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 .
Claim Status
Claims 7-12 are pending and are examined on the merits.
Claims 1-6 are canceled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign to EP20306303.7 filed 10/30/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
At this point in examination, all claims have been interpreted as being accorded this priority date. In future actions, the effective filing date of one or more claims may change, due to amendments to the claims, or further analysis of the disclosure(s) of the priority application(s).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the list of cited references was considered in full by the examiner. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this Office action.
Drawings
There are no drawings filed for this application.
Specification
The specification filed 04/28/2023 have been accepted.
Objection to the specification: title
The specification filed 02/28/2023 has been objected to.
The title should be amended to more specifically reflect the claims, particularly the independent claims and referencing steps/elements: setting the context of the invention, particular to all claims, and distinguishing the instant application from any related applications, for example a title including terms such as: “the measure of the level of hsa-miR34a-5p, HbAlc, YKL-40 and A2M”, “a logistic function to calculate a score S”, and “liver stiffness is measured by measuring the difference in velocity of elastic shear wave propagation in the liver”. The title should be "descriptive" and "as... specific as possible" (MPEP 606, 1st para. and 37 CFR 1.72; also, MPEP 606.01 pertains).
Objection to the claims
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 requires two commas. It recites “
PNG
media_image1.png
63
113
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein …” It should read “
PNG
media_image1.png
63
113
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein …”
Claim 7 further recites “
PNG
media_image2.png
37
243
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein...” It should read “
PNG
media_image2.png
37
243
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim rejection - 35 USC§ 112(b)
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.
Claims 7-12 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.
Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted, and any amendments in response to the following rejections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate. With regard to any suggested amendment below, for claim interpretation during the present examination it is assumed that each amendment suggested here is made. However equivalent amendments also would be acceptable.
Claims 7 and 8 recite "...method comprises the measure of..." in line 3, however, due to the grammatical construction of "the measure...," it is not clear if this recitation requires an active step of measuring. The claims are ambiguous and therefore indefinite in this regard.
Claim 7 further recites multiple lists, two of which render the claim indefinite for lack of a clear relationship among the list elements due to the lack of a grammatical conjunction, e.g. "and" vs. "or." First, a conjunction is needed before “…d is a coefficient…” since that is the last element in that list. Second, a conjunction is needed after “… d is a number...;" before "wherein the score S…” since that is the final "wherein" clause in the list of "wherein" clauses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for this analysis, wherein a claim does not satisfy § 101 if (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and as an ordered combination,” do not add enough to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). Applicant is also directed to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The instantly claimed invention (claim(s) 7-12 being representative) is directed to a method. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories. [Step 1: YES]
Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A (Prong 1) analysis requires determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claim 7 recites the identification of a subject as having Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) with high likelihood of progression to advanced liver fibrosis by using a logistic function to calculate a score S, wherein the score S is calculated according to the following logistic function :
PNG
media_image1.png
63
113
media_image1.png
Greyscale
; the limitation identification of a likelihood using a logistic function/mathematical formula is considered mathematical calculation and mathematical formulas, and as such, falls within mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the measure of the level of hsa-miR34a, alpha 2 macroglobulin (A2M), YKL40 and glycated hemoglobin (HbAlc) in a blood-derived sample of said subject; as stated above in 112(b) rejection, it is not clear whether there is an active step of measuring. As such said limitations only provide additional information about the type of data used in the said logistic function.
Claim 11 recites measuring liver stiffness of the subject; the limitation measuring liver stiffness is considered mathematical calculation, as disclosed in claim 12, liver stiffness is measured by measuring the difference in velocity. As such, said limitation falls into mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas.
Claim 12 recites liver stiffness is measured by measuring the difference in velocity of elastic shear wave propagation; the limitation measuring the difference is considered mathematical calculation, and as such, falls into mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas.
Claims 8-10 provide more information about the abstract ideas.
Additionally, claims 7-12 recite a correlation between biomarkers in the blood sample of a subject and a likelihood of progression to advanced fibrosis, and as such, falls into judicial exception of Laws of nature and natural phenomena. See MPEP 2106(b) I.
The identified claims recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) and/or fall into one of the groups of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity for the reasons set forth above. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III and MPEP 2106.04 (b) I. Therefore, claims are directed to one or more judicial exception(s) and require further analysis in Prong Two. [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES]
Step 2A: Prong 2: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
There are no additional elements recites in claim(s) 7-12.
Therefore, there are no additional elements recited sufficient to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
MPEP 2106.04(d).I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In Step 2A, Prong 1 above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs).
In Step 2B below, any remaining steps and/or elements are therefore in addition to the identified JE(s). Any such additional steps and additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B.
Here in Step 2A, Prong 2, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application.
At this point in examination, it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A, Prong 2 considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of 1. an improvement, 2. treatment, 3. a particular machine or 4. a transformation is clear in the record.
In conclusion regarding Prong 2, claims 7-12 are directed to an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO]
Step 2B: In the second step it is determined whether the claimed subject matter includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. An inventive concept cannot be furnished by an abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
There are no additional elements recites in claim(s) 7-12.
Therefore, the claims do not include any additional steps appended to the judicial exception that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. [Step 2B: NO]
Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darteil (WO2017167934A1; as cited on the attached form 892) in view of Cale (US 10,861,582 B2; as cited on the attached form 892).
Regarding claim 7, Darteil discloses a method for the diagnosis of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and/or for determining the activity, the stage, or the severity of NASH in a subject, and/or for the determination of the progression or the regression of the pathology in NASH patients, and/or for the prediction of disease outcome for a patient, and/or for the identification of surrogate markers of clinical relevant outcomes, comprising the measure of the level of blood, serum or plasma circulating hsa-miR-34 or one of its collinear variable, and at least one other blood, serum or plasma circulating marker of liver damage (claim 1). Darteil further discloses that circulating marker of liver damage is selected in the group consisting of alpha 2 macroglobulin, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1 c), fasting glucose level, fructosamine level, insulin, C-Peptide, Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA), N-terminal pro-peptide of collagen type III, hsa- miR-200, YKL-40, CK18-M30, CK18-M65, ALT, AST, Uninary Specific Gravity (Uri Spec Grav), uninary creatinine, basophils, High Sensitivity-Reactive Protein (HSCRP), Urinary β- NAG, leucocytes, neutrophils and fibrinogen (claim 3). Darteil further discloses measuring the level of hsa-miR-34, (in particular hsa-miR-34a and more particularly hsa- miR-34a-5a), and at least one blood, serum or plasma circulating marker of liver damage, and combining the results through a mathematical algorithm to obtain a NASH score (claim 4). Darteil further discloses that a NASH score is calculated according to the following logistic function:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein:
a) the method is derived from the bootstrap model, and wherein
S is the NASH score;
A is the serum level of hsa-miR-34a (in particular hsa-miR-34a-5p) in Cq;
B is the serum level of alpha 2 macroglobulin in g/L;
C is the serum level of YKL-40 in pg/ml,
D is the level of HbA1 c in percent (e.g. D is equal to 10 if measured HbA1 c percentage is 10%);
k is the constant of the logistic function
a is a coefficient associated to the serum level of hsa-miR-34a (in particular hsa-miR- 34a-5p);
b is a coefficient associated to the serum level of alpha 2 macroglobulin; c is a coefficient associated to the serum level of YKL-40; and
d is a coefficient associated to the level of HbA1 c; wherein: k is a number comprised between 9.51 and 34.37, in particular 21 .94;
a is a number comprised between -1 .17 and -0.47, in particular -0.82;
b is a number comprised between 0.02 and 0.84, in particular 0.43;
c is a number comprised between 6.10E-06 and 2.09E-05, in particular 1.35E-05; d is a number comprised between 0.07 and 0.89, in particular 0.48;
wherein a NASH score higher than a threshold value comprised between 0.2013 and 0.5965, in particular equal to 0.4661, is indicative of a severe NASH, or of a moderate or high NASH activity; and thus is indicative of a patient having a steatosis score 2>=1, a hepatocyte ballooning score 2>=1, a lobular inflammation score 2>=1, a NAS 2>=4 and a fibrosis stage 2>= 2 (claim 6).
Darteil further discloses that the levels of the markers measured in the present invention are determined from a body fluid of the subject, which may in particular be a blood, more particularly a serum or a plasma sample.
Darteil further discloses that miRNA(s) are used as biomarkers for various diseases such cancer, hepatitis, liver injury and NAFLD (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease) (pg. 4, Ls. 24-26).
Darteil further discloses that NASH may further include liver fibrosis (pg. 7, L. 24). Darteil further discloses that the subject may also be a subject with already identified NASH, the method of the invention thereby allowing determining the risks of evolution of the disease towards liver cirrhosis, fibrosis, hepatocarcinoma, liver transplantation or a cardiovascular disease (pg. 7, last para.)
Further regarding the limitations of identification of a subject as having Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) with high likelihood of progression to advanced liver fibrosis within the course of 52 weeks, Cales discloses a method for implementing an adapted patient care for an individual suffering from liver fibrosis after assessing liver fibrosis progression in the individual, and thus determining whether the individual is a slow, medium or fast fibroser (abstract).
Cales further discloses measuring at least three markers in the individual, wherein said markers are measured in a blood sample obtained from the individual and are selected from the group consisting of α-2 macroglobulin (A2M), YKL-40 (see col. 10, last para.), blood glucose levels (see col.7, para.4), and hyaluronic acid, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, bilirubin, platelet count, prothrombin index, aspartate amino-transferase, alanine amino-transferase, urea, glycemia, and ferritin; and/or said markers are clinical markers selected from weight, age and sex; combining said at least three measured markers in a logistic or linear regression function, thereby determining a fibrosis level in the individual; and calculating a ratio of said fibrosis level to cause duration, thereby obtaining a value useful for assessing the liver fibrosis progression in the individual where the underlying cause responsible for liver fibrosis is non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (claim 1).
Cales further discloses that “Score” is a combination of markers (or variables) aimed at predicting a clinical event or a lesion such as fibrosis degree. Usually, and especially when using the binary logistic regression, the score ranges from 0 (0% risk) to 1 (100% risk), i.e. the probability of the diagnostic target (col. 8, para.3).
Cales further discloses that the liver fibrosis progression is assessed by measuring, at two different intervals t1 and t2, the fibrosis levels FL(t1) and FL(t2) and calculating the ratio FL(t2)−FL(t1) to (t2−t1), where “t2-t1” is a period of time of at least 10 days; in an embodiment, t2-t1 is a period of 1 to 6 months; in another embodiment, t2-t1 is a period of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months, 5 months, 6 months, 7 months, 8 months, 9 months, 10 months, 11 months, 12 months, 13 months, 14 months, 15 months, 16 months, 17 months, or 18 months; in another embodiment, t2−t1 is a period of 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years or 5 years… where a score is obtained by measuring in a sample of an individual and combining in a logistic or linear regression function (col. 7, para. 2-4).
Regarding claim 8, Darteil discloses the measure of the level of hsa-miR34a-5p, HbAlc, YKL-40 and A2M (claim 6).
Regarding claim 9, Darteil discloses that fibrosis stage≥ 2 and/or is classified as a receiver, or potential receiver, of a treatment if the NASH score S is higher than or equal to a threshold value comprised between 0.2718 and 0.6391 (pg. 8, para. 1); reading on limitations of the subject has NAFLD with fibrosis stage 0, 1 or 2.
Regarding claim 10, Cale discloses Area Of Fibrosis” may be determined by image analysis, or by a noninvasive method wherein a score is obtained by measuring in a sample of said patient and then combining in a logistic or linear regression function (col. 7, last para.; col. 22, para. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Cale discloses employing FibroMeter for liver stiffness measurement (col. 9, last two para.) ; reading on limitation of measure of liver fibrosis with a physical method is carried out by measuring liver stiffness of said subject.
Regarding claim 12, Cale discloses that liver stiffness measurement (LSM), sometimes also called liver stiffness evaluation (LSE) is preferably measured by Vibration Controlled Transient Elastography or VCTE (also known as Fibroscan™, Paris, France), which measures liver stiffness by measuring the difference in velocity of elastic shear wave propagation in the liver (col. 9, last para.); reading on limitations of wherein liver stiffness is measured by measuring the difference in velocity of elastic shear wave propagation in the liver.
In KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court, in rejecting the rigid application of the teaching, suggestion, and motivation test by the Federal Circuit, indicated that “The principles underlying [earlier] cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).
Applying the KSR standard to Darteil and Cales, Examiner concludes that this combination represents the use of known techniques to improve similar methods. Both Darteil and Cales are directed to prediction of disease outcome for a patient suffering from liver disease. Darteil discloses the measure of the level of hsa-miR34a, alpha 2 macroglobulin (A2M), YKL40 and glycated hemoglobin (HbAlc) in a blood-derived sample of said subject and calculating a score using a logistic function indicative of a high likelihood of progressing to fibrosis. In the same field of research, Cales disclosed a method of assessing liver fibrosis progression in the individual where the individual is a fast fibroser (claim 1), by measuring biomarkers and using them in a logistic function thereby determining a fibrosis level in the individual; and calculating a ratio of said fibrosis level to cause duration, thereby obtaining a value useful for assessing the liver fibrosis progression in the individual. Combining the prediction model of Darteil with fast fibroser assessment of Cales would have allowed for a more accurate prediction of disease progression in fast progressors. One ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success at combining the method of Darteil and Cales. This combination would have been expected to have provided a non-invasive tool for liver disease prognostics and therapeutics and an accurate disease progression prediction in fast progressors. Therefore, the invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of invention to use different thresholds for NAFLD progression to fibrosis as opposed to NASH, since NASH is the progressive form of NAFLD with different progression speed and requires different coefficients.
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 7 and 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,104,209 in view of Cale (US 10,861,582 B2; as cited on the attached form 892), as applied above.
The reference patent as well as the instant application each recite claims which involve a method of identifying non-alcoholic liver disease for determining the activity, stage, severity, progression or the regression of the pathology of said disease in a subject by the measuring the level of hsa-miR-34a (in particular hsa-miR-34a-5p), alpha 2 macroglobulin, YKL-40, and HbA1c and using the said biomarker levels in a logistic function to calculate a score that indicates the rate of progression of the disease to next stage.
While claim 7 of instant application requires the identification of NAFLD with high likelihood of progression to advanced liver fibrosis within the course of 52 weeks, which is not recited in claim 6 of '209 application, this limitation is obvious as taught by Cale, as explained in the above 103 rejection.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because either (i) because the instant claims recite obviously equivalent or broader limitations in comparison to the reference claims or (ii) because the instant claims recite limitations which are obvious over the cited art. It is not clear that the instant claims recite limitations which are narrower than limitations in the reference claims.
It would have been obvious in view of the cited art to modify reference claims to arrive at the rejected instant claims. Either the instant limitations are interpreted as reading on a reference limitation, or the instant limitations would have been obvious in view of the cited art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL SABOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Larry D. Riggs can be reached at (571) 270-3062. 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.
/G.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights