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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment dated 07/27/2023 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16-18, 20-22, 27 and 31-32 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The earliest possible effective filing date for the instant claims January 29, 2021 based on the filing date of the provisional application 63/143,211
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: only one period can be present per claim (See MPEP § 608.01(m)). It is suggested that the claims be amended to have a colon instead of a period after “SEQ ID NO” (i.e. “SEQ ID NO:” instead of “SEQ ID NO.”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-6, 8, 10 and 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.
Claim 1 recites: “A composition for detecting an antigen, the composition comprising the antigen conjugated to a capture bead, wherein the antigen is a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen….” This claim is unclear because it reads as if the antigen that is conjugated to the bead is the antigen to be detected and antigens are most likely to detect antibodies. The dependent claims have been rejected as they do not remedy this inconsistency. For the purposes of expedited examination, this recitation has been interpreted as “A composition for detecting antibodies to infectious agents…”.
Claim 1 recites: “….the antigen is a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen selected from the group consisting of a spike protein, a nucleocapsid protein, an envelope protein, a membrane protein, a hemagglutinin-esterase dimer protein, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) protein.” This claim is unclear because the ACE2 protein (or antigen) is found in the host cell and is not an antigen derived from the in the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In addition, only the ACE2 protein can act as the “antigen conjugated to a bead” to detect the presence of the spike (S) protein and/or virions comprising the S protein. Additionally, if ACE2 is detecting an “antigen”, it would not only detect SARS CoV-2 S protein, but also the S proteins of other coronaviruses such as SARS CoV-1 and NL63 (HCoV-NL63), and it would also bind to its cognate binding partners, which are human proteins such as angiotensin I and II, apelin-13, apelin-36, and certain bradykinins.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term "antigen" in the preamble of claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “anti-SARS CoV-2 antibodies”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Applicant discloses in the specification that figure 1 depicts an illustration of an embodiment of the method of flow cytometry for detecting an infective agent such as, for example, a SARS-CoV-2 antigen [00159] but figure 1 shows anti-COVID-19 IgG and IgM from serum and quantification of the captured anti-COVID-19 IgG and IgM by flow cytometry and not infective agents.
Claim 13, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 27, and 31-32 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.
Claim 13 recites: “A method for detecting infectious agents by flow cytometry….” This claim is unclear because it reads as if the infectious agent can be detected by the bead conjugated to SARS-CoV-2 antigens. It is unclear how a SRAS-CoV-2 antigen conjugated to the bead will detect an infectious agent. In addition, antibodies, which is the most likely molecule to be detected when using antigens, are not infectious agents. As discussed above, only the ACE2 protein can act as the “antigen conjugated to a bead” to detect the presence of the spike (S) protein and/or virions comprising the S protein. Additionally, if ACE2 is detecting an “antigen”, it would not only detect SARS CoV-2 S protein, but also the S proteins of other coronaviruses such as SARS CoV-1 and NL63 (HCoV-NL63), and it would also bind to its cognate binding partners, which are human proteins such as angiotensin I and II, apelin-13, apelin-36, and certain bradykinins
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term "infectious agent" in the preamble of claim 13 is used by the claim to mean “anti-SARS CoV-2 antibodies”. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Applicant discloses in the specification that figure 1 depicts an illustration of an embodiment of the method of flow cytometry for detecting an infective agent such as, for example, a SARS-CoV-2 antigen [00159] but figure 1 shows anti-COVID-19 IgG and IgM from serum and quantification of the captured anti-COVID-19 IgG and IgM by flow cytometry and not infective agents.
The dependent claims have been rejected as they do not remedy this inconsistency. For the purposes of expedited examination, this recitation has been interpreted as “A method for detecting antibodies, to infectious agents, by flow cytometry….”.
Claim 13 recites: “….incubating the sample and the one or more capture beads with a capture antibody having a detection molecule;….” This recitation in the claim is unclear as it is not known if the capture beads are conjugated or not to an antigens. The dependent claims have been rejected as they do not remedy this inconsistency. . For the purposes of expedited examination, this recitation has been interpreted as “….incubating the sample and the one or more capture beads conjugated to the protein with a capture antibody having a detection molecule;…”.
Claim 13 recites: “….the antigen is a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antigen selected from the group consisting of a spike protein, a nucleocapsid protein, an envelope protein, a membrane protein, a hemagglutinin-esterase dimer protein, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) protein.” This claim is unclear because the ACE-2 protein (or antigen) is found in the host cell and is not an antigen from the in the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Claim 13 recites: “….and detecting the sample and the one or more capture beads by quantifying the capture antibody, wherein the protein is an antigen,;….” This recitation in the claim is unclear for two reasons 1.- it is unclear what detecting the sample means, and 2.- if the capture beads are conjugated or not to an antigen. The dependent claims have been rejected as they do not remedy this inconsistency. For the purposes of expedited examination, this recitation has been interpreted as “….and detecting in the sample antibodies or infectious agents, and the one or more capture beads conjugated to the protein by quantifying the capture antibody, wherein the protein is an antigen;…”.
Claim 13 recites: “…..establishing a fluid stream….”. This recitation in the claim is unclear as to what it is meant by “fluid stream” and the specification does not define this term. For the purposes of expedited prosecution, this recitation has been interpreted as “….starting the flow cytometry process by generating a thin flow stream for particles in a sample to flow down the stream in substantially single file and pass through an examination zone….”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16 and 22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao (US 2022/0018838 A1 priority date July 20, 2020)
Gao teaches development of novel multiplex (instant claim 32) and singleplex immunoassays for the detection of neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants or fragments thereof in patient samples (abstract), and kits and compositions for the detection of neutralizing antibodies, protective antibodies specific for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variants and fragments thereof [0067] (instant claims 1-3, 13-14). The multiplex assays includes flow cytometry and involves use of a solid support, typically beads [0054] (instant claims 1 and 13). the size range of the particles or beads can vary and in most cases, the aggregated size range of the particles or beads lies within the range of from about 0.3 micrometer to about 100 micrometers [0054] (instant claims 10 and 22). Gao also teaches that the substrate comprising a population of particles or beads comprising SARS-CoV-2 spike protein variant or fragment thereof immobilized thereon (claim 1) wherein said substrate is glass, plastic, polystyrene (instant claim 8) or nitrocellulose (claim 2) and the particle or bead can be labeled with a binding agent ( e.g., an antibody or streptavidin) [0066], (instant claim 8).
Fig. 1 depicts beads conjugated with S antigens (including RBD- see figure 2, instant claim 3). Sample (serum) is incubated with the beads so antibodies or ACE2 in a sample are captured by the antigen conjugated to the beads forming a complex bead with conjugated antigen complexed with antibody from sample). The complex is then detected by a labeled antibody. Fluorophores can be used in the assays, either to label the particle or bead, or to label a binding agent ( e.g., an antibody or streptavidin) [0066]. That is, Fig. 1 reads on the method of instant claim 13. Since the multiplex assay includes flow cytometry [0054], it is understood that there is a thin flow stream for the particles and complexes to flow and pass through an examination zone where the complexes are quantified). Because the assay involves detecting neutralizing antibodies against the S antigen, a labeled antibody to the S protein can also be used. Figure 1 also reads on the composition for the detection of neutralizing antibodies, protective antibodies specific for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. That is the composition of instant claims 1-3
Gao’s Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
803
1134
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Gao also teaches the S protein sequence (SEQ ID NO: 3) of instant SEQ ID NO 8 (S protein) (instant claims 4 and 16), which is 100% identical since both are wild type S protein. See sequence alignment below.
US-18-274-551-8
Query Match 23.0%; Score 1547; DB 1; Length 289;
Best Local Similarity 100.0%;
Matches 289; Conservative 0; Mismatches 0; Indels 0; Gaps 0;
Qy 16 VNLTTRTQLPPAYTNSFTRGVYYPDKVFRSSVLHSTQDLFLPFFSNVTWFHAIHVSGTNG 75
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 VNLTTRTQLPPAYTNSFTRGVYYPDKVFRSSVLHSTQDLFLPFFSNVTWFHAIHVSGTNG 60
Qy 76 TKRFDNPVLPFNDGVYFASTEKSNIIRGWIFGTTLDSKTQSLLIVNNATNVVIKVCEFQF 135
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 TKRFDNPVLPFNDGVYFASTEKSNIIRGWIFGTTLDSKTQSLLIVNNATNVVIKVCEFQF 120
Qy 136 CNDPFLGVYYHKNNKSWMESEFRVYSSANNCTFEYVSQPFLMDLEGKQGNFKNLREFVFK 195
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 CNDPFLGVYYHKNNKSWMESEFRVYSSANNCTFEYVSQPFLMDLEGKQGNFKNLREFVFK 180
Qy 196 NIDGYFKIYSKHTPINLVRDLPQGFSALEPLVDLPIGINITRFQTLLALHRSYLTPGDSS 255
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 NIDGYFKIYSKHTPINLVRDLPQGFSALEPLVDLPIGINITRFQTLLALHRSYLTPGDSS 240
Qy 256 SGWTAGAAAYYVGYLQPRTFLLKYNENGTITDAVDCALDPLSETKCTLK 304
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 241 SGWTAGAAAYYVGYLQPRTFLLKYNENGTITDAVDCALDPLSETKCTLK 289
Therefore, the reference teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
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.
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.
3. Claims 1-4, 6, 13-14, 16, 18, 27 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler (WO 97/14028 published on July 17, 1997, IDS: Foreign patent documents citation 4) in view of QHD43416.1 (GenBank: QHD43416.1, surface glycoprotein [Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2], VRL 18-MAR-2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/QHD43416.1) and De Rosa (Methods. 2012 July ; 57(3): 383–391)
Chandler teaches a method for the multiplexed (instant claims 32) diagnostic (instant claims 1 and 13) and genetic analysis of biomolecules comprising the steps of (1) constructing an appropriately labeled beadset, (2) exposing the beadset to a clinical sample and (3) analyzing the combined sample/beadset by flow cytometry (Abstract, instant claim 13). The composition beads are used to test for a variety of antibodies in a fluid sample. The beads are coupled to a given antigen of interest to form an assay beadset (Page. 10, lines 7-11) (instant claim 1 and “capture beads conjugated to a protein” of instant claim 13),
The beads are mixed with the fluid to be analyzed for antibodies (“sample” from instant claim 13) under conditions that will permit antigen-antibody interaction (Page. 10, lines 12-15). This process reads on incubating the “sample”, the “beads with antigen” with the “capture antibody having a detection molecule” (see below) (instant claim 13). The beads are labeled with a "secondary" reagent that binds to antibodies bound to the antigens on the beads and that also bears fluorescein (the “detection molecule” of instant claims 13 and 31). A fluoresceinated antibody specific for immunoglobulin may be used for this purpose (Page 10, lines 15 to 19) (“capture antibody having a detection molecule” of instant claim 13). The beads are then run through a flow cytometer (Page 10, lines 18-19). Flow cytometers hydrodynamically focus a fluid suspension of particles into a thin stream so that the particles flow down the stream in substantially single file and pass through an examination zone (Page 2, lines 11-14) (establishing a fluid stream and adding the selected capture beads conjugated to a protein (antigen) from instant claim 13). At the same time, the presence of antibodies specific for antigen can be detected by measuring green fluorescence of each bead (Page 10, lines 20-21), which reads on detecting the sample and the one or more capture beads by quantifying the capture antibody, wherein the protein is an antigen, (instant claim 13). Beadsets may be designed, for example, to detect antigens or antibodies associated with any of a number of infectious agents including viruses (Page. 17, lines 27-29) (“infective agent” of instant claim 13). The beadset may then be incubated with a fluid sample of interest, such as serum or plasma, to test for the presence of antibodies in the fluid that are reactive with antigens on the beads (Page 35, 26-29). After a period for binding of antibody, the beads in the mixture are incubated with a "secondary" antibody, for example, fluorescein labeled goat anti human immunoglobulin. The secondary antibody will bind to and fluorescently label the sample antibodies bound to antigen on the beads (Page 36, lines 1-5).
In summary, The paragraph above teaches the following limitations of instant claim 13: A method for detecting antibodies by flow cytometry comprising: establishing a fluid stream; adding a sample from a patient having one or more antibodies; selecting one or more capture beads conjugated to a protein; incubating the sample and the one or more capture beads conjugated to an antigen with a capture antibody having a detection molecule; and detecting the antibodies in the sample and the one or more capture beads conjugated to an antigen by quantifying the capture antibody, wherein the protein is an antigen.
In addition, Chandler teaches the screening of peptides for the epitope of a monoclonal antibody and nine overlapping octapeptides were synthesized that covered the predicted epitope. To the carboxyl terminal end of each peptide, glycine-lysine-biotin residues were added (Page 4, lines 11-18) (instant claims 6 and 18).
Chandler does not teach the SARS-CoV-2 antigens or that the patient is vaccinated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (instant claim 27).
QHD43416.1 teaches the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that includes the Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) as required in instant claims 1-4, 13-14 and 16 as shown in the image below where SEQ ID NO: 9 is highlighted in brown in the QHD43416.1 spike sequence as it is 100% identical.
PNG
media_image2.png
589
936
media_image2.png
Greyscale
De Rosa teaches vaccine application of flow cytometry (title, entire article). Flow cytometry is used to characterize B cells and new methods allow for identification and sorting of antigen-specific B cells (B cells carrying antibodies). New anti-HIV broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies have been obtained using this method and similar methods are in use in HIV vaccine recipients (page 2, first paragraph). Flow cytometry is used to monitor next generation HIV, TB and malaria vaccine
Trials (page 13 highlights).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chandler with QHD43416.1 to develop the flow cytometry method taught by Chandler using the Sars-CoV-2 antigens taught by QHD43416.1. It would have been further obvious to combine Chandler and QHD43416.1 with De Rosa and use samples from SARS-CoV-2 infected patients having antibodies as required in instant claim 27.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Chandler teaches that the method can be used with antigens from infectious agents including viruses. This would include any viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 or HIV and DeRosa teachings about the use of flow cytometry in patients vaccinated with HIV vaccines are applicable also to many types of vaccines, including SARS-CoV-2
There would be a reasonable expectation of success because flow cytometry is a well-established procedure used in many labs around the world and it is not specific to one particular virus or to one specific set of samples.
From the combined teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 12-13, 17 and 20-22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandler and QHD43416.1 in view of Buranda (J. Phys. Chem. B 1999, 103, 3399-341) and Ma (PLoS Pathogens September 2011, Volume 7, Issue 9 1-16).
Chandler and QHD43416.1 teachings have been discussed above and incorporated herein.
Chandler and QHD43416.1 do not teach the de-glycosylation of the antigen, the bead being a streptavidin coated polystyrene bead with a size a size in the range from about 2.0 um to about 12 um, from about 3.1 um to about 12 um, from about 3.1 um to about 6.9 um, or from about 3.1 um to about 6.8 um. The conjugation being a biotin- streptavidin conjugation as required by claims 5, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 20-22
Buranda teaches 6.2 um diameter, streptavidin-coated polystyrene beads (streptavidin-coated beads is a general term for any bead with streptavidin) using a combination of fluorometric and flow cytometric methods (abstract, entire article) as required by instant claims 8 and 10, 20 -22. The beads used are a viable platform for the study of streptavidin-biotin for use in biosensing or bioanalytical applications (Page 3409, second paragraph), which reads on a biotin-streptavidin conjugation (instant claim 12).
Buranda does not teach the de-glycosylation of the antigen as required by instant claims 5 and 17
Ma teaches that fully glycosylated HIV Env protein does not bind to inferred unmutated
ancestor antibodies (mimics of naive B cell receptors) of mAbs 2F5 and 4E10, but that partially deglycosylated Envs that have had glycans removed under non-denaturing condition did bind to 2F5 and 4E10 unmutated ancestor antibodies (page 2, author’s summary). Glycosylation can modulate the binding of antibodies to HIV gp120 with gain or loss of a glycosylation site in a virus mutant affecting both Env antigenicity and virus neutralization sensitivity (page 2, first column second paragraph). Figure 5 shows the binding of WT glycosylated and deglycosylated JRFL gp140 Env on DC-SIGN-expressing NIH 3T3 cells and control 3T3 cells can be analyzed by flow cytometry. Therefore, figure 5 shows that a deglycosylated antigen can be used in flow cytometry and the binding of the antigen to an antibody is enhanced by deglycosylation (instant claim s 5 and 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Chandler and QHD43416.1 to incorporate to the flow cytometry method (Chandler), using the Sars-CoV-2 antigens (QHD43416.1), improvements such as using streptavidin-coated polystyrene beads with a 6.2 um diameter (Buranda) or deglycosylation of the antigen (MA). It would further be obvious with that the size of the beads in a composition is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal amount of each ingredient needed to achieve the desired results. The principle of law states from MPEP 2144.05: "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." (Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382); Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 2.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because streptavidin-coated polystyrene beads are commonly used for flow cytometry or binding of the antigen to an antibody is enhanced by deglycosylation (MA).
There would be a reasonable expectation of success because flow cytometry and the reagents needed to perform the method are well-established protocols and procedures used in many labs around the world and it is not specific to one particular virus or to one specific set of samples.
From the combined teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMMA BARRERA whose telephone number is (571) 272-0674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 to 5.
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, Michael Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3497. 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.
/IMMA BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 1671
/RACHEL B GILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1671