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 .
Response to Election/Restriction filed on December 23, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 (claims 1-13) and the election of SEQ ID NO: 12 as the species of fully defined protein, tetracycline as the species of an antibacterial or antifungal agent, and gauze as the species of a medical construct in the reply filed on December 23, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Group I is basically the same as that of non-elected Groups, and any prior art searched for one group is applicable to the other groups. Hence, there would not be a serious search and/or examination burden”. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but art not found persuasive. The inventions restricted are patentably distinct. The search for each of the inventions is not co-extensive particularly with regard to the literature search. Burden consists not only of specific searching of classes and subclasses, but also of searching multiple databases for foreign references and literature searches. Burden also resides in the examination of independent claim sets for clarity, enablement, and double patenting issues. Further, a reference that would anticipate the invention of one group would not necessarily anticipate or even make obvious another group. Finally, the consideration for patentability is different in each case. Thus, it would be an undue burden to examine all of the above inventions in one application and the restriction for examination purposes as indicated above is deemed proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. A search was conducted on the elected species, and prior art was found. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected species. Claims 1-8 and 11-13 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Objections
5. The abstract is objected to for the following minor informality:
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
In the instant case, the abstract recites, “Compositions and materials comprising transgenic soybeans…of the hEGF protein” at lines 1-3 of the abstract. Further, at line 5, the abstract recites a legal phraseology “said”. Applicant should correct these informalities. See MPEP 608.01(b). For example, the abstract is recommended to be amended to recite, “Compositions and materials…are described.”
Please note, the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible error. Applicant's cooperation is required in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01.
6. Claim 11 is objected to for the following: Claim 11 recites, “…the antifungal agent comprises polyenes, Azoles – Imidazoles, Triazoles, Allyamines, Echinocandins, Griseofulvin, or tolnaftate.” The hyphen after “Azoles” should be removed and replaced with a comma. Additionally, these terms should be all amended to lower cases, e.g., azoles, imidazoles…
Rejections
35 U.S.C. 101
7. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
8. Claims 1-5, 8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to natural phenomenon without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-5, 8 and 12-13 recite(s) a naturally occurring peptide/protein fragment, which is not markedly different from its naturally occurring counterpart because the claims recite that the proteins are from animal or human (“an animal or human protein derived from”). Claim 2 recites that soybean protein comprises 7S, 11S, or a combination thereof. As evidenced by UniProt (Q8RVH5, enclosed), the 7S soybean protein is from the organism Glycine max (soybean) (Glycine hispida). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the following reasons. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the animal protein or human protein and soybean 7S protein being claimed is naturally occurring. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the following reasons.
The rationale for this determination is explained below and is based on the analysis presented in the USPTO’s “2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance” as set forth on December 16, 2014, Revised Guidance set forth on May 2016, and 2019 Revised patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance set forth on January 7, 2019 (please see MPEP 2106).
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? The instant claims are directed to a statutory patent-eligible subject matter category, a composition of matter.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (Product of nature), or an abstract idea? The claims are directed to a natural phenomenon, specifically a natural-based product limitation.
Step 2a Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the peptide being claimed is naturally occurring.
As evidenced by UniProt Q8RVH5 (see UniProt enclosed), 7S soybean protein is isolated from Glycine max (soybean) (Glycine hispida).
The term “medical material” is not specifically defined in the specification. Although one of ordinary skill in the art would construe the limitation “material” to mean isolated or purified or having additional components, this does not render the claim markedly different from what exists in nature, because the other components may also be naturally occurring, such as water. The recitation of “salt” does not render the claim markedly different from what exists in nature, because salt is naturally occurring. Myriad clarified that not every change to a product will result in a marked difference, and that the mere recitation of particular words (e.g., “isolated”) in the claims does not automatically confer eligibility. Id. at 2119. See also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (eligibility does not “depend simply on the draftsman' s art”).
Step 2b: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The claims, as a whole, do not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claims do not include any elements in addition to the natural product.
In sum, when the relevant steps are analyzed, they weigh against a significant difference. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 8 and 12-13 do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Please see MPEP 2106.
U.S.C. 112(b)
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.
10. Claims 6-7 and 11-12 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.
11. Claim 6 recites, “The medical material of claim 5…or a polynucleotide at least 90% identical thereto, wherein the polynucleotide encodes a protein having hEGF activity, or a functional fragment thereof.” It is unclear what protein sequences are encompassed by “a functional fragment thereof.” Instant SEQ ID NO: 12 has the sequence: SLSSAENSDSECPLSHDGYCLHDGVCMYIEALDKYACNCVVGYIGERCQYRDLKWWELR. This is a 59 residue protein sequence. The specification does not define what fragments would be functional and what residues are encompassed within the “functional fragment thereof”. Thus, the polynucleotide encoding the functional fragment thereof if also indefinite.
12. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the EGF protein” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 depends from claim 5. Claim 5 recites the term “hEGF”. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis.
13. Claim 7 recites the limitation "nucleotide sequence” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 depends from claim 6. Claim 6 recites the term “polynucleotide”. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis.
14. Claim 7 recites, “The medical material of claim 6, wherein the nucleotide sequence encodes a protein of SEQ ID NO: 12 or a polynucleotide sequence at least 90% identical thereto encoding a protein having hEGF or a functional fragment thereof.” It is unclear what protein sequences are encompassed by “a functional fragment thereof.” Instant SEQ ID NO: 12 has the sequence: SLSSAENSDSECPLSHDGYCLHDGVCMYIEALDKYACNCVVGYIGERCQYRDLKWWELR. This is a 59 residue protein sequence. The specification does not define what fragments would be functional and what residues are encompassed within the “functional fragment thereof”. Thus, the polynucleotide encoding the functional fragment thereof if also indefinite.
15. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “Azoles”, and the claim also recites imidazoles, triazoles…which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
16. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the anti-inflammatory agent" and “the antibacterial agent” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite “anti-inflammatory agent” and “antibacterial agent”. Therefore, there is lack of antecedent basis.
U.S.C. 112(a)
17. 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.
18. Claims 1-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The courts have stated:
“To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (" [T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the Application. These include “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient.” MPEP 2163.
Further, for a broad generic claim, the specification must provide adequate written description to identify the genus of the claim. In Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., the court stated:
“A written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, 'requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name,' of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials. Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171, 25 USPQ2d at 1606; In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 284-85 (CCPA 1973) ("In other cases, particularly but not necessarily, chemical cases, where there is unpredictability in performance of certain species or subcombinations other than those specifically enumerated, one skilled in the art may be found not to have been placed in possession of a genus. . . ."). Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
The MPEP further states that if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence, it is “not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.” MPEP 2163. The MPEP does state that for generic claim the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. MPEP 2163. If the genus has a substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. See MPEP 2163. Although the MPEP does not define what constitute a sufficient number of representative, the Courts have indicated what do not constitute a representative number species to adequately describe a broad generic. In Gostelli, the Court determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus. In re Gostelli, 872 F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618.
In the instant case, the claims are drawn to a medical material comprising an animal or human protein derived from a transgenic soybean or at least a portion of the transgenic soybean, wherein the transgenic soybean produces said animal or human protein (see claim 1); wherein the EGF protein comprises a soluble, bioactive, human epidermal growth factor (hEGF) protein (see claim 4); wherein the EGF protein is encoded by nucleic acid sequence according to SEQ ID NO: 1 or SEQ ID NO: 26 or a polynucleotide at least 90% identical thereto, wherein the polynucleotide encodes a protein having hEGF activity, or a functional fragment thereof (see claim 6); and wherein the nucleotide sequence encodes a protein of SEQ ID NO: 12 or a polynucleotide sequence at least 90% identical thereto encoding a protein having hEGF activity or a functional fragment thereof (see claim 7). The generic statements “or at least a portion of the transgenic soybean”, wherein the EGF protein is encoded by nucleic acid sequence according to SEQ ID NO: 1 or SEQ ID NO: 26 or a polynucleotide at least 90% identical thereto, wherein the polynucleotide encodes a protein having hEGF activity, or a functional fragment thereof, and wherein the nucleotide sequence encodes a protein of SEQ ID NO: 12 or a polynucleotide sequence at least 90% identical thereto encoding a protein having hEGF activity or a functional fragment thereof do not provide ample written description for the compounds since the claims do not describe a single structural feature. The specification does not clearly define or provide examples of what qualify as compounds of the claimed invention. Instant SEQ ID NO: 12 has the sequence SLSSAENSDSECPLSHDGYCLHDGVCMYIEALDKYACNCVVGYIGERCQYRDLKWWELR.
As stated earlier, the MPEP states that written description for a genus can be achieved by a representative number of species within a broad generic. It is unquestionable claims 1-8 and 11-13 are broad generics with respect all possible compounds encompassed by the claims. The possible structural variations are limitless to any class of peptide or a peptide-like molecule that can form peptide bonds and are derived from animal or human. It must not be forgotten that the MPEP states that if a peptide is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence, it is “not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.” MPEP 2163. Here, though the claims may recite some functional characteristics, the claims lack written description because there is no disclosure of a correlation between function and structure of the compounds beyond compounds disclosed in the examples in the specification. Moreover, the specification lack sufficient variety of species to reflect this variance in the genus since the specification does not provide any examples of what are encompassed by functional fragments. The specification is void of organic molecules that functions as a peptide-like molecule that qualify for the functional characteristics claimed as a peptide or a peptide-like molecule or other peptidic molecules, and other synthetic peptide or peptide-like molecule that can form peptide bonds.
The specification discloses the following: “Epidermal growth factor protein from humans was produced in soybean seeds by constructing a plant gene expression cassette that involved a synthetic codon-optimized EGF nucleotide sequence (protein sequence from Genbank accession CCQ43157). This 162 bp open reading frame was placed in frame behind a 20-amino acid endoplasmic reticulum (ER) signal sequence from the Arabidopsis chitinase gene…(see paragraph [0094]). Instant claim 7 recites that the nucleotide sequence encodes a protein of SEQ ID NO: 12 or a polynucleotide sequence at least 90% identical thereto encoding a protein having hEGF activity or a functional fragment thereof. Instant SEQ ID NO: 12 has the sequence SLSSAENSDSECPLSHDGYCLHDGVCMYIEALDKYACNCVVGYIGERCQYRDLKWWELR. The protein sequence of Genbank accession Number CCQ43157 has the sequence MNVRWVSQCAPLPPPSASTPKVVMSAGAQKATKEMGFTVLILMSANWGSTAVERMPAAQIQREAIPACVLDACLNQD (see CCQ41357 from Genbank, p. 1 enclosed). The sequence alignment of the two hEGF sequences are:
PNG
media_image1.png
856
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. According to the sequence alignment, the score is 15.5%. The instant specification does not provide a definition of what peptide fragments of instant SEQ ID NO: 12 would have the same function and activity as instant SEQ ID NO: 12. Because the claims are inclusive of polypeptide comprising amino acid sequences having 90% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO: 12, or functional fragments thereof, or encoded by polynucleotides with at least 90% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 or 26 or functional fragments thereof, this is a very large genus of amino acid sequences.
Description of SEQ ID NO: 12 or Genbank accession CCQ43157 is not sufficient to encompass numerous other proteins and fragments thereof that belong to the same genus. For example, there are varying lengths, varying amino acid compositions, and numerous distinct qualities that make up the genus. There is not sufficient amount of examples provided to encompass the numerous characteristics of the whole genus claimed.
The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does "little more than outlin[e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate"). Accordingly, it is deemed that the specification fails to provide adequate written description for the genus of the claims and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the entire scope of the claimed invention.
U.S.C. 102
19. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
20. 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.
21. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al (In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology Animal, 2015, 51, Suppl 1, pp. 1-17, filed with IDS).
22. He et al teach a medical material comprising hEGF expressed in transgenic soybeans (see for example Title), meeting the limitation of instant claims 1, 3-5 and 8. With respect to the limitation in the preamble of claim 12, “A medical material…”, please note that MPEP 2111.02 II states “a preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” In the instant case, the preamble does not affect the animal or human protein, human epidermal growth factor (hEGF) protein structure. The preamble in this case recites a statement of purpose or use, and therefore was not treated as a claim limitation. Furthermore, no additional active components are recited in the independent claim 1. Additionally, please note that it is regarded that “intended use” of a composition or product will not further limit claims drawn to a composition or product. See, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987) and In Re Hack 114, USPQ 161. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim limitation. IN the instant case, the intended use of medical material does not result in a structure change of hEGF protein.
In regards to claims 12-13, the claim recites an inherent property. The MPEP § 2112 states: “Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference ‘[t]he PTO can require an Applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted].” The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)).” Since the reference teaches ALL of the active components, the reference anticipates instant claims 1, 3-5, 8 and 12-13.
23. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al (PLOSOne, June 17, 2016, 1-17, filed with IDS).
24. He et al teach production of bioactive human epidermal growth factor (hEGF) protein in transgenic soybean (see Title). He et al teach that transgenic soybean synthesized hEGF protein is bioactive (see pp. 7-8), meeting the limitation of instant claims 1, 3-5 and 8. He et al teach that hEGF protein produced in transgenic soybeans have therapeutic activity (see p. 12, “Soybeans function as a bioreactor to produce hEGF at a potentially therapeutic level”). With respect to the limitation in the preamble of claim 12, “A medical material…”, please note that MPEP 2111.02 II states “a preamble generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” In the instant case, the preamble does not affect the animal or human protein, human epidermal growth factor (hEGF) protein structure. The preamble in this case recites a statement of purpose or use, and therefore was not treated as a claim limitation. Furthermore, no additional active components are recited in the independent claim 1. Additionally, please note that it is regarded that “intended use” of a composition or product will not further limit claims drawn to a composition or product. See, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987) and In Re Hack 114, USPQ 161. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim limitation. IN the instant case, the intended use of medical material does not result in a structure change of hEGF protein.
In regards to claims 12-13, the claim recites an inherent property. The MPEP § 2112 states: “Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference ‘[t]he PTO can require an Applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same...[footnote omitted].” The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)).” Since the reference teaches ALL of the active components, the reference anticipates instant claims 1, 3-5, 8 and 12-13.
CONCLUSION
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE HA whose telephone number is (571)272-5982. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:00 am- 6:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LIANKO GARYU can be reached at 571-270-7367. 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.
/JULIE HA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1654
3/12/2026