DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species: a. i. and vi. Protein, a peptide, a peptide fragment, and any combination thereof analyte molecule of claims 211 and 225; b. i. nucleic acid strands/branched nucleic acids for core structure, core molecules of claim 213; c. i. scaffold DNA origami for Core Structure, independent core components of claims 214 and 227; d. i. protein, peptide, or antibody for capture molecule of claims 216 and 229, and e. i. 2. Protein-antibody for detector molecule of claims 216 and 229, in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged.
No claims are withdrawn. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/22/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of the present application as a proper National Stage (371) entry of PCT Application No. PCT/US21/50262, filed 09/14/2021, which claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to provisional application No. 63/078,837, filed 09/15/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 03/13/2023, 09/18/2024, 09/11/2025 and 02/11/2026 are considered, initialed and are attached hereto.
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.
Claims 212, 217, 219, 220, 224, 226 and 232 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 212 and 226 recites “the plurality of core molecules for each core structure are arranged into a pre-defined shape or have a prescribed molecular weight”, the language “pre-defined shape” and “prescribed molecular weight” are considered indefinite claim language because the structures would necessarily have some type of shape and a molecular weight, so it’s not clear what limitation “pre-defined” and “prescribed” place on these limitations. It is not clear what is or is not encompassed by the language “pre-defined shape” or “prescribed” as there is no indication what would and would not be encompassed by “pre-defined shape” or “prescribed” such to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claims 217 and 219 recite “wherein for each supramolecular structure” (claim 217) and “wherein each supramolecular structure in the unstable state” and later in the claim “a second supramolecular structure” (claim 219). The claim language is indefinite at “each supramolecular structure in the unstable state” because the present claims and claims from which 219 depend from are limited to a singular supramolecular structure, for example, the claims do not recite the method providing more than one or a plurality of supramolecular structures (see claim 210 “providing a supramolecular structure”.
Claim 224 recites, “The substrate of claim 223, comprising a solid support, solid substrate…”, the terms “solid support” and “solid substrate” appear to each be directed to the same type of solid substrate material, however they are listed as distinct alternatives. The claim language is indefinite because it is not clear if Applicant intends these limitations as two distinct structures, or as two different terminology that represent the same structure.
Claim 232 recites “wherein the signal comprises the detector barcode, the capture barcode, or a combination thereof, corresponding to a supramolecular structure that shifted to a stable state”, the recited language “signal comprises” followed by the recitation of structures is indefinite because a detectable signal is not itself a structure, the claimed language is confusing because the recited structures appear to be structures which generate signal or some detectable/quantifiable feature, but are not signals themselves. As such, the boundaries of what is encompassed by the claim are not readily clear. However, in the interest of compact prosecution and applying the closest prior art, the claim is interpreted as referring to detection of signal derived from/representative of barcode structure.
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.
Claim(s) 210-213, 215-219, 221-226, 228-231 and 233 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Juncker et al., WO2019/1913838A1 (IDS entered 09/11/2025).
Juncker et al. anticipates Applicant’s claims 210 and 223, Juncker teach methods and systems for detecting an analyte molecule present in a sample, the methods (and system used in the methods) comprising: (a) providing a supramolecular structure comprising (e.g., para [00155], see also para [00213] providing the structure): i. a core structure comprising a plurality of core molecules (anchor strand, para [00155], ii. a capture molecule linked to the core structure at a first location, and iii. a detector molecule linked to the core structure at a second location (see para [00155] and Figure 1, e.g., regarding 2 , labeled detection antibody), wherein the supramolecular structure is in an unstable state, such that the detector molecule is configured to be unbound from the core structure link therebetween at the second location (see para [00155], referring to for example embodiments 2, or 6, displacement from anchor strand by a displacer oligo that binds or hybridizes to the anchor strand); (b) contacting the sample with the supramolecular structure, such that the supramolecular structure shifts from the unstable state to a stable state wherein the detector molecule and the capture molecule are linked together through binding to the analyte molecule (see para [00155], referring to the complex formation upon binding analyte), thereby forming a link between the detector molecule and capture molecule; (c) providing reagent (displacer oligo) to displace the link between the detector molecule and the core structure at the second location, wherein the detector molecule remains linked to the core structure through the link with the capture molecule; and (d) detecting the analyte molecule based on a signal provided by the supramolecular structure that shifted to the stable state.
Regarding the claimed invention, the present claims use the language “the detector molecule is configured to be unbound from the core structure through cleavage of a link therebetween at the second location” and “providing a trigger to cleave the link between the detector and the core structure at the second location”, referring to the originally filed specification regarding Applicant’s meaning of “cleavage” and “cleave”, the originally filed specification refers to cleavage/cleave as encompassing displacement/displaced by, for example, nucleic acid (DNA/RNA) strand displacement (see para [000128] of Applicant’s originally filed specification where the term “cleavage” is used in this manner, “the cleavage is achieved through nucleic acid (DNA/RNA) strand displacement, optical cleavage, chemical cleavage, another technique known in the art, or combinations thereof”).
Juncker’s method of using their system, comprising strand displacement after complex is formed, does anticipate the claim (Juncker is teaching displacement at the position addressing the claimed “second location”). See para [00155], Juncker et al. teach Applicant’s elected species, namely protein/peptide analyte molecule, nucleic acid strands for core structure, core molecules, antibody capture molecule and antibody detector molecule.
Regarding claims 211 and 225, see as cited above, Juncker teach analyte comprising protein/peptide (analyte detected by antibody, para [00155], however see also para [0003], [0015], [0027]).
Regarding claims 212, 213, 226, Juncker et al. teach an anchor strand, which is a strand of, made up of nucleotides, such structure having arranged into a predefined shape and having a prescribed molecular weight.
Regarding claims 215 and 228, the originally filed specification refers to “deconstructor molecule” as comprising DNA, RNA, a peptide, small organic molecule, or combinations thereof (see para [0009]). Juncker addresses the claim by teaching a displacement oligo.
Regarding claims 216 and 229, see as cited above, Juncker et al. teach capture and detector molecules are antibodies.
Claims 217 and 230 (and as such 218 and 231) recite the limitations (a) capture molecule linked through a capture barcode (to the core structure), the capture barcode comprising a first and second capture linker, and a capture bridge between the first and second linkers, the first capture linker bound to the first core linker bound to the first location on core structure, wherein the capture molecule and second capture linker are linked together through binding to a third capture linker, and (b) the detector molecule is linked to the core structure through a detector barcode wherein the detector barcode comprises a first detector linker, a second detector linker, a detector bridging between, and wherein the first detector linker is bound to the second core linker to the second location of the core structure, wherein the detector molecule and the second linker are linked through binding to a third detector linker (claim 217).
In turning to the originally filed specification for understanding as to what are the structures encompassed by each of the first and second core linkers, and first, second and third capture linkers, and first, second and third detector linkers, the specification at para [0010] indicates each independently comprise a reactive molecule or DNA sequence domain; in some embodiments, each reactive molecule independently comprises an amine, a thiol, a DBCO, a maleimide, biotin, an azide, an acrydite, a NHS-ester, a single stranded nucleic acid (RNA or DNA) or specific sequence, one or more polymers like PEG or polymerization initiators or combinations thereof. See further, in embodiments, the linkage between capture barcode and first core linker and/or third capture linker comprises a chemical bond, such as a covalent bond. Para [0021], also supports that “barcode” encompasses a structure that is able to provide a DNA signal corresponding to analyte, namely structure configured to be analyzed using genotyping, qPCR, sequencing, or combinations thereof.
Juncker et al. teach antibodies conjugated to amino-modified hook oligomers using hydrazone chemistry, or alternatively conjugated to thiol-terminated hook oligomers using heterobifunctional amine/thiol-reactive crosslinkers (e.g., paras [00273]-[00274]). See also para [00177], Juncker et al. describe capture affinity binder attached via anchor strand, by conjugation or through a linker such as a capture strand, see para [00178] describing linkage that links the to an anchor strand which is then attached to the support. See further such linkers and strands described at para [00187]. See also detection antibodies linked through oligos linking detection antibody to the structure (see also para [00246]).
It appears that the multicomponent linker/oligonucleotides linking capture and detection probes of Junker to the anchor strand read on the claimed “barcodes” because as noted above referring to Applicant’s originally filed specification, “barcode” is not particularly limited to a specific/particular structure (for example, not limited , and encompasses all those structures as described in applicant’s originally filed specification), Junker is teaching reactive molecule modified oligonucleotide sequences (multi-component comprising components as described at the originally filed specification) as structures linking antibody/probe to the anchor structure.
Regarding claim 219 (and also claim 233), Juncker addresses “wherein each supramolecular structure in the unstable state comprises the respective capture molecule and detector molecule spaced apart by a predetermined distances, so as to reduce or inhibit the occurrence of cross-reactions between capture and detector molecules of a first …and corresponding capture and detector molecule of a second supramolecular structure”. Juncker teach at para [00107] having two or more complexes (structures as claimed) attached to the same support, and positioned at separate place; see also para [00200] describe different locations/positions limit interaction between different affinity binders. As such, Juncker is considered to address the claims, as the reference is teaching structures, when in unstable state (i.e., not bound to analyte), are spaced apart at distances that address as claimed, to reduce interaction, which would naturally reduce/inhibit cross-reactions as claimed. See also para [00186], referring to positioning to avoid cross-reactivity.
Regarding claim 221, see also Juncker anticipates multiplex detection via one or more structures, para [00200].
Regarding claim 222, Juncker et al. teach capture and detector molecules configured to bind to one or more types of analytes (para [00200], and as cited previously above).
Regarding claim 224, see Juncker et al. teach a substrate comprising a solid substrate/solid support (para [00168], [00177], [00178], [00180]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 220 and 234 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juncker et al. (cited previously above).
Juncker et al. teach a method and system substantially as claimed (see as cited previously above, under 35 U.S.C. 102); Juncker is silent as to the distance, as such fails to teach predetermined distance from about 3 nm to about 40 nm (claims 220 and 234).
However, see above (regarding claim 219), Juncker teach at para [00107] having two or more complexes (structures as claimed) attached to the same support, and positioned at separate places; see also para [00200] describe different locations/positions limit interaction between different affinity binders. The reference is teaching structures, when in unstable state (i.e., not bound to analyte), are spaced apart at distances that address as claimed, to reduce interaction, which would naturally reduce/inhibit cross-reactions as claimed. See also para [00186], referring to positioning to avoid cross-reactivity.
Further, Juncker et al. is teaching particles that are nanometer-micrometer sized (see paras [0007], [00168]). See also para [00213], Juncker et al. teach colocalization at the nano-scale.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed predetermined distances of about 3- about 40 nm as claimed out of routine optimization of experimental conditions. Specifically, Juncker is teaching nano-scale sized support, and is teaching space that inhibits/reduces cross-reaction. One having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have arrived at the predetermined distance as claimed, namely by trying different nano-scale spacing as accommodated by the nano-sized support (nanoparticles), particularly considering there is only a finite amount of space on a given nanoparticle. The prior art supports the spacing is a result-effective variable (the space between is a variable that achieves a recognized result, namely reduce/inhibit cross-reaction, see Juncker cited above), it would have been well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed distance by routine experimentation, trying different nano-scale distances accommodated by a particle of this size. Further, considering there is only a finite amount of space on a nanoparticle, one having ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success relying on routine experimentation to determine the optimal distance for localization without interaction/cross-reaction.
Claim(s) 214, 227 and 232 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juncker et al. in view of Gopinath et al., US PG Pub No. 2019/0323002A1.
Juncker et al. teach a method and system substantially as claimed, however fail to teach the core structure comprising a scaffolded DNA origami (claim 214);
Gopinath et al. is similar to Junker in that they are teaching a system comprising a polynucleotide scaffold (referred to in Gopinath as platform, which is similar to Juncker’s anchor sequence) comprising a capture reagent, such as an antibody, attached thereon (paras [0104]-[0105], [0116]), Gopinath teaching the platform/scaffold as able to be, for example DNA origami structure (para [0105], [0114], [0166]). See specifically at paras [0186] and [0188], Gopinath teach DNA origami allows stronger signal, that more signal molecules may be incorporated.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Juncker et al. in order to provide as the core structure, DNA origami, as an obvious matter of a simple substitution of one DNA structure for another, both recognized in the art usable as a scaffold/support structure for capture and detection binding reagent, the DNA origami recognized as a larger structure offering advantages such as the ability to include multiple signal molecules. Both are recognized as structures capable of having thereon antibody capture reagent, one having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have substituted one for the other, and the results would predictably maintain the ability to provide capture reagent, the modification merely offering the advantages associated with having the larger size structure (such as increased ability to add more signal molecules). One having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success making the modification considering both were art recognized structures capable of being used as a scaffold/anchor sequence for providing capture reagent thereon for binding an analyte in a sample (both usable for the same purpose).
Regarding claim 232, Gopinath does teach incorporation of a detectable barcode sequence (as a unique identifier, see paras [0108]-[0113]), see further describing unique barcode sequence usable for indicating identity of analyte (para [0167]-[0169]), see para [0170] advantages of using a DNA barcode include they are usable with existing reagents, e.g., antibodies), can be used without instrumentation beyond that required for DNA amplification (PCR), high degree of multiplexing, can be highly quantitative when used as input for droplet digital PCR.
It would have been further prima facie obvious to have modified the claimed structure, to include at the capture or detector barcode, sequence that is a unique identifier (as referred to as “barcode” as in Gopinath et al.) in order to specifically identify target analyte, one further motivated because of the advantages afforded by such barcode sequences, including their compatibility with reagents such as antibodies, there ability to be used without instrumentation beyond that required for DNA amplification (PCR), high degree of multiplexing (see Gopinath). The modification would be an obvious matter of applying a known technique to a known method/structure, see as discussed above, the base structure is known in the art (for example, as taught by Juncker et al., and also as supported by Gopinath, Gopinath teaching a similar type multicomponent supramolecular structure), further it is known to incorporate in these type of detector structures a DNA barcode sequence as a unique identifier (as in Gopinath). One having ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have incorporated a DNA barcode for detection and the results of the modification would have been predictably the ability of identifying a target analyte based on the signal produced by the unique identifier. Further one would expect success because Juncker et al. teach their systems as accommodating DNA sequence labels (amplified by PCR, see para [00206], for example).
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 210-234 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 and 32 of copending Application No. 17/708,786 (reference application) in view of Juncker et al. (cited previously above).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 223, see claim 24 of ‘786 recites a substrate for detecting one or more analyte molecules in a sample, the substrate comprising a plurality of supramolecular structures, each supramolecular structure comprising: (a) a core comprising a plurality of core molecules (DNA origami), (b) a capture molecule linked to the core at a first location, and (c) a detector molecule linked to the core at a second location.
‘786 fails to recite, wherein the supramolecular structure is in an unstable state, such that the detector molecule is configured to be unbound from the core through cleavage of a link there between at the second location; wherein each supramolecular structure is configured to shift from the unstable state to a stable state through interaction between the detector molecule, the capture molecule, and a respective analyte molecule of the one or more analyte molecules; and wherein, upon interaction with a trigger, a respective supramolecular structure that shifted to the stable state provides a signal for detecting the respective analyte molecule.
However, see Juncker et al. as cited in detail previously above, Juncker et al. teach breaking the bond between the support and the detector reagent upon binding analyte (shifting from what is considered unstable to stable, i.e., unbound to bound, applying a trigger to cause cleavage at the detector molecule), Jucker also (see para [0099]) teach breaking the bond can result in activation of support specific labels for specific detection of multiple analytes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to have modified ‘786 to further make the link at the second location cleavable as claimed as an obvious smatter of applying a known feature/technique to a known system (the known technique of Juncker to the system of ‘786), one motivated to perform the modification in order to accommodate specific detection of multiple different analytes (signal activating specific to the position bound the targeted analyte, thereby identifying the analyte). One having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because like ‘786, the substrate of Junker similarly comprises a core, and capture/detector molecules, it would be expected the modification would merely accommodate multiplex detection of plural targeted analytes, making each capture/detector combination uniquely identifiable, distinguishing those that bind from those that do not.
Regarding claim 224, see ‘786 at claim 27.
Regarding claim 210, see ‘786 at claims 1, 11 and 15, similarly teaches providing sample, contacting the structure with the sample and observing the result (detecting signal).
Regarding claims 211 and 225, see ‘786 at claim 28.
Regarding claims 212-214 and 226-227, see ‘786 at claim 24 reciting core structure is DNA origami.
Regarding claims 215 and 228, see as cited previously above, Juncker et al. describe a trigger such as a “deconstructor molecule” consistent as claimed, as such the combination fo the cited art addresses a cleavage achieved as claimed.
Regarding claims 216 and 229, see ‘786 at claim 32.
Regarding claims 217-218 and 230-231, see discussed above regarding structures that the originally filed specification support read on the claimed “barcode” structures for first, second and third capture linker, and capture bridge (discussed previously above under 35 U.S.C. 103). ‘786 at claim 24 recites “one or more barcode sequences linked to the core structure”, see also copending claims 25 (comprise nucleic acid sequences). In referring to the specification for ‘786, para [0010], the claimed “barcodes” as recited at the claims of ‘786, appear to read on structures that are the same as those presently claimed (comprising the same structural components/features as claimed presently)
Regarding claims 219-220 and 233-234, the copending application is silent as the predetermined distance separating the capture and detector molecules, fails to teach distance about 3-40 nm. However, see ‘786 does recite the structure is a nanostructure (i.e., of nano-scale size). Further Juncker et al. as cited previously above, Juncker teach at para [00107] having two or more complexes (structures as claimed) attached to the same support, and positioned at separate place; see also para [00200] describe different locations/positions limit interaction between different affinity binders. As such, Juncker is considered to address the claims, as the reference is teaching structures, when in unstable state (i.e., not bound to analyte), are spaced apart at distances that address as claimed, to reduce interaction, which would naturally reduce/inhibit cross-reactions as claimed. See also para [00186], referring to positioning to avoid cross-reactivity.
It would have been further prima facie obvious to have modified the structure such to arrive at distance between about 3-40 nm as claimed, out of routine optimization of experimental conditions (see the same reasoning as applied previously also applies presently, one having a reasonable expectation of success arriving at distances within the claimed range because similar with previous analyses above under 35 U.S.C. 103, the copending is also a nano-scale sized structure, and as such there is only a finite number of distances to try, the prior art motivating one to determine the optimum distance to avoid cross-reactivity, as taught by Juncker).
Regarding claim 221-222, see the combination of the copending and the cited addresses detecting shift from unstable to stable for a plurality of analytes (multiplexing via structures).
Regarding claim 232, see ‘786 at claims 23 and 24.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN J MARCSISIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6001. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Bao-Thuy Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-0824. 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.
/ELLEN J MARCSISIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1677
Prosecution Insights