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 .
This action is responsive to papers filed 06/18/2026.
Claims 1-5, and 7-8 have been amended. Claims 19-20 have been newly added and no claims have been newly canceled.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are currently pending.
Claims 9-14 and 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/12/2025.
Claims 3-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/12/2025.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 16 and 19-20 have been examined on their merits.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn due to amendment. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 1-2, 6-8, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (natural phenomenon and an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a revised guidance for evaluating subject matter eligibility, referred to as "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance", which became effective on January 7, 2019 (see 84 Fed. Reg. 50).
In the instant application, claims 1-2, 6-8 and 16 recite a natural phenomenon and an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than said judicial exception as explained below:
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
A three-step inquiry has been established to determine subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in accordance with MPEP 2106:
Step (1). Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Step (2A). Is the claim directed to a law of nature, natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?
Prong 1 - Does the claim recite a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Prong 2 - If the claim recites a judicial exception, does it recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.05(a)
• Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. See Vanda Memo
• Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b)
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c)
• 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. See MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Step (2B). If the recited judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly different than the judicial exception such that they provide an inventive concept? This step includes evaluation of the same considerations under Step (2A),
• Adding a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; and
• Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Analysis on View of the Interim Guidance
In regards to claim 1, regarding step 1, claim 1 is drawn to a method for determining if a compound is an endocrine disruptor by a) contacting a compound with a human endocrine cell culture, b) measuring in the culture medium an expression level of a set of four hormones including progesterone and a polypeptidic hormone, c) comparing the measured expression levels of the hormones with a control, measuring an expression level/activity of a P2X7 membrane receptor protein in a contacted cell and comparing to a control and e) making conclusions based on the measured expression level of the hormones compared to the measured expression or activity level of P2X7 membrane receptor protein.
Therefore, the answer to Step 1 is “yes” since the claims are directed to a process, which is a statutory category.
Regarding step 2A prong 1, The claims include steps for comparing and concluding which involve mental processes (natural phenomenon and abstract idea).
Therefore, the answer to Step 2A prong 1 is “yes”, since the claim is drawn to a mental process (natural phenomenon).
Regarding step 2A prong 2, while claim 1 recites additional method steps that do not require mental steps, such as contacting and measuring (steps a, b, d) these are deemed to be data gathering steps that are routine in the art of toxicology.
Fedorova et al. (Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics, 2015) teaches the use of human endocrine placental cells (JEG-3) cultured in minimal essential nutrients and a serum of 2.5% for the measurement of set of four hormones including progesterone and a polypeptidic hormone (pages 738-739).
Similarly, Dawid et al. (Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 2019) teaches methods for the measurement of at least four hormones including progesterone, estradiol (estrogen) and hCG (polypeptidic hormone) in a human endocrine placental cell culture (figure 6).
Therefore, these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Therefore, as whole, the claim is drawn to a mental process, and the additional method steps, are a means to perform this mental process. As a result, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Therefore, the answer to Step 2A prong 2 is “no” since the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding step 2B, while the method utilizes method steps of contacting and measuring, these steps are recited at a high level of generality which is evidence that the applicant is relying on measurement steps that are routine and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Again, Fedorova et al. (Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics, 2015) teaches the use of human endocrine placental cells (JEG-3) cultured in minimal essential nutrients and a serum of 2.5% for the measurement of set of four hormones including progesterone and a polypeptidic hormone (pages 738-739).
Similarly, Dawid et al. (Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 2019) teaches methods for the measurement of at least four hormones including progesterone, estradiol (estrogen) and hCG (polypeptidic hormone) in a human endocrine placental cell culture (figure 6).
Therefore, these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.
The dependent claims do not remedy this determination because they recite either inherent properties or method steps pertaining to method steps that are well-known in the art as discussed below.
Therefore, the answer to step 2B is “no” since the additional limitations are ancillary to the judicial exception and routine in the art.
In regards to claim 2, the method of claim 1 further comprises an additional measurement of the activation of inflammasome pathway in the human endocrine placental cell culture and comparing this measurement to a control and a step for a conclusion (a mental process and thus a judicial exception).
Perez-Albaladejo et al. (Society of Toxicology 2019-from IDS filed 09/28/2023) teach the measurement of the activation of inflammasome pathway in the human endocrine placental cell culture and comparing this measurement to a control (page 337, column 2).
Therefore, these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Regarding claim 6, this claim merely includes the property that a difference of +/- 15% between the measured and the control values is significant which would be an inherent property of the claimed method.
Regarding claims 7, 16 and 19-20, these claims appear to refer to the polypeptidic hormone type including beta hCG or one of its derivatives and estrogen (estradiol).
Dawid et al. (Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 2019) teaches methods for the measurement of at least four hormones including progesterone and beta hCG (polypeptidic hormone) in a human endocrine placental cell culture (figure 6).
Therefore, these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Regarding claim 8, this claim indicates that the measurement of the inflammasome pathway is measured by evaluating caspase-1 or IL-1beta.
Premyslova et al. (Placenta 2006-from IDS filed 09/28/2023) teach the measurement of IL-1beta in a human placental endocrine cell culture (Title, abstract, page 583).
Therefore, these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Hence, claims 1-2, 6-8, 16 and 19-20 do not qualify as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakx et al (Toxicology in Vitro, 2016-from IDS filed 09/28/2023) in view of Dawid et al (Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 2019).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 16 and 20, Wakx disclose a method to identify an endocrine disruptor using JEG-3 cells (human endocrine placental cell cultures) and PX27 expression/activity as a biomarker (abstract, page 78 sections 2.14-2.16). Cells were cultured with 2.5% FCS (serum) in minimal essential medium (page 77 section 2.5, page 81 Figure 4) (step 1a ).
Wakx do not additionally evaluate the expression levels of a set of four hormones including progesterone and polypeptidic hormone, such as human gonadotrophin (hCG).
Dawid teach a method of measuring a set of at least four hormones in a human endocrine placental cell culture (JEG-3 cell line) to evaluate the effect of apelin as recent studies have indicated a link between apelin and placenta function (abstract, pages 895-896). Apelin is a hormone known to be associated with certain complications of pregnancy (page 895). Evaluating the effect of this endocrine disruptor on human endocrine placental cells is disclosed as measuring a four hormone set including progesterone, estradiol (a type of estrogen), hCG and human placental lactogen (abstract, page 895), specifically βhCG (page 897, table 1) (steps 1b-1c)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the measurement of a four hormone set, including progesterone, estradiol (estrogen) and βhCG, along with controls and comparisons in the method of Wakx because Dawid indicate that these hormones can provide information regarding the effect that an endocrine disruptor can have on human placental cells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Wakx and Dawid are testing endocrine disruptors on JEG-3 placental cells. (steps 1d-1e)
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “wherein there is a significant difference when the measured and the control values differ by +/- 15%” is deemed to be an inherent property of the method of claim 1 and thus inherently present in the method of Wakx when modified as described above by the teaching of Dawid.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Wakx et al and Dawid et al render obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakx et al (Toxicology in Vitro, 2016-from IDS filed 09/28/2023) in view of Dawid et al (Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 2019) as applied to claims 1, 6-7, 16 and 20 above, and further in view of Shirasuna et al (Frontiers in Endocrinology 2020-from IDS filed 01/09/2026).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the combined teachings of Wakx and Dawid render obvious Applicant’s invention as described above, but do not specifically include a further step for measuring the activation of inflammasome pathway, such as measuring IL-1β expression or secretion.
Shirasuna teach that interleukin (IL)-1β is a pivotal inflammatory cytokine that is produced by placental cells when the placenta is exposed to inflammasomes (abstract, page 1, page 8 conclusion). IL-1β secretion is regulated by caspase-1 activation by many inflammasomes (page 3). IL-1β expression or secretion is disclosed as being linked to inflammation and immune cell activation in preeclampsia (PE) (page 4) suggesting measuring IL-1β for evaluating the placenta health.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further include a measuring step for IL-1β expression or secretion and caspase-1 activity in the human placental cells of Wakx because Shirasuna teach and suggest that this allows for the evaluation of placenta cell health. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Wakx and Shirasuna are both concerned with evaluating the health of placental cells.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Wakx et al, Dawid et al and Shirasuna et al render obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakx et al (Toxicology in Vitro, 2016-from IDS filed 09/28/2023) in view of Dawid et al (Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 2019) as applied to claims 1, 6-7, 16 and 20 above, and further in view of Ibeto et al (PLOS ONE, 2020-newly cited).
Regarding claims 19-20, the combined teachings of Wakx and Dawid render obvious Applicant’s invention as described above, but do not specifically include wherein the derivative of the polypeptidic hormone is glycosylated βhCG.
Ibeto disclose that glycosylation of hCG is known to be essential for its biological activity and that hyperglycosylated variants secreted during early pregnancy have been proposed to be involved in initial implantation of the embryo and as a potential diagnostic marker for gestational diseases (abstract). Novel glycan epitopes have been identified which potentially constitute new targets for diagnostics and for future investigations into the roles of glycans in hCG function and in the preservation of a healthy pregnancy (page 13, conclusion).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include glycosylated βhCG as the type of βhCG, used in the method of Wakx because Dawid indicate that βhCG can provide information regarding the effect that an endocrine disruptor can have on human placental cells and Ibeto disclose that glycosylation of hCG is known to be essential for its biological activity and that hyperglycosylated variants secreted during early pregnancy have been proposed to be involved in initial implantation of the embryo and as a potential diagnostic marker for gestational diseases (abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Wakx and Dawid are testing endocrine disruptors on JEG-3 placental cells. (steps 1d-1e) and Ibeto disclose that novel glycan epitopes have been identified which potentially constitute new targets for diagnostics and for future investigations into the roles of glycans in hCG function and in the preservation of a healthy pregnancy (page 13, conclusion). Ibeto also disclose that the β subunit is also N-glycosylated (page 2, paragraph 4).
Therefore, the combined teachings of Wakx et al, Dawid et al and Ibeto et al render obvious Applicant’s invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the pending claims are directed to a specific in vitro method that uses a defined placental cell culture and goes well beyond a mere observation of a natural phenomenon and as such is not directed to merely a natural correlation as is suggested by the Office.
This is not found persuasive. While the claim does include active method steps in addition to a judicial exception, these active method steps have been determined to be data gathering steps necessary for the application of the judicial exception without actually impacting the use of the judicial exception itself or taking any action based on the application of the judicial exception (such as would occur with particular treatment steps as indicated by MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)).
Applicant argues that the Office improperly ignores the claim as a whole which requires specific physical steps that cannot be performed mentally. Applicant asserts that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception.
This is not found persuasive. The claims include steps for comparing and concluding which involve mental processes (natural phenomenon and abstract idea). While the claim does include active method steps in addition to a judicial exception, these active method steps have been determined to be data gathering steps necessary for the application of the judicial exception without actually impacting the use of the judicial exception itself or taking any action based on the application of the judicial exception (such as would occur with particular treatment steps as indicated by MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)).
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and point to the specific culture medium composition and multiple measurements using different analytes. Applicant points to their specification at page 2 lines 9-19 as evidence that the identification of endocrine disruptors is not well understood and combining measurements and comparison steps are not well understood, routine or conventional activity.
This is not found persuasive. The culture steps are actually gathering data of the judicial exception. The claims do not include any steps for applying the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)).
Applicant argues that the 2016 Wakx reference did not establish that the studied compound benzo(A)pyrene was an endocrine disruptor nor did it establish that P2X7 was associated with endocrine disruptors and point to the Specification at page 2 lines 12-19 as evidence. Applicant argues that the present method provides a technological improvement for identifying endocrine disruptors and point to their Specification at page 2 lines 20-36 as evidence.
This is not found persuasive. Wakx disclose that in their results benzo(A)pyrine (BaP) inhibited JEG-3 placenta cell proliferation with a G2/M phase cell cycle arrest (page 83 column 1) and that P2X7 receptor is expressed in the JEG-3 cell line and can form a cationic channel and a large permeation pore depending on the activation level and that BaP increased both cellular calcium content and P2X7 pore formation (page 83 column 2). Wakx also disclose that BaP affects differentiation of trophoblast cells and hormone release (endocrine disruptor) and alters placental vasculature (page 76 column 2).
Applicant argues that Wakx and Dawid do not disclose all the recitations of claim 1. Applicant asserts that Wakx does not teach or suggest wherein the serum represents from 1.5 to 3.5% of the total weight of the culture medium of the cell culture.
This is not found persuasive. Wakx disclose a method to identify an endocrine disruptor using JEG-3 cells (human endocrine placental cell cultures) and PX27 expression/activity as a biomarker (abstract, page 78 sections 2.14-2.16). Cells were cultured with 2.5% FCS (serum between 1.5% and 3.5%) in minimal essential medium (page 77 section 2.5, page 81 Figure 4) (step 1a ).
Applicant argues that the Wakx paper never intended nor established that benzo(A)pyrene is an endocrine disruptor, nor that P2X7 is associated with endocrine disruptors and point to their Specification lines 14-19 as evidence. Applicant asserts that Wakx is limited to general toxicity and cellular stress responses and other effects but does not disclose or suggest evaluating hormone secretion profiles for endocrine disruption assessment.
This is not found persuasive. Wakx is directed to the study of the toxic effects of benzo(A)pyrene in human placental cells and the discovery of biomarkers to detect that toxicity. Placental cells are an environment that is very much intertwined with the endocrine system due to the effect of hormones for the survival of the placenta and pregnancy. Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are chemicals that can interfere with normal endocrine signals. Human exposure to EDCs is particularly concerning during vulnerable periods of life, such as pregnancy as evidenced by Gingrich et al (Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, July 2020, abstract).
Applicant argues that Dawid does not cure the deficiencies of Wakx. Applicant asserts that is limited to investigating the role of apelin on the concentration of key placental hormones and proteins as well as the expression of steroid enzymes and protein hormones. Applicant argues that cited references disclose two distinct marker /analyte systems and there is no evidence that these two classes of markers when combined corelate or would produce a reliable method for determining whether a particular compound is an endocrine disruptor.
This is not found persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In the current case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the measurement of a four hormone set, including progesterone, estradiol (estrogen) and βhCG, along with controls and comparisons in the method of Wakx because Dawid indicate that these hormones can provide information regarding the effect that an endocrine disruptor (toxic chemical) can have on human placental cells. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Wakx and Dawid are testing endocrine disruptors (toxic chemicals) on JEG-3 placental cells.
Applicant argues that the cited references, even when combined, fail to teach or suggest step e of claim 1, namely the evaluation of hormone expression and P2X7 activity to distinguish between an endocrine disruptor , a non-endocrine disruptor and a possible endocrine disruptor.
This is not found persuasive. Part e of the method establishes the inherent results of the data gathering steps with regard to the generic use of a potential compound as compared to a control. Part e of the method is not an active method step and merely describes the three potential effects of the data gathering steps. The cited references are directed to observing and establishing the biomarkers that reflect the toxic effects of a test compound on placental cells and will inherently produce one of these options when the method of Wakz as modified by Dawid is carried out.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the teaching of Wakx and Dawid because the references are drawn to different methods. Applicant argues that there is no reason to combine distinct endpoints absent instructions from Applicant’s disclosure. Applicant argues that the Office’s proposed combination amounts to impermissible hindsight. Applicant asserts that there is no reasonable expectation of success to combine the reference methods either.
This is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In addition, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that the method provides unexpected advantages over the art of record. Applicant asserts that there is no teaching or suggestion that the combination of the reference methods results in a reliable determination for whether a given compound is an endocrine disruptor and thus such a result is unexpected.
This is not found persuasive. The prior art references teach and suggest that the testing of placental cells in combination with P2X7 expression for the effects of toxic compounds is expected to provide information for new in vitro biomarkers as described above.
In submitting evidence asserted to establish unobvious results, there is a burden on an applicant to indicate how the examples asserted to represent the claimed invention are considered to relate to the examples intended to represent the prior art and, particularly, to indicate how those latter examples do represent the closest prior art. See In re Borkowski, 595 F.2d 713, 184 USPQ 29 (CCPA 1974); In re Goodman, 339 F.2d 228, 144 USPQ 30 (CCPA 1964).
The evidence relied upon should also be reasonably commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed and illustrate the claimed subject matter "as a class" relative to the prior art subject matter "as a class." In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971 ); In re Hostettler, 429 F.2d 464, 166 USPQ 558 (CCPA 1970). See, also, In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972).
It should also be established that the differences in the results are in factunexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. In reMerck, 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Longi, 759 F. 2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Klosak, 455 F2d 1077, 173 UAPQ 14 (CCPA 1972); In re D'Ancicco, 429 F.2d 1244, 169 USPQ 303 (CCPA 1971 ). Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (BPAI 1992).
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gingrich et al., “Placenta Disrupted: Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Pregnancy”, Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, July 2020, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp. 508-524.
(Gingrich discloses toxic chemicals known to be endocrine disruptors)
Movahedinia et al., “Effects of the environmental endocrine disrupting compound benzo[a] pyrene on thyroidal status of abu mullet (Liza abu) during short-term exposure”, Toxicology Reports, 2018, Vol. 5, pp. 377-382.
(Movahedinia discloses benzo(A)pyrene as an known endocrine disruptor)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA J SCHUBERG whose telephone number is (571)272-3347. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, James (Doug) Schultz can be reached at 571-272-0763. 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.
LAURA J. SCHUBERG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1631
/LAURA SCHUBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Prosecution Insights