DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on October 23, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amended claims do, in fact, have a special technical feature linking them over the prior art cited in the lack of unity requirement (i.e., Rickert and Myakishev) (Remarks, pages 8-13).
This is not found persuasive for the following reasons. First, although the examiner agrees that Rickert does not teach the composition currently required by independent claims 1 and 15 because the probe of Rickert does not meet the requirements in amended claims 1 and 15 (see also Applicant’s arguments at page 11 of the Remarks), Myakishev does, in fact, suggest a kit comprising primers and probes as set forth in claim 1. More specifically, the universal energy transfer-labeled primers (ET-labeled primers) shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Myakishev are capable of binding to the complement of a tail region from multiple different tailed forward primers (see Table 1 on page 164 of Myakishev). This is sufficient for a lack of unity requirement to exist between claims 1-19 and claim 20 because the kit of claim 20 only requires the presence of primers and probes with the structural features set forth in Myakishev. As to claims 1-19, the examiner agrees with Applicant’s argument on page 9 of the Remarks that Myakishev does not form the composition required by independent claims 1 and 15, but this composition is suggested by the Rothmann, Rickert, and Li references cited in the prior art rejections set forth below. Thus, the claims still lack a special technical feature linking them over the prior art, and a lack of unity requirement remains proper.
Applicant’s additional arguments concerning Rickert and Myakishev in the traversal have been considered, but they are moot in view of the above discussion.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 23, 2025.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statements
4. Applicant’s submission of an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) on March 23, 2023 and on October 14, 2025 is acknowledged. All of the cited references have been considered.
Drawings
5. The drawings filed on March 23, 2023 are acceptable.
Substitute Specification
6. The substitute specification filed on September 26, 2023 has been entered.
The substitute specification is objected to because it fails to provide clear support for all of the subject matter recited in original claims 4 and 12. More specifically, the substitute specification fails to provide clear support for “and the third detection group is spaced apart from the fourth detection group by 5-25 bases” in each of claims 4 and 12. It also does not provide clear support for the third and fourth detection group not being at the 3’ end of the second probe as recited in claim 4. It is noted that this is not a new matter issue because the subject matter in question is recited in the originally filed claims. As discussed in MPEP 2163.06 III, Applicant may amend the specification to include subject matter recited in the original claims without introducing new matter since the originally filed claims are part of the original disclosure.
Claim Interpretation
7. The specification contains explicit (i.e., limiting) definitions for some of the terms used in the claims. These definitions include the following:
(i) probe = a labeled oligonucleotide used for detecting whether a target is present (page 19, lines 7-8 of the Clean Copy of the Substitute Specification filed on September 26, 2023).
Claim Objections
8. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following minor informalities. Replacing “to an amplified product” in line 6 with “on an amplified product” is suggested to improve the grammar of the claim. As well, a comma should be inserted before “respectively” in line 24, and the word “a” should be inserted before “signal change” in line 26. Lastly, inserting “its” before each instance of “single-stranded state” in the newly added “wherein” clause at the end of the claim is suggested to improve the grammar of the claim.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following minor informalities. Inserting the word “wherein” after “second probe” in line 2, analogous to the language in the similar portion of claim 1, is suggested to improve the grammar of the claim. As well, a comma should be inserted before “respectively” in line 16, and the word “a” should be inserted before “signal change” in line 18.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following minor informality. Inserting “its” before each instance of “single-stranded state” in the newly added “wherein” clause at the end of the claim is suggested to improve the grammar of the claim.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following minor informality. Inserting the words “of the first probe” after the word “end” in line 3 and the words “of the second probe” after “end” in line 4 is suggested to more clearly indicate that the first and second probe are being further described.
Claim 9 is objected to because the word “the” should be inserted before “3’ ends” in the last line of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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 1-14 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.
Claims 1 and 3 are indefinite because it is not clear as to what structural feature(s) differentiate “an oligonucleotide that can form a hairpin structure in [a] single-stranded state” and “an oligonucleotide that can form a stem-loop structure in [a] single-stranded state.” This language is recited in lines 3-4 of the newly added concluding clause in claim 1 and also in lines 3-4 of claim 3. Since the art typically uses the terms “hairpin” and “stem-loop structure” interchangeably, it is unclear as to why they are presented as separate options in the claims. The specification does not shed light on this issue because it does not, for example, define stem-loop structures and hairpins. Consequently, the ordinary artisan would not understand why these two terms are considered separate options or what differentiates “a hairpin” from “a stem-loop structure.” Deleting one of the options is suggested to address the issue.
Claim 1 is also indefinite because it is inconsistent as to how many target nucleic acids are analyzed. The preamble of the claim states that the method is a “multiplex nucleic acid detection method,” and lines 8-9 recite “judging whether one or more targets are present.” As well, the “wherein” clauses that follow the “judging” step in lines 8-9 require the use of primers specific for two different target nucleic acids. These portions of the claim indicate that the method analyzes at least two target nucleic acids. The “amplifying” step in line 5 and the “performing” step in lines 6-7, though, recite “amplifying a target sequence that may be present in the sample” and “performing a melting curve analysis [on] an amplified product,” which indicate that only one target nucleic acid is analyzed. As a result, claim 1 is not consistent as to the number of different nucleic acids that are analyzed, and it is indefinite for this reason.
Claims 2 and 5-14 are also indefinite since they depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and do not correct its indefiniteness issues.
Claim 6 is also indefinite for an additional reason. This claim depends from claim 4 and refers to “the signal detection region.” The claims from which claim 6 depends recite four different signal detection regions, though. See claim 1, which recites “a first signal detection region” and “a second signal detection region” and also claim 2, which recites “a third signal detection region” and “a fourth signal detection region.” It is not clear whether the spacing requirement set forth in claim 6 limits all four previously recited signal detection regions, or if only one or some of said previously recited signal detection regions are so limited. Since the requirements of the claim are not clear, it is indefinite. The instant situation is also discussed in MPEP 2173.05(e), where a claim that initially recited two different levers and then referred to “said lever” was found to be indefinite because it was unclear as to which of the two different levers was referenced by “said lever.”
Claim 8 is also indefinite for two additional reasons. First, the claim contains the same indefiniteness issue discussed above with respect to claim 6 (i.e., reference to “the signal detection region” when the claims from which claim 8 depends recite multiple different signal detection regions. Second, claim 8 refers to “amplification products of the first probe” and “amplification products of the second probe” (see lines 3 and 5), but nothing in claim 8 or the claims from which it depends requires the first and second probe to function as primers and generate amplicons. As a result, it is not entirely clear whether claim 8 is merely setting forth a functional requirement or if the claim is attempting to indirectly require a step of extending the first and second probes to generate amplicons. Both options have been considered in the prior art rejection below.
Claim 10 is also indefinite for an additional reason. This claim recites “wherein the first detection group or the second detection group on the first probe or the second probe is located at a 3’ end thereof.” This language indicates that the second probe contains a first and second detection group, but claim 2, from which claim 10 ultimately depends, requires the second probe to contain a third detection group and a fourth detection group rather than a first and second detection group. As a result, it is not entirely clear whether the second probe must contain a first and second detection group in addition to the third and fourth detection group, and claim 10 is indefinite for this reason.
Claim 13 is also indefinite because the claim contains the same indefiniteness issue discussed above with respect to claim 6 (i.e., reference to “the signal detection region” when the claims from which claim 13 depends recite multiple different signal detection regions).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-3 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothmann et al. (US 2011/0151459 A1) in view of Rickert et al. (Clinical Chemistry 2004; 50: 1680-1683) and also in view of Li et al. (Analytical Chemistry 2006; 78: 7886-7890).1
The instant claims are drawn to a multiplex nucleic acid detection method. The method comprises amplification using a first primer set, performing melting curve analysis on the resulting amplification products, and the use of a probe that comprises a first and second detection group. The first primer set contains an upstream and downstream primer specific for a first target as well as an upstream and downstream primer specific for a second target. One primer for each target additionally contains an upstream region (signal detection region) that is identical to all or part of the first probe. Thus, the first probe is capable of binding to the sequence complementary to the signal detection region that results from amplification of the first or second target.
Regarding claims 1-3, Rothmann teaches a multiplex nucleic acid detection method. The method of Rothmann contains the following steps (see, e.g., the abstract and paras. 10, 16-24, 43, 47, and 49): (a) forming a composition comprising a sample, amplification reagents, and a plurality of probes; (b) amplifying at least one target nucleic acid sequence that may be present in a sample; (c) performing a melting curve analysis on the resulting amplification products; and (d) using the results of the melting curve analysis to determine whether one or more target nucleic acids are present.
Further regarding claims 1-3, Rothmann teaches that the sample may be a sample from a subject (see, e.g., para. 52) and that the amplification reagents may include an upstream and downstream primer specific for each different target nucleic acid as well as a probe specific for each different target nucleic acid (see, e.g., Fig. 4 and paras. 52, 53, and 111; see also Example 2 and Table 12 on pp. 10-12).
Further regarding claims 1-3, Rothmann teaches that the probes may be molecular beacon probes, which have a hairpin or stem-loop structure (see, e.g., paras. 64 and 66). The molecular beacon probes of Rothmann may have a first and second detection group and generate a signal upon binding (i.e., unfolding) (see, e.g., Fig. 2 and paras. 64 and 66). Still further, Rothmann states that “The color of the resulting fluorescence, if any, identifies the pathogenic agent in combination with the determination of the melting temperature” (para. 67).
Rothmann is not anticipatory because the reference does not use “tailed” primers as required by the instant claims 1 and 2. That is, the target-specific primers used by Rothmann do not include the signal detection region required by claims 1 and 2. As a result, the molecular beacon probes used by Rothmann for detection do not hybridize to a complementary sequence of the signal detection region in the primers recited in the instant claims. For this reason, Rothmann also does not teach the additional limitations recited in claims 13 and 14 concerning the location or structural features of the signal detection region (i.e., upstream tail) in the primers.
Rothmann also does not provide details of the position of the labels (i.e., detection groups) in the molecular beacon probes, and thus fails to teach the additional requirements in claims 9-12 concerning the structural features of the probes.
Rickert, though, describes a multiplexed amplification method in which one primer for each different target nucleic acid in a first set of target nucleic acids contains a 5’ tail that includes a sequence identical to a universal detection probe (see, e.g., Fig. 1, p. 1681, and Table 1 on p. 1682). As can be seen in Table 1 and Fig. 1 of Rickert, multiple target nucleic acids are detected using the same probe and further multiplexing occurs via the use of different 5’ tails (i.e., signal detection regions) (see also p. 1681 and p. 1683). Rickert additionally teaches that the use of a universal detection probe offers a less expensive and simpler assay in addition to improving multiplex capability (p. 1683).
Rickert does not teach probes with the structural features recited in the last clause of claims 1 and 3 (e.g., a hairpin or stem-loop structure), but Li teaches a similar method in which the universal detection probe is a molecular beacon probe (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and p. 7886, col. 1 – p. 7887, col. 1). Like Rickert, Li teaches that the use of a universal detection probe offers a less expensive and simpler assay in addition to multiplex capability (see, e.g., p. 7887, col. 1 and p. 7890, col. 2).
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious for the ordinary artisan to combine the teachings of Rothmann, Rickert, and Li and to arrive at the claimed invention. In particular, the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the method of Rothmann to replace the disclosed target-specific molecular beacon probes with universal detection probes capable of binding to the complement of a signal detection region in one of the primers used to amplify each different target nucleic acid. Rickert and Li each provide motivation to replace target-specific detection probes with universal detection probes that target a common sequence in a tailed amplification primer by teaching that the use of such detection probes can result in a less expensive and simpler (e.g., easier to optimize) assay that is also capable of being multiplexed (see, e.g., Rickert at p. 1683; see Li at, e.g., p. 7887, col. 1 and p. 7890, col. 2). The ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Rothmann and Li provided guidance as to molecular beacon design (Rothmann at para. 66; Li at p. 7887) and also since Rickert and Li provided guidance as to the design of tailed primers capable of being used in amplification methods with universal detection probes (Rickert at Fig. 1 and pp. 1681-1682; Li at p. 7887).
In applying the teachings of Rickert and Li to the method of Rothmann, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that one of the two primers used to amplify each different target nucleic acid in the method of Rothmann should be modified to contain a 5’ tail as taught in each of Rickert and Li. This 5’ tail corresponds to the signal detection region recited in the instant claims. As to the structural features of the 5’ tail (signal detection region) suggested by Rickert and Li, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that the molecular beacon probe of Rothmann could be designed to bind to either the signal detection region as taught in Li (Fig. 1) or to its complement as taught in Rickert (Fig. 1). That is, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that either option would be suitable and would serve the same purpose, and accordingly, would have been motivated to choose either option with a reasonable expectation of success.
Lastly, the ordinary artisan also would have recognized that the number of different signal detection regions (and corresponding detection probes) used in the method was a matter of design choice. In other words, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that when the method suggested by Rothmann in view of Rickert and Li is used to detect, e.g., a large number of different target nucleic acids as taught in para. 47 of Rothmann, each different signal detection region/detection probe pair could be used with, e.g., two different target nucleic acids or more than two different target nucleic acids, depending on the preference of the user. Thus, absent any evidence of unexpected results, it would have been prima facie obvious to use a first signal detection region/detection probe pair to detect a first and second target nucleic acid and a second signal detection region/probe pair to detect a third and fourth target nucleic acid as recited in the instant claims 1-3.
Thus, the methods of claims 1-3 are prima facie obvious over Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li.
Further regarding claim 9, as discussed above with respect to claims 1-3, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that the number of different signal detection regions (and corresponding detection probes) used in the method was a matter of design choice. In other words, as discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to use a first signal detection region/detection probe pair to detect a first and second target nucleic acid and a second signal detection region/probe pair to detect a third and fourth target nucleic acid. In this embodiment suggested by the references, the first probe does not hybridize with amplification products from the second primer set, and the second probe does not hybridize with amplification products from the first primer set. As well, in the method suggested by the references the 3’ ends of the probes are designed to not be extended as primers since the teachings of Rothmann and Li suggest molecular beacon detection probes in which one label/quencher is placed at the 3’ end (see, e.g., Fig. 2 of Rothmann and Fig. 1 and p. 7887, col. 2 of Li). Thus, the method of claim 9 is also prima facie obvious over Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li.
Further regarding claims 10 and 11, as noted above with respect to claim 9, the teachings of Rothmann and Li suggest molecular beacon detection probes in which one label/quencher is placed at the 3’ end (see, e.g., Fig. 2 of Rothmann and Fig. 1 and p. 7887, col. 2 of Li). This meets the requirement in claim 10 for a detection group to be placed at the 3’ end of the first or second probe as well as the requirement in claim 11 for the 3’ ends of the first and second probe to be blocked. Thus, the methods of claims 10 and 11 are also prima facie obvious over Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li.
Further regarding claim 12, Li discloses a universal molecular beacon detection probe in which the first and second detection groups (i.e., the fluorescent label and quencher) are spaced apart by 30 nucleotides (p. 7887, col. 2). This distance lies close to the upper end of the claimed range of 5-25 nucleotides, and no evidence of unexpected results has been presented with respect to the claimed range. This is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness per MPEP 2144.05 I. In other words, in view of the teachings of Li concerning placement of the fluorophore and quencher in a universal molecular beacon detection probe, it would have been obvious to select a spacing for these labels within, and especially at the upper end, of the claimed range for the first and second molecular beacon probes suggested by the combined teachings of the references. Thus, the method of claim 12 is also prima facie obvious over Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li.
Further regarding claim 13, Li teaches that the signal detection region (i.e., the region targeted by the universal molecular beacon probe) may be spaced zero bases from the target-binding region of the primer (see, e.g., Fig. 1 and p. 7887, col. 2). This distance lies within the claimed range of 0-10 nucleotides. Rickert teaches that signal detection region (i.e., the region targeted by the universal molecular beacon probe) may be spaced five bases from the target-binding region of the primer (see Table 1 on p. 1682). This distance also lies within the claimed range of 0-10 nucleotides. Thus, when adding the 5’ tails comprising a signal detection region suggested by Rickert and Li to the amplification primers of Rothmann, the ordinary artisan would have recognized that the distance between the signal detection region and the target-binding portion of the primers could be a distance within the claimed range, and accordingly, would have been motivated to select such a distance with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the method of claim 13 is also prima facie obvious over Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li.
Further regarding claim 14, it also would have been prima facie obvious for the ordinary artisan to design the first and second signal detection region (and the third and fourth signal detection region) such that hybridization of the first probe (or the second probe) to their complementary sequences occurs at different melting temperatures. Rothmann provides motivation to do so by teaching that multiplexing can be enhanced by combining differences in melting temperature and label (i.e., by using a particular combination of melting temperature and color to distinguish different target nucleic acids) (paras. 47 and 67). And more specifically, the ordinary artisan would have recognized from the above teachings of Rothmann that a single color (fluorophore) could be used to detect more target nucleic acids if the melting temperature differed for hybridization complexes formed between a first (or second) probe and its different signal detection regions. The ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success at least because the discussion throughout Rothmann indicates that it was routine to design probes with a desired melting temperature difference compared to other probes. Thus, the method of claim 14 is also prima facie obvious over Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li.
Thus, the methods of claims 1-3 and 9-14 are prima facie obvious.
13. Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothmann et al. (US 2011/0151459 A1) in view of Rickert et al. (Clinical Chemistry 2004; 50: 1680-1683) and also in view of Li et al. (Analytical Chemistry 2006; 78: 7886-7890) and further in view of Tyagi et al. (US 5,925,517).2
As discussed above, the teachings of Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li render obvious the methods of claims 1-3 and 9-14.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above with respect to claim 10, the teachings of Li suggest molecular beacons in which the first and second detection group (i.e., the fluorescent label and the quencher) are spaced apart by about 5-25 nucleotides. The teachings of Li do not suggest a molecular beacon in which one of the detection groups is not at the 3’ end, but Tyagi remedies this deficiency. In particular, Tyagi teaches that a molecular beacon probe may have the two detection groups at the 5’ and 3’ end (Fig. 3) or at other positions in the stem of the beacon (see, e.g., col. 10, ll. 41-54). Tyagi also notes that “Some label moieties will interact to a detectably higher degree when conjugated internally along the arms…because they will not be affected by unraveling of the termini” (col. 10, ll. 51-54). Thus, the teachings of Tyagi clearly indicate that a detection group in the molecular beacon probe suggested by Li need not be placed at the 3’ end of the probe and could be placed elsewhere in the stem portion of the probe. The ordinary artisan, therefore, would have been motivated to select either alternative for placement of one of the detection groups with a reasonable expectation of success, and the method of claim 4 is prima facie obvious over Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li and further in view of Tyagi.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 4, as noted above, the teachings of Tyagi suggest the use of molecular beacon probes in which neither of the two detection groups (i.e., the fluorophore or the quencher) is placed at the 3’ end of the probe. Therefore, the hydroxyl group in such probes is free and capable of being extended when hybridized to the complement of the corresponding signal detection region as required by claim 5. Thus, the method of claim 5 is prima facie obvious over Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li and further in view of Tyagi.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 4, as discussed above with respect to claim 13, the teachings of Li and Rickert suggest a distance between the signal detection region
and the target-binding portion of the primers that lies within the claimed range. Thus, the method of 6 is also prima facie obvious over Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 4, it also would have been prima facie obvious to design the first and second signal detection region in the method suggested by Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li to be the same. Rickert provides motivation to do in Table 1 by teaching that the same signal detection region can be used to detect a plurality of different target nucleic acids, provided that different labels are used on the detection probe. Rothmann also provides motivation to design the first and second signal detection region to be the same by teaching that amplicons may be distinguished by differences in label and/or melting temperature (paras. 47 and 67). The ordinary artisan would have recognized, therefore, that the first and second signal detection region in the first primer set could be the same within the primer set so long as the resulting amplicons could be distinguished by their melting temperature and/or label(s). Thus, the method of claim 7 is prima facie obvious over Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li and further in view of Tyagi.
Regarding claim 8, which depends from claim 6, as noted above in the indefiniteness rejection, it is not clear whether the claim is merely setting forth a functional requirement for the first and second probes or if it is actually requiring the first and second probes to be extended to generate amplicons. Either option is suggested by the combined teachings of the cited references, though. More specifically, as discussed above with respect to claim 7, Rothmann teaches that amplicons may be distinguished by differences in label and/or melting temperature (paras. 47 and 67). As well, as discussed above with respect to claim 5, the teachings of Tyagi indicate that the 3’ hydroxyl in a molecular beacon probe may be unblocked (i.e., capable of undergoing extension). The ordinary artisan would have recognized, therefore, that if the molecular beacon probes suggested by Li and Tyagi were to be extended the resulting amplification products must be distinguishable by melting temperature and/or label to function appropriately in the method of Rothmann. Therefore, the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to design the primers such that the resulting amplification products meet these requirements and would have recognized that one way to do so would be by using different spacing between the signal detection region and the target-binding portion of the primers such that the resulting amplicons have different lengths that translate to different melting temperatures. The ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success since the teachings throughout Rothmann indicate that the ordinary artisan was capable of designing an amplification method that generates a plurality of amplicons with distinguishable melting temperatures. Thus, the method of claim 8 is prima facie obvious over Rothmann in view of Rickert and also in view of Li and further in view of Tyagi.
Thus, the methods of claims 4-8 are prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
14. No claims are currently allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Angela Bertagna whose telephone number is (571)272-8291. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Benzion can be reached at 571-272-0782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANGELA M. BERTAGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681
1 Rickert was cited in the last Office action. Rothmann and Li are newly cited.
2 Rickert was cited in the last Office action. Rothmann, Li, and Tyagi are newly cited.