection is withdrawn.
3). Applicant’s argument on the rejections for claims 2-3 regarding if the ATG/AUG is part of intron or exon is considered and the rejection is withdrawn.
4). Applicant’s amendments on the rejections for claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are considered and the rejections are withdrawn.
5). Applicant’s arguments on the rejections for claims 1, 4-11, 13-14, 16-17, 21-22, 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are not persuasive as follows:
The instant specification paragraph [0058], [0060] and [0063] as pointed in the applicant’s argument (See Remarks, page 9) discloses the definitions of "open reading frame" (ORF), the term “intron” and “the nucleic acid molecule”, however, the Case I and Case 2 in the page 11 as argued (See Remarks, page 11) are different from the Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 (See below) as disclosed in the instant specification. The instant Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 are marked as a construct “…First-5’ terminal intron donor-A-second-terminal intron donor-3’-terminal intron receptor-TG…”. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not address the 112b rejection regarding the concept of the “intron”, “5’ terminal intron donor” and “3’-terminal intron receptor” that were marked in the instant Fig. 2 and 3. It is not clear if these are one intron, or two introns or a different donor sequence being inserted within an intron.
PNG
media_image8.png
473
715
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
460
741
media_image9.png
Greyscale
6). Applicant’s arguments on the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are not persuasive as follows:
Applicant argued that their invention is directed to the gene regulation mechanism itself, which is applicable across different expression systems, and that the specification provides adequate written description support by disclosing a representative genus covering different species, and their invention with a novel, artificially designed selective splicing mechanism is inherently universally applicable to any genetic expression system containing overlapping ORFs where differential expression control is desired (See Remarks, bridging pages 12-13).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Based on the instant claims, Applicant claims that the insect cell is used for the expression cassette for expressing a gene comprising overlapping open reading frames, thus, applicant did not claim a universally application as argued in the Remarks. It is a common knowledge in the art that not all promoters are suitable or effective for use in insect cell lines, and not all vectors can efficiently transfect and express in insect cell lines.
Accordingly, the scope of the claims is unduly broad because the specification primarily relies on the AAV system (cap/rep genes, pl0/polh promoters, specific SEQ ID NOs) and fails to provide evidence to support the claimed generic features, such as any generic overlapping open reading frames (ORFs) and any generic promoter.
7). Applicant’s arguments on the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are not persuasive because the arguments are based on the Case 1 and case 2 (See Remarks, pages 14-16). As the description above, the Case 1 and Case 2 in the arguments are not consistent with the Fig. 2 and 3 disclosed in the instant specifications. Thus, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are maintained.
7). Based on the clarified claims 2 and 3, the 103 rejection was issued for the claims 2 and 3 in the current official action.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIXUE WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7960. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 4:30 pm, 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, Thomas J. Visone can be reached on (571) 270-0684. 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.
/RUIXUE WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1672
/NICOLE KINSEY WHITE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1672