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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 18-37 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-17 have been canceled.
Election/Restriction
This action is in response to an election from a restriction requirement filed on October 24th, 2025. There are 20 claims pending and 16 claims under consideration. Claims 34-37 have been withdrawn as claims drawn to a non-elected invention. This is the first action on the merits. The present invention relates to a method for preventing/and or treating a tumor by administering a compound of Formula I, as recited at instant Claim 18.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 18-33, and species election of a single species of a single of compound of Formula I as:
PNG
media_image1.png
137
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed November 30th, 2025 is acknowledged.
The requirement for restriction is deemed proper and therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on the CN202011233335.X application filed in the People’s Republic of China on November 6th, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements received on May 4th, 2023 and May 12th, 2023 have been fully considered by the examiner, except where marked with a strikethrough.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any of the errors of which Applicant may become aware of in the specification.
Drawings
Acknowledgement is made of the drawings received May 4th, 2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 18-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for treating a tumor of lung cancer, renal carcinoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, or brain tumor, does not reasonably provide enablement for prevention of a tumor or treatment of any tumor with low or no expression of the NNMT gene. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Pursuant to In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988), one considers the following factors to determine whether undue experimentation is required: (1) The breadth of the claims, (2) The nature of the invention, (3) The state of the prior art, (4) The level of one of ordinary skill, (5) The level of predictability in the art, (6) The amount of direction provided by the inventor, (7) The existence of working examples and (8) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Nature of the invention:
The invention is drawn to a method for preventing and/or treating a tumor comprising administration of a compound of Formula I as recited at instant Claim 18.
Breadth of the invention:
The scope of the claim is broad. While Claim 18 recites limitations regarding the expression levels of the NNMT gene, DNA methylase, and/or UHRF1, the tumor thereof could be associated with a myriad of distinct cancers with mutually exclusive etiologies. This could also cover an array of cancers known presently that have yet to be characterized with respect to the levels of expression of the NNMT gene, DNA methylase, and/or UHRF1, or tumors that have yet to be discovered that are classified with low or no expression of the NNMT gene, high expression of DNA methylase, and/or high expression of UHRF1. Can an Applicant simply “reach through” and obtain patent protection for the treatment of tumors that are later discovered and/or later classified as having low or no expression of NNMT gene, high expression of DNA methylase, and/or high expression of UHRF1. Further, the method of treatment is drawn to administration of a compound of Formula I:
PNG
media_image2.png
209
339
media_image2.png
Greyscale
allowing for compounds resulting from myriad combinations of the variables as defined, for example, at instant Claim 18.
State of the prior art and predictability in the art:
No compound has ever been found to treat cancers of all types generally. Since this assertion is contrary to what is known in medicine, proof must be provided that this revolutionary assertion has merits. The existence of such a “silver bullet” is contrary to our present understanding of oncology. The state of the art is not indicative of any pharmaceutical agents that are useful in the treatment of cancer generally. At Page 1004, Cecil Textbook of Medicine states that “each specific type has unique biologic and clinical features that must be appreciated for proper diagnosis, treatment and study”. Different types of cancers affect different organs and have different methods of growth and harm to the body. Also see In re Buting, 163 USPQ 689 (CCPA 1969), wherein ‘evidence involving a single compound and two types of cancer, was held insufficient to establish the utility of the claims directed to disparate types of cancers’. Thus, it is beyond the skill of oncologists today to get an agent to be effective against cancers generally.
A similar statement appears at In re Application of Hozumi et. al., 226 USPQ 353: “In spite of the vast expenditure of human and capital resources in recent years, no one drug has been found which is effective in treating all types of cancer. Cancer is not a simple disease, nor is it even a single disease, but a complex of a multitude of different entities, each behaving in a different way”. There are compounds that treat a modest range of cancers, but no one has ever been able to figure out how to get a compound to be effective against cancer generally, or even a majority of cancers.
The attempts to find compounds to treat the various cancers arguably constitute the single most massive enterprise in all of pharmacology. This has not resulted in finding any treatment for tumors generally. This is because it is now understood that there is no “master switch” for cancers generally; cancers arise from a bewildering variety of differing mechanisms. Even the most broadly effective antitumor agents are only effective against a small fraction of the vast number of different cancers known. This is true in part because cancers arise from a wide variety of sources, primarily a wide variety of failures of the body’s cell growth regulatory mechanisms, but also such external factors such as viruses (an estimated at least 20% are of viral origin e.g. Human papillomavirus, EBV, Hepatitis B and C, HHV-8, HTLV-1 and other retroviruses, and quite possibly Merkel cell polyomavirus, and there is some evidence that CMV is a causative agent in glioblastoma), exposure to chemicals such as tobacco tars, excess alcohol consumption (which causes hepatic cirrhosis, an important cause of HCC), ionizing radiation, and unknown environmental factors.
Similarly, In re Novak, 134 USPQ 335, 337-338 says “unless one with ordinary skill in the art would accept those allegations as obviously valid and correct, it is proper for the examiner to ask for evidence which substantiates them.” There is no such evidence in this case for a compound that treats all types of cancer. Likewise, In re Cartright, 49 USPQ2d 1464, states: “Moreover, we have not been shown that one of ordinary skill would necessarily conclude from the information expressly disclosed by the written description that the active ingredient” does what the specification surmises that it does. That is exactly the case here. Moreover, even if Applicant’s assertion that cancer in general could be treated with these compounds were plausible -- which it is not --, that “plausible” would not suffice, as was stated in Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1297, 1301: “If mere plausibility were the test for enablement under section 112, applicants could obtain patent rights to “inventions” consisting of little more than respectable guesses as to the likelihood of their success.
Recently, Wu et. al. (“Small-molecule inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and more: FDA- approved novel therapeutic drugs for solid tumors from 1991 to 2021; Journal of Hematology & Oncology, 15, 143, 2022; hereinafter referred to as Wu), at the Abstract, discloses that between 1991 and 2021 there have been 228 new cancer drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of which 120 of these are drawn to the treatment of solid tumors alone. At Page 5, Table 1 Wu teaches that there are 21 different approved drugs for treating lung cancers, some of which have cellular targets. At Page 10, Table 2, Wu teaches breast cancer has 22 different drugs that have varied cellular targets and are indicated for different types of breast cancer. At Page 17, Table 4, Wu teaches there are 17 different drugs available to treat different forms of gastrointestinal cancers. At Page 38, Figure 12, Wu summarizes the protein structure of some cellular targets and the binding site of their respective drugs. Taken together, Wu teaches that no single therapeutic has ever been identified as a treatment for all forms of cancer; and closer examination of Figure 12 provides a logical explanation. As highlighted in Figure 12, molecular protein targets implicated in different cancers (e.g. EGFR for lung cancer in Table 1, VEGFR2 for gastric cancer in Table 4) have different three-dimensional protein structures, different active sites, and therefore require different drugs with the right shape and chemical groups in order to bind the target active site and have an effect in treating cancer. In other words, there is no one size fits all approach to treating cancer simply for the reason that no single molecule will have the shape and chemical functional groups necessary to bind and modulate all modular targets of cancer, all of which have varied shapes. It is commonly known in the pharmaceutical arts that shape dictates function wherein drugs which have a shape complimentary to the protein target will bind and have an effect (this is often referred to simplistically as a “Lock and Key” model). Given the varied shape of protein targets in cancer (e.g. EGFR and VEGFR2), it is pure fantasy to speculate that a single drug with a single three dimensional shape will bind all protein targets implicated in cancer therapy and have an effect in treating all forms of the disease. As such, at present the “silver bullet” drug therapy to treat all forms of cancer is elusive and such a therapy is not recognized in the art where the reality is that different forms of cancer require different drug therapies.
Level of ordinary skill in the art:
An ordinary artisan in the area of drug development would have experience in synthesizing chemical compounds for particular activities. The synthesis of new drug candidates, while complex, is routine in the art. The process of finding new drugs that have in vitro activity against a particular biological target (i.e., receptor, enzyme, etc.) is well known. Additionally, while high throughput screening assays can be employed, developing a therapeutic method, as claimed, prior to synthesizing and testing compounds is generally not well-known or routine, given the complexity of certain biological systems.
The amount of direction provided and working examples:
Beginning at Page 43, Examples 1-4 sufficiently disclose the synthesis of the compounds of Formula I.
Beginning at Page 45, Example 5 sufficiently discloses the efficacy of the administration of compounds of Formula I in inhibiting various tumor cell lines. Included in Example 5 are demonstrations of efficacy against the NCI-H82 cell line, a lung carcinoma cell line, the G-401 cell line, a renal rhabdoid tumor cell line, the MDA-MB-453 cell line, a breast cancer cell line, the SW48 cell line, a colorectal cancer cell line, the CFPAC-1 cell line, a liver cancer cell line, the 768-O cell line, an adenocarcinoma cell line, a brain cancer cell line, and the SF126 cell line, a human glioblastoma cell line. Example 9 discloses additional data for additional brain tumor cell lines.
These examples are sufficient in demonstrating the efficacy of the claimed compounds in treating lung cancer, renal carcinoma, breast cancer, colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer, or brain tumor. These examples, however, are insufficient in providing enabling disclosure for the prevention of tumors or the treatment of tumors in cancers beyond those mentioned above.
Quantity of experimentation needed to use the invention based on the content of the disclosure:
The quantity of experimentation needed is undue experimentation. As referenced above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to identify and/or develop metrics to evaluate the efficacy of compounds in treating tumors beyond those associated with the cancers mentioned above.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the invention without undue experimentation.
The specification fails to provide enough support for the broadly claimed method of preventing or treating a tumor with low or no expression of NNMT gene, high levels of DNA methylase, and/or high levels of UHRF1.
Genentech Inc. V. Novo Nordisk A/S (CAFC) 42 USPW2d 1001 states that “a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for search, but compensation for its successful conclusion” and “patent protection is granted in return for enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable”.
Therefore, in view of the Wands factors and In re Fisher (CCPA 1970) discussed above, to practice the claimed invention herein, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation to determine the efficacy of compounds of Formula I in preventing tumors or treating tumors beyond those associated with the cancers previously mentioned.
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 18-33 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.
The terms “low” and “high” in claim 18 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “low” and “high” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Regarding the term “low” in reference to the degree of NNMT gene expression, several definitions are provided at Page 12, Lines 26-43 of the instant specification. Two of these definitions, however, provide several ranges by which to establish “low” expression of NNMT gene, and one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine the metes and bounds of this limitation. For example, at Lines 26-30, it is stated “low or no expression of NNMT gene means that no NNMT protein can be detected in 1 mg of protein extracted from tumor using NNMT antibody, preferably in 5 mg … more preferably in 10 mg … more preferably in 100 mg … preferably in 1000 mg of protein extracted from tumor.” In light of the specification, a person having ordinarily skill in the art would not be able to readily ascertain which definition presented should be used for determining “low” expression of NNMT gene, or which amount of protein extracted from the tumor is sufficient to demonstrate a “low” expression of NNMT gene.
Similarly, with respect to “high” expression of DNA methylase, several definitions are provided at Page 13, lines 3-16. For the same reasons as noted above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not readily be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the limitation of “high” expression of DNA methylase.
Similarly, with respect to “high” expression of UHRF1 at Page 14, Line 47 through Page 15, Line 8 of the instant specification, several definitions of “high” expression of UHRF1 are provided. For the same reasons as noted above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the limitation of “high” expression of UHRF1.
Dependent Claims 19-33 do not clarify the indefiniteness of these limitations, and are therefore included in this rejection.
Regarding claims 18, 24 and 27, the phrases “preferably" and “more preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 19-20, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tin-Wa (US 2007/0298132 A1; hereinafter referred to as Tin-Wa) as evidenced by CAS Registry File (2086-83-1; entered into STN November 16th, 1984; obtained from the internet December 11th, 2025; hereinafter referred to as CAS Registry File).
CAS Registry File teaches the elected species goes by the common name “berberine”.
At the abstract, Tin-Wa teaches berberine is an active compound for selectively inhibiting lung cancer.
At Page 2, Paragraph 0015, Tin-Wa teaches berberine has demonstrated cytotoxicity against various human cancer cell lines, and at Paragraph 0028 teaches that berberine has a selective cytotoxic profile against human lung cancer in a subject panel of human cancer cell lines and that the pure compound berberine can be used to prevent or inhibit tumor growth.
At Table 5 in Figure 7, Tin-Wa teaches an inhibitory effect of berberine against human lung cancer, human colon cancer, epidermoid carcinoma of the nasopharynx, and hormone dependent human prostate cancer.
At Page 7, Claim 11, Tin-Wa teaches a method for inhibiting growth of human lung cancer cells comprising administering an effective amount of a composition comprising berberine.
Taken together, Tin-Wa establishes a method for treating a tumor comprising administration of berberine.
Tin-Wa is silent regarding the expression levels of NNMT gene, expression of DNA methylase, expression of UHRFI, methylation level of nucleotide site of NNMT gene, and methylation level of DNA CpG site of NNMT gene. However, treating a tumor with these limitations will inevitable flow from the teachings of Tin-Wa, since the same compound, berberine, is beind administered to the same subjects (i.e. human lung cancer cells). In other words, products of identical or similar composition cannot exert mutually exclusive properties when administered under the same or similar circumstances.
In other words, even though the prior art is silent regarding the expression levels of NNMT gene, expression of DNA methylase, expression of UHRFI, methylation level of nucleotide site of NNMT gene, and methylation level of DNA CpG site of NNMT gene in the tumor being treated, by practicing the method taught by the prior art: inhibiting the growth of lung cancer cells by administering berberine, one will be treating tumors meeting the limitations of the expression levels of NNMT gene, expression of DNA methylase, expression of UHRFI, methylation level of nucleotide site of NNMT gene, and methylation level of DNA CpG site of NNMT gene, even though the prior art was not aware of it.
Apparently, Applicant has discovered a new property or advantage (treating tumors with the recited expression levels of NNMT gene, expression of DNA methylase, expression of UHRFI, methylation level of nucleotide site of NNMT gene, and methylation level of DNA CpG site of NNMT gene) of the method taught by the prior art: inhibiting lung cancer cell growth by administering berberine.
MPEP 2112, I. states, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 18-33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-16 and 18-27 of copending Application No. 18/845,613 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to treating a tumor wherein the tumor has low or no expression of NMT gene, and/or high expression of DNA methylase, and/or high expression of UHRF1, and/or high methylation level of nucleotide site of NNMT gene, and/or high methylation level of DNA CpG site of NMT gene comprising administering an overlapping set of compounds.
The instantly elected species is berberine:
PNG
media_image1.png
137
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This compound reads on a compound of formula I as recited at Claim 13 of the reference application when the variables are defined as follows:
R-1, R2, R3, and R4 are each hydrogen.
R5 is hydrogen.
R6 is -O-R15, wherein R15 is methyl.
R7 is unsubstituted C1-alkoxy.
R8 is hydrogen.
R9 is hydrogen.
R10 is hydrogen.
R11 and R14 are each hydrogen.
R12 and R13 are connected to form an unsubstituted 5-membered heterocycloalkane.
Similarly, several of the compounds recited at Claim 19 of the reference application read on a compound of formula I as recited at Claim 18 of the instant application. For example, the following compound is recited at Claim 19 of the reference application:
PNG
media_image3.png
109
171
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound reads on a compound of formula I as recited at Claim 18 of the instant application when the variables are defined as follows:
R1 and R4 are each hydrogen.
R2 and R3, together, form a 5-membered heterocycloalkane ring.
R10 and R11 are each unsubstituted C1-alkoxy.
R12 and R13 are each hydrogen.
R--9 is ethyl.
R14 is hydrogen.
Taken together, the instant claims and the reference claims are drawn to treating a common set of tumors by administering the instantly elected species, shown above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 18-33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 25-34 of copending Application No. 18/862,584 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a method of treating a tumor comprising an overlapping set of compounds.
Claim 25 of the reference application is drawn to a method for preventing and/or treating a tumor comprising administering a compound of formula I, wherein formula I is:
PNG
media_image4.png
200
226
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Compounds of Formula I of the instant application overlap with the compounds of the reference application when the variables of Formula I of the instant application are defined as follows:
R9 is substituted or unsubstituted 3-12 membered heterocycloalkyl.
R2 and R3, together with the carbon atoms to which they are connected, form substituted or unsubstituted 3-13 membered heterocycloalkane ring.
R1, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R10, R11, R12, R13, and R14 are each hydrogen.
Therefore, Claims 15-34 of the reference application are drawn to treating an overlapping set of tumors as instantly claimed comprising administering an overlapping set of compounds to what is instantly claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Claims 18-33 are rejected.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JOHN BURKETT whose telephone number is (703)756-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached at (571) 272-9023. 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.
/D.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1624
/JEFFREY H MURRAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1624