DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claims 21-40 are pending in the present application.
Applicant's election with traverse of the following species in the reply filed on 04/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant elected: (i) a monovalent salt; (ii) dithiothreitol (DTT); (iii) one or more of an antibacterial agent; (iv) does not comprise a detergent; (v) ASB-14; and (vi) the water-soluble antigen solution comprises Tris-HCL, dithiothreitol (DTT), the first protease inhibitor, and KCl; and (b) the lipid-soluble antigen solution comprises Tris-HCL, dithiothreitol (DTT) the second protease inhibitor, KCl, and ASB-14.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the species do not represent an undue burden to the Office
This is not found persuasive because it is undue burden for the Examiner to search and consider all of the recited species in a single patent application.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Therefore, claim 30 is withdrawn from further consideration because it is drawn to a non-elected species.
Accordingly, claims 21-29 and 31- 40 are examined on the merits with the above elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 40 is 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 term “substantially free of an amphiphile” in claim 40 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially free of an amphiphile” is 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. For example, at what maximal level of an amphiphile that is present in a water-soluble antigen solution to still be considered to be substantially free of an amphiphile? Clarification is requested because the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly determined.
Similarly, the term “substantially the same” in claim 40 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially the same” is 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. For example, at what minimal level of an ECM structure and an ECM tensile strength of a tissue scaffold depleted of antigens that is still considered to be substantially the same as the ECM prior to antigen removal? Clarification is requested because the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim 21 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) or under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Gratzer (WO 2011/132089; IDS).
The instant claim is drawn to a kit comprising (i) a solution for solubilizing water-soluble antigens and (ii) a solution for solubilizing lipid soluble antigens.
Gratzer already disclosed a kit comprising one or more of the solutions used to decellularize a tissue; including a kit comprising a hypotonic solution, a first surfactant solution, a nuclease enzyme solution, a cleaning solution comprising a second surfactant, and a bioburden reducing agent solution (Abstract; Summary; particularly paragraphs [0006], [0008]-[0009], [0011], [0013] and [0120]). Gratzer also taught that the kit can include instructions for decellularizing an untreated tissue and/or instructions for use one or more disclosed solutions (paragraph [0120]). Gratzer further taught specifically that the first surfactant solution is a high saline (>1 M, NaCl, KCl) buffered solution (pH=8-10) containing 0.2-3% (v/v) of an anionic, non-ionic, zwitterionic or cationic detergent (e.g., Triton X-100, Triton-X-200, TWEEN 20, TWEEN 80, sodium deoxycholate, CHAPS, SDS, Sulfobetain-10 and -16) and protease inhibitors (e.g., phenylmethanesulfonylfluoride (PMSF), aprotinin, leupeptin, EDTA) prepared with a type II cell culture grade deionized water, and one or more antibiotics/antimycotics, wherein the first surfactant solution is generally designed to remove cell membranes and cytoskeletal components and alkaline pH helps to limit protease activity (paragraphs [0009], [0063] and [0079]). Gratzer also disclosed specifically the cleaning solution comprises 0.2-3% (v/v) of an anionic, non-ionic, zwitterionic or cationic detergent (e.g., Triton X-100, Triton-X-200, TWEEN 20, TWEEN 80, sodium deoxycholate, CHAPS, SDS, Sulfobetain-10 and -16) or a chaotropic agent, one or more organic or inorganic buffers (e.g., Tris-buffered saline adjusted to pH=7-9), one or more antibiotics/antimycotics (e.g., penicillin, streptomycin), an alkaline pH, and the solution is prepared in sterile water or 70% ethanol as the solvent; and the cleaning solution is generally designed to remove any remaining cellular components (e.g., cytoskeletal proteins, DNA, RNA fragments), and alkaline pH helps to limit protease activity (paragraphs [0067], [0081]).
The teachings of Gratzer meet every limitation of the instant claim. Therefore, the reference anticipates the instant claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-29, 31-37 and 39-40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Griffiths et al (Biomaterials 29:3514-3520, 2008; IDS) in view of Gratzer (WO 2011/132089; IDS).
The instant claims are drawn to a kit comprising (i) a solution for solubilizing water-soluble antigens (e.g., a solution comprising a buffering agent, a reducing agent, a protease inhibitor, and one or more salts suitable for maintaining protein solubility) and (ii) a solution for solubilizing lipid soluble antigens (e.g., a solution comprising a buffering agent for maintaining a pH of the solution for solubilizing lipid soluble antigens, a reducing agent, a protease inhibitor, one or more salts suitable for maintaining protein solubility, and an amphiphile).
Griffiths et al already disclosed a two-stage protein extraction protocol to separate bovine pericardium proteins into water- and lipid-soluble fraction for identification of bovine pericardium xenoantigens; and they identified 31 putative protein antigens and 8 of which are known to be antigenic from previous studies (Abstract; Section titled “Protein extraction” at pages 3515-3516; and Fig. 1). Griffiths et al taught water-soluble proteins were extracted from minced bovine pericardium (BP) with 1 mL of 134 mM 3-(benzyldimethylammonio) propanesulphonate (NDSB-256, which is a zwitterionic, non-detergent sulfobetaine), 10 mM pH 8.0 Tris-HCl, 100 KIU/mL aprotinin, 1 mM DTT, 2mM MgCl2, 10 mM KCl, and 0.5 mM Pefabloc; while lipid-soluble proteins were extracted with 0.5 mL of 1% n-dodecyl-β-D-maltoside (non-ionic detergent), 134 mM NDSB-256, 10 mM pH8.0 Tris-HCl, 100 KIU/mL aprotinin, 1 mM DTT, 2mM MgCl2, 10 mM KCl, and 0.5 mM Pefabloc (Section titled “Protein extraction” at pages 3515-3516; and Fig. 1).
Griffiths et al did not teach specifically a kit comprising the above disclosed solutions for extracting water- and lipid-soluble fractions containing putative bovine pericardium xenogeneic antigens; and the solution for solubilizing water-soluble antigens comprising one or more of antibacterial agent.
At the effective filing date of the present application (03/19/2012), Gratzer already disclosed a kit comprising one or more of the solutions used to decellularize a tissue; including a kit comprising a hypotonic solution, a first surfactant solution, a nuclease enzyme solution, a cleaning solution comprising a second surfactant, and a bioburden reducing agent solution (Abstract; Summary; particularly paragraphs [0006], [0008]-[0009], [0011], [0013] and [0120]). Gratzer also taught that the kit can include instructions for decellularizing an untreated tissue and/or instructions for use one or more disclosed solutions (paragraph [0120]). Gratzer further taught specifically that the first surfactant solution is a high saline (>1 M, NaCl, KCl) buffered solution (pH=8-10) containing 0.2-3% (v/v) of an anionic, non-ionic, zwitterionic or cationic detergent (e.g., Triton X-100, Triton-X-200, TWEEN 20, TWEEN 80, sodium deoxycholate, CHAPS, SDS, Sulfobetain-10 and -16) and protease inhibitors (e.g., phenylmethanesulfonylfluoride (PMSF), aprotinin, leupeptin, EDTA) prepared with a type II cell culture grade deionized water, and one or more antibiotics/antimycotics, wherein the first surfactant solution is generally designed to remove cell membranes and cytoskeletal components and alkaline pH helps to limit protease activity (paragraphs [0009], [0063] and [0079]). Gratzer also disclosed specifically the cleaning solution comprises 0.2-3% (v/v) of an anionic, non-ionic, zwitterionic or cationic detergent (e.g., Triton X-100, Triton-X-200, TWEEN 20, TWEEN 80, sodium deoxycholate, CHAPS, SDS, Sulfobetain-10 and -16) or a chaotropic agent, one or more organic or inorganic buffers (e.g., Tris-buffered saline adjusted to pH=7-9), one or more antibiotics/antimycotics (e.g., penicillin, streptomycin), an alkaline pH, and the solution is prepared in sterile water or 70% ethanol as the solvent; and the cleaning solution is generally designed to remove any remaining cellular components (e.g., cytoskeletal proteins, DNA, RNA fragments), and alkaline pH helps to limit protease activity (paragraphs [0067], [0081]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings of Griffiths et al by also packaging their disclosed solutions used for extracting water- and lipid-soluble fractions containing putative bovine pericardium xenogeneic antigens in the form of a kit for decellularizing a tissue, as well as further incorporating into the disclosed solutions one or more antibacterial agent; in light of the teachings of Gratzer as presented above.
An ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to carry out the above modifications because Gratzer already disclosed a kit comprising one or more of the solutions used to decellularize a tissue, and that the one or more solutions further comprising a bioburden reducing agent such as penicillin, streptomycin, peracetic acid, ethanol, or a combination thereof.
An ordinary skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in light of the teachings of Griffiths et al and Gratzer; coupled with a high level of skill for an ordinary skilled artisan in the relevant art.
The modified kit resulting from the combined teachings of Griffiths et al and Gratzer as set forth above is indistinguishable and encompassed by the presently claimed invention.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 37 (elected ASB-14 embodiment), 38 and 40 (elected ASB-14 embodiment) are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Griffiths et al (Biomaterials 29:3514-3520, 2008; IDS) in view of Gratzer (WO 2011/132089; IDS) as applied to claims 21-29, 31-37 and 39-40 above, and further in view of Alroy et al (US 2005/0158708).
The combined teachings of Griffiths et al and Gratzer were presented above. However, none of the cited references teach specifically the solution for solubilizing lipid-soluble antigens comprising the elected species ASB-14 as an amphiphile/sulfobetaine.
At the effective filing date of the present application (03/19/2012), Alroy et al already taught that membrane surface protein solubilizing buffers typically comprise buffering agents at pH 6-8, divalent cations, salts and a non-ionic detergent, with exemplary detergents include Triton X-100 and, most preferably ASB-14; and an exemplary solubilizing buffer contains 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.6, 150 mM NaCl, 10% glycerol, 2% ASB14, 5 mM EDTA, 1 mM EGTA, 1.5 mM MgCl2, and protease inhibitors (Abstract; particularly paragraph [0158]). Alroy et al also stated “Cell lysis for membrane proteins is usually done with a buffer containing 0.5% Triton X-100. However, it was determined in our laboratory that ASB-14 is a better solubilizing agent” (last 2 sentences of paragraph [0252]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the combined teachings of Griffiths et al and Gratzer by also selecting ASB-14 as an amphiphile/sulfobetain/non-ionic detergent in the solution for solubilizing lipid-soluble antigens; in light of the teachings of Alroy et al as presented above.
An ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further carry out the above modification because Alroy et al already taught that ASB-14 is at least a better solubilizing agent for lipid-soluble/membrane protein relative to a non-ionic Triton X-100 detergent. Please note that the primary Griffith reference already taught using 1% n-dodecyl-β-D-maltoside (a mild, non-ionic detergent) in the solution used for extracting lipid-soluble fraction containing putative bovine pericardium xenogeneic antigens.
An ordinary skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in light of the teachings of Griffiths et al, Gratzer and Alroy et al; coupled with a high level of skill for an ordinary skilled artisan in the relevant art.
The modified kit resulting from the combined teachings of Griffiths et al, Gratzer and Alroy et al as set forth above is indistinguishable and encompassed by the presently claimed invention.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
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 21-29 and 31- 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 9-10, 11, 17, 19-20 and 26-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,709,813 (IDS) in view of Gratzer (WO 2011/132089; IDS) and Griffiths et al (Biomaterials 29:3514-3520, 2008; IDS).
Claims 1, 7, 9-10, 11, 17, 19-20 and 26-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,709,813 encompass a kit comprising the tissue scaffold of claim 1 or claim 11, wherein the tissue scaffold is produced by the method comprising the steps (a)-(d) recited in dependent claim 7 or dependent claim 17 that involve the use of a first solution comprising a first buffering agent, a first reducing agent, a first protease inhibitor, and one or more salts suitable for maintaining protein solubility, wherein the first solution does not comprise an amphiphile; and a second solution comprising a second buffering agent, a second reducing agent, a second protease inhibitor, one or more salts suitable for maintaining protein solubility and an amphiphile, wherein the amphiphile in the second solution comprises a sulfobetaine selected from the Markush group recited in dependent claim 10 or 20, that includes ASB-14.
The claims of the present application differ from claims 11, 7, 9-10, 11, 17, 19-20 and 26-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,709,813 in reciting specifically that a kit comprising (i) a solution for solubilizing water-soluble antigens (e.g., the solution comprising Tris-HCl, dithiothreitol, a protease inhibitor, and KCl) and (ii) a solution for solubilizing lipid soluble antigens (e.g., the solution comprising Tris-HCl, dithiothreitol, a protease inhibitor, KCl, and ASB-14).
Before the effective filing date of the present application (03/19/2012), Gratzer already disclosed a kit comprising decellularized tissues and/or one or more of the solutions used to decellularize a tissue; including a kit comprising a hypotonic solution, a first surfactant solution, a nuclease enzyme solution, a cleaning solution comprising a second surfactant, and a bioburden reducing agent solution (Abstract; Summary; particularly paragraphs [0006], [0008]-[0009], [0011], [0013] and [0120]). Gratzer also taught that the kit can include instructions for decellularizing an untreated tissue and/or instructions for use one or more disclosed solutions (paragraph [0120]). Gratzer further taught specifically that the first surfactant solution is a high saline (>1 M, NaCl, KCl) buffered solution (pH=8-10) containing 0.2-3% (v/v) of an anionic, non-ionic, zwitterionic or cationic detergent (e.g., Triton X-100, Triton-X-200, TWEEN 20, TWEEN 80, sodium deoxycholate, CHAPS, SDS, Sulfobetain-10 and -16) and protease inhibitors (e.g., phenylmethanesulfonylfluoride (PMSF), aprotinin, leupeptin, EDTA) prepared with a type II cell culture grade deionized water, and one or more antibiotics/antimycotics, wherein the first surfactant solution is generally designed to remove cell membranes and cytoskeletal components and alkaline pH helps to limit protease activity (paragraphs [0009], [0063] and [0079]). Gratzer also disclosed specifically the cleaning solution comprises 0.2-3% (v/v) of an anionic, non-ionic, zwitterionic or cationic detergent (e.g., Triton X-100, Triton-X-200, TWEEN 20, TWEEN 80, sodium deoxycholate, CHAPS, SDS, Sulfobetain-10 and -16) or a chaotropic agent, one or more organic or inorganic buffers (e.g., Tris-buffered saline adjusted to pH=7-9), one or more antibiotics/antimycotics (e.g., penicillin, streptomycin), an alkaline pH, and the solution is prepared in sterile water or 70% ethanol as the solvent; and the cleaning solution is generally designed to remove any remaining cellular components (e.g., cytoskeletal proteins, DNA, RNA fragments), and alkaline pH helps to limit protease activity (paragraphs [0067], [0081]).
Additionally, Griffiths et al already disclosed a two-stage protein extraction protocol to separate bovine pericardium proteins into water- and lipid-soluble fraction for identification of bovine pericardium xenoantigens; and they identified 31 putative protein antigens and 8 of which are known to be antigenic from previous studies (Abstract; Section titled “Protein extraction” at pages 3515-3516; and Fig. 1). Griffiths et al taught water-soluble proteins were extracted from minced bovine pericardium (BP) with 1 mL of 134 mM 3-(benzyldimethylammonio) propanesulphonate (NDSB-256, which is a zwitterionic, non-detergent sulfobetaine), 10 mM pH 8.0 Tris-HCl, 100 KIU/mL aprotinin, 1 mM DTT, 2mM MgCl2, 10 mM KCl, and 0.5 mM Pefabloc; while lipid-soluble proteins were extracted with 0.5 mL of 1% n-dodecyl-β-D-maltoside (non-ionic detergent), 134 mM NDSB-256, 10 mM pH8.0 Tris-HCl, 100 KIU/mL aprotinin, 1 mM DTT, 2mM MgCl2, 10 mM KCl, and 0.5 mM Pefabloc (Section titled “Protein extraction” at pages 3515-3516; and Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the present application to modify a kit encompassing in claims 1, 7, 9-10, 11, 17, 19-20 and 26-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,709,813 by also including in the kit the first solution for solubilizing water-soluble antigens and the second solution for solubilizing lipid-soluble antigens, including the first solution comprising Tris-HCl, dithiothreitol, a protease inhibitor, and KCl along with the second solution comprising Tris-HCl, dithiothreitol, a protease inhibitor, KCl, and ASB-14; in light of the teachings of Gratzer and Griffiths et al as presented above.
An ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to carry out the above modifications because Gratzer already disclosed at least a kit comprising decellularized tissues and/or one or more of the solutions used to decellularize a tissue; while Griffiths et al also taught to extract water-soluble proteins and lipid-soluble proteins from minced bovine pericardium (BP) with 1 mL of 134 mM 3-(benzyldimethylammonio) propanesulphonate (NDSB-256, which is a zwitterionic, non-detergent sulfobetaine), 10 mM pH 8.0 Tris-HCl, 100 KIU/mL aprotinin, 1 mM DTT, 2mM MgCl2, 10 mM KCl, and 0.5 mM Pefabloc; and with 0.5 mL of 1% n-dodecyl-β-D-maltoside (non-ionic detergent), 134 mM NDSB-256, 10 mM pH8.0 Tris-HCl, 100 KIU/mL aprotinin, 1 mM DTT, 2mM MgCl2, 10 mM KCl, and 0.5 mM Pefabloc; respectively. Moreover, claims 1, 7, 9-10, 11, 17, 19-20 and 26-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,709,813 already encompass a tissue scaffold depleted of antigens that is produced by a method using a first solution that does not comprise an amphiphile and that water-soluble antigens are still dissolved in the first solution.
An ordinary skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in light of claims 1, 7, 9-10, 11, 17, 19-20 and 26-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,709,813 along with the teachings of Gratzer and Griffiths et al, coupled with a high level of skill for an ordinary skilled artisan in the relevant art.
The modified kit resulting from claims 1, 7, 9-10, 11, 17, 19-20 and 26-29 of U.S. Patent No. 10,709,813 along with the teachings of Gratzer and Griffiths et al is indistinguishable and encompassed by the presently claimed invention.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole was prima facie obvious in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
It is noted that the current application is a CON of 15/819,975, filed on 12/21/2017, now issued US Patent No. 10,709,813.
Conclusions
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quang Nguyen, Ph.D., at (571) 272-0776.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s SPE, James Douglas (Doug) Schultz, Ph.D., may be reached at (571) 272-0763.
To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Group Art Unit 1631; Central Fax No. (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to (571) 272-0547.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll-free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
/QUANG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1631
