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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/5/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference #22 in Figure 6 is not mentioned in the description.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 17, para 4 refers to “FIGS. 10 and 11” as showing the volume of dead cancer cells in the spheroid. This data is shown in FIGS. 12 and 13. Correct figures should be referenced in the said paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Suggestion
Claim 4 recites “the body part further includes a communication channel part formed so that one side of the main inlet part and one side of the sub-injection part communicate with each other”. Following improvement to the language is recommended: “the body part further includes a communication channel part that allows one side of the main inlet part and one side of the sub-injection part to communicate with each other”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus that comprises a main injection part that is “configured to stop the flow of the cancer cell solution when the cancer cell solution comes into contact with a culture medium”.
Similarly, claim 2 recites a main tube that is “configured to stop the flow of the cancer cell solution when the cancer cell solution comes into contact with the culture medium”.
As noted above, “configured to” is a generic placeholder. In the instant case, the phrase “configured to” is modified by functional language “stop the flow of the cancer cell solution when the cancer cell solution comes into contact with the culture medium”. The claims do not provide any structure for performing the claimed function. No structure that allows the claimed main injection part or the main tube to be configured to perform the claimed function is recited in the claim.
Thus, these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, no corresponding structure is disclosed in the specification that performs the claimed function.
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.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus that comprises a main injection part that is “configured to stop the flow of the cancer cell solution when the cancer cell solution comes into contact with a culture medium”.
Similarly, claim 2 recites a main tube that is “configured to stop the flow of the cancer cell solution when the cancer cell solution comes into contact with the culture medium”.
As noted above, these limitations invoke a U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation because a generic “means plus function” placeholder (“configured to”) is not modified by sufficient structure in the claims.
According to MPEP 2182 (II), "If one employs means plus function language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) [or the second paragraph of pre-AIA section 112 ]." In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Further, it guides that “To satisfy the definiteness requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, the written description must clearly link or associate the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 612 F.3d 1365, 1376, 95 USPQ2d 1673, 1682 (Fed. Cir. 2010).”
Although the specification repeats the claim language that the main injection part or the main tube is configured to perform the claimed function but it does not disclose any structure that allows for the main injection part or the main tube to perform the claimed function.
On page 9, last para, the specification discloses “The main injection part 14 is formed in the body part 11 so that a cancer cell solution 21 is injected and configured to stop the flow of the cancer cell solution 21 when the cancer cell solution 21 comes into contact with a culture medium 24. In this case, the cancer cell solution 21 maintains a hanging state from the main injection part 14 due to self-aggregation.”
On page 11, para 1, the specification discloses that “The main tube 16 communicates with the main inlet part 15 and is configured to stop the flow of the cancer cell solution 21 when the cancer cell solution 21 comes into contact with the culture medium 24. When the cancer cell solution 21 enters the main inlet part 15, the cancer cell solution 21 flows down through the main tube 16. In this case, when one side of the cancer cell solution 21 comes into contact with the culture medium 24 accommodated in the culture chamber 122, the cancer cell solution 21 no longer flows down in the main tube 16 due to self-aggregation of the cancer cell solution 21. Therefore, cancer cells positioned at one side of the cancer cell solution 21 may be cultured in a hanging state from the cancer cell solution 21.”
It appears that a contact between the cancer cells and a culture medium results in self-aggregation which stops the flow of cancer cells. However, it is not clear if any specific structure is present in the main injection part or the main tube that lends to this function.
Thus, it is concluded that claims 1 and 2 are indefinite because the specification does not provide sufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; and fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function.
Additional indefiniteness issues with the claims are noted below:
Claim 1 recites “a cancer cell solution” and “a stromal cell solution”. It is unclear if these solutions comprise the recited cells or are solutions derived from these cells.
Further, the claim 1 recites “a main injection part which is formed in the body part so that a cancer cell solution is injected”. Similarly, it also recites “a sub-injection part which is formed in the body part so that an anticancer substance or a stromal cell solution is injected”. It is unclear if the claim requires the apparatus to comprise the cancer cell solution, the anticancer substance and/or the stromal cell solution. The apparatus disclosed in the specification does not require the presence of the cancer cell solution, the anticancer substance and/or the stromal cell solution (see Fig. 2). Thus, to provide the broadest breadth supported by the specification and for the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim(s) 1 is/are interpreted as “a main injection part which is formed in the body part to allow for injection of a solution comprising cancer cells to allow for an injection of an anticancer substance or a comprising stromal cells
Claim 2 recites “a main inlet part into which the cancer cell solution is injected”. Herein again, it is unclear if the solution comprise the recited cells or is derived from these cells, and if the claim requires the apparatus to comprise the cancer cell solution. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim(s) 2 is/are interpreted as “a main inlet part allows for the injection of the comprising cancer cells
Claim 5 recites the limitation "main inlet part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim(s) 5 is/are interpreted as dependent from claim 2 that recites a main inlet part.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "main inlet part" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim(s) 6 is/are interpreted as dependent from claim 2 that recites a main inlet part.
Claim 2-10 is/are rejected due their dependence on claim 1 because they do not clarify the 112b issues noted with claim 1.
Claim 7, 8 is/are rejected due their dependence on claim 6 because they do not clarify the 112b issue noted with claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
In making a determination of whether the application complies with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, it is necessary to understand what Applicant is claiming and what Applicant has possession of.
Claim 1 recites an apparatus that comprises a main injection part that is “configured to stop the flow of the cancer cell solution when the cancer cell solution comes into contact with a culture medium”.
Similarly, claim 2 recites a main tube that is “configured to stop the flow of the cancer cell solution when the cancer cell solution comes into contact with the culture medium”.
As noted above, these limitations invoke a U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation because a generic “means plus function” placeholder (“configured to”) is not modified by sufficient structure in the claims.
According to MPEP 2181 (IV), “A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim.” Further, it guides that “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1491; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.”
As noted in the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of the claims, although the specification repeats the claim language that the main injection part or the main tube is configured to perform the claimed function but it does not disclose any structure that allows for the main injection part or the main tube to perform the claimed function.
The description provided on page 9 (last para) and page 11 (para 1) appear to disclose that a contact between the cancer cells and a culture medium results in self-aggregation which stops the flow of cancer cells. However, no clear structure to the main injection part or the main tube is provided that configure them to perform the claimed function.
Thus, it is concluded that the specification does not provide sufficient disclosure of structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; and fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function. A skilled artisan cannot reasonably conclude 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 an apparatus wherein a main injection part or the main tube was configured to perform the claimed function.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus with an intended use recited in the preamble as “spheroid generator”. According to MPEP 2111.02, “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. In the instant case, the body of the claim provides the structural limitations for the claimed apparatus and its intended use as a spheroid generator does not provide any additional structure.
The apparatus of claim 1 comprises a body part, a main injection and a sub-injection part, wherein the main and the sub-injection parts are “formed in the body part” i.e. are both components within the body part. In view of the 112f and 112b interpretation presented above, the structure for the main and the sub-injection parts is provided by functional language. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is". See
MPEP 2173.05(g). Aside from functional language that invoked U.S.C. 112(f) noted above that lack written description support and are deemed indefinite (see U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above), claim 1 recites additional functional language.
For example, the claimed main injection part has a function of allowing injection of cancer cells and thus, requires a size that allows for flow of cells the size of a generic cancer cell. Similarly the claimed sub-injection part has a function of allowing injection of stromal cells or anticancer substances and thus embraces a range of sizes; from a small size appropriate for injection of small molecules to a much larger size that allows for flow of cells the size of a generic stromal cell.
Claims 5 and 6 recite “sub-injection part(s) is formed around the main inlet”. The term around embraces both a meaning wherein the sub-injection parts surround the main inlet but also a meaning wherein the sub-injections parts are merely present around i.e. near the main inlet. The second interpretation is also supported by the specification. See Figures 3-5.
Claim 9 recites a product-by-process limitation (“manufactured by 3D printing”). According to MPEP 2113, “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” The process steps recited in claim 9 do not appear to impart any structure to the claimed product. Thus, a prior art(s) that anticipates and/or renders obvious the product of claim 1, meets the limitation of clam 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et. al. (Journal of Laboratory Automation, 2015, Vol. 20(3) 274-282).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an apparatus comprising a body part that comprises a funnel-like structure used for injection of microtissues (=claimed main injection part formed in the body part that has size that allows for injection of cells the size of a cancer cell) and ports for the application of culture medium i.e. culture-medium ports (=sub-injection injection part formed in the body part that has size that allows for injection of cells the size of a stromal cell or a drug such as anticancer substance) (See Figure 3). Furthermore, the culture-medium ports (i.e. sub-injection injection part) communicate via a channel with the funnel-like structure used for injection of microtissues (i.e. main injection part) (see arrow in channel in Figure 3d).
See Figure 3d from Kim copied below with parts equivalent to claimed structures labelled.
In Kim’s apparatus, the apparatus comprises barriers that allow for the microtissue to stop flowing (= configured to stop flow of cells when in contact with culture medium; see barrier in figure 3).
Regarding claim 2, Kim’s main injection part comprises a funnel-like opening (= claimed main inlet part) and tube below the opening (= claimed main tube) wherein the opening and the tube are in communication, and communicate with the sub-injection part via communication channel (Figure 3; see arrow in channel in Figure 3d).
Regarding claim 3, Kim’s main tube comprises a first main tube has an inner diameter smaller than the funnel-like main inlet (shown in gray in Figure 3d) and is connected to a second main tube (shown in pink in Figure 3d) that has an inner diameter greater than the first main tube. See Figure 3d from Kim copied below with parts equivalent to claimed structures labelled.
Regarding claim 4, a communication channel connects the funnel-like main inlet with the culture-medium ports (see arrow in channel in Figure 3d).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kim’s apparatus comprises at least two (= claimed plurality) culture-medium ports (= claimed sub-injection parts) near (= claimed around) the main inlets. See two culture-medium ports present on either sides of the funnel-like ports in Figure 3d.
Regarding claim 7, in Kim’s apparatus the culture-medium ports (= claimed sub-injection parts) appear to have the same inner diameter.
Regarding claim 9, in teaching an apparatus of claim 1, Kim anticipates the apparatus of claim 9 which has the same structure as the apparatus of claim 1. See claim interpretation for claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches a platform (=claimed kit) which comprises reservoirs for culture medium (= claimed culture tank; See Figure 1a), a culture plate below i.e. one side of the reservoirs and with plurality of chambers wherein the funnel-like structure and the culture-medium ports are present in. Figure 1b shows 11 separate “spheroid generators” that are equivalent to claim 1.
Therefore, Kim anticipates the claimed apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
764
1150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
The teachings from Kim as detailed in the U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, 6, 7 are relied upon for the instant rejection.
Regarding claim 1, as noted above, Kim teaches the claimed apparatus (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kim’s apparatus comprises at least two (= claimed plurality) culture-medium ports (= claimed sub-injection parts) near (= claimed around) the main inlets. See two culture-medium ports present on either sides of the funnel-like ports in Figure 3d.
Kim teaches the culture-medium ports (= claimed sub-injection parts) to have the same inner diameter.
Kim does not explicitly teach the culture-medium ports (= claimed sub-injection parts) to have the different inner diameter, as required by claim 8.
However, change in size of a claimed element such as the claimed sub-injection parts is prima facie obvious.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In the instant case, the only difference between the Kim’s sub-injection parts and claimed sub-injection parts is the relative dimensions of the sub-injection parts i.e. they have different inner diameters in relation to each other. However, sub-injection parts with same or different inner diameters are capable of performing similarly i.e. allowing the injection of small molecules and/or stromal cells. There is no requirement that different diameters render the sub-injection parts to perform different functions. The different diameters could be similar enough that each sub-injection part performs the same function.
See also In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (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."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). MPEP 2144 (II)(A). In the instant case, the claimed sub-injection parts with different diameters is merely involving change in from and/or proportion of the various sub-injection parts that are perform the same function as Kim’s sub-injection parts with the same inner diameters. There is not even any evidence that the claimed sub-injection parts with different diameters performs better than Kim’s sub-injection parts with the same inner diameters.
Therefore, in teaching sub-injection parts with the same inner diameters, Kim renders the claimed sub-injection parts with different inner diameters prima facie obvious.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the effective time of filing of the invention, especially in the absence of evidence to the
contrary.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATASHA DHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm (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, Peter Paras Jr. can be reached at (571)272-4517. 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.
/MATASHA DHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1632