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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of group I and species A in the reply filed on 06/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06/26/2026.
Claim 10 is allowed. The restriction requirement between Species A-C, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 05/22/2026, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 05/22/2026 is partially withdrawn. Claims 14 and 15, directed to species B and C are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. However, claims 19-23, directed to Invention II remain withdrawn from consideration because they do not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/145656 (the provisional application), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for claims 2, 5-6 and 12 of this application.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “the oxidized cofactor is … FMN+”, however no description using FMN+ could be identified in the provisional application.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “the metal is selected from Cr … and W … and/or E is selected from … B, C, N, … Se, Te, and P”, however no description of the use of the metals Cr or W, or the non-metal elements B, C, N, Se, Te, or P could be identified in the provisional application.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “the groups of … MoSex, WSex, and WSx”, however no description of these compounds could be identified in the provisional application.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “the oxidoreductase is selected from … aldehyde dehydrogenases, ene reductases, amino acid dehydrogenases, oxidoreductases of CH-NH groups, nitrate reductases, oxidoreductases acting on a sulfur group, dehydrogenases of diphenols, peroxidases, hydrogenases, oxygenases, monooxygenases, oxidoreductases of metal ions, oxidoreductases acting on CH or CH2 groups, oxidoreductases of iron-sulfur proteins and of flavodoxin, reductive dehalogenases, and oxidoreductases reducing a C-O-C group”, however no support for these oxidoreductase species could be identified in the provisional application.
It is further noted that, due to an apparent typo on the application data sheet, the current Assignee of the instant application is “King Adbullah University of Science and Technology” rather than “King Abdullah University of Science and Technology” as listed in the priority documents.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 3 reads “solution;”, but should read “solution; and” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 2 lines 1-2 recite “the oxidized cofactor is selected from the group consisting of cofactor of”, but should recite “the oxidized cofactor is selected from the group consisting of
Claim 3 line 2 recites “about -0.3V to -0.6 V”, but should recite “about -0.3 V to -0.6 V” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 10 line 5 reads “oxidized;”, but should read “oxidized; and” to be grammatically correct.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the term “about -0.3V” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, the specification uses the term “about -0.3 V”, but does not describe any standard for what deviation from -0.3 V would be considered “about -0.3 V”.
Claims 4 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, claim 1, from which claims 4 and 5 depend, recites “a Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst” in line 2. However, claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein E is a non-metal element”, which includes species that are not chalcogenides, and claim 5 explicitly recites “wherein … E is selected from B, C, N, … and P”, however B, C, N, and P are not chalcogenides. Thus, claims 4 and 5 inappropriately broaden the scope of claim 1 to include catalysts that are not “Group VI transition metal chalcogenides”. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) is therefore appropriate.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vincent (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0044723 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Vincent teaches a method of electrochemical cofactor regeneration (abstract) comprising:
holding an electrode (“an electrode” para. 74) comprising a Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst (“the second electron transfer component comprises or consists of non-biological nanoparticles … such as molybdenum disulfide … the catalyst (hydrogenase or non-biological nanoparticle) is attached to an electrode” Id.) at a potential sufficient to form a metal hydride (“the electrode potential is cycled between lower and upper limiting potentials, e.g., -0.6 V vs the standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) and 0.2 V vs SHE.” para. 74 and see below) in an aqueous electrolyte solution (“an electrochemical cell solution containing buffered electrolyte (for example 50 mM phosphate at pH 7.0)” para. 74; and
contacting the electrode with an oxidized cofactor to reduce the cofactor (e.g., NAD+ is reduced to NADH, abstract and see e.g., Fig. 7).
Regarding the limitation “a potential sufficient to form a metal hydride”, Vincent teaches a potential of -0.6 V vs. SHE is applied to the electrode during the reduction process, and the catalyst is MoS2. As evidenced by e.g., claim 3 and paras. 4 and 62 of the instant specification, a potential of -0.6 V vs. SHE is sufficient to form an Mo(III)Sx hydride species. Vincent therefore anticipates the limitation “a potential sufficient to form a metal hydride” (MPEP § 2112).
Regarding claim 2, Vincent further teaches the oxidized cofactor is NAD+ (“the invention provides a method for (re)generating NAD+” para. 95) or NADP+ (“another embodiment, the invention provides a method for (re)generating NADP [sic]” para. 97).
Regarding claim 3, Vincent further teaches the potential is held at -0.6 V, a value within the claimed range (“the electrode potential is cycled between lower and upper limiting potentials, e.g., -0.6 V vs the standard hydrogen electrode (SHE) and 0.2 V vs SHE.” para. 74).
Regarding claim 9, Vincent anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Vincent further teaches the aqueous electrolyte solution comprises potassium phosphate (“50 mM phosphate at pH 7.0” para. 74 and “potassium phosphate buffer” e.g., para. 217).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (CN 113058621 A) as evidenced by Jerkiewicz (“Standard and Reversible Hydrogen Electrodes: Theory, Design, Operation, and Applications” ACS Catal. 2020, 10, 8409−8417).
It is noted that the publication date of Li (07/02/2021) lies between the effective filing date of 02/04/2021 applicable to claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-11, and 13-17, and the effective filing date of 02/04/2022 applicable to claims 2, 5-6, and 12. Thus Li, is only considered to be prior art with respect to claims 2, 5-6, and 12.
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches a method of electrochemical cofactor regeneration (“reduced coenzyme regeneration catalyst” abstract and “the catalytic reduction includes electrocatalytic reduction or photoelectrocatalytic reduction.” para. n0044) comprising:
holding an electrode comprising a Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst (“a Cu/CoMoSx electrode” para. n0101) at a potential sufficient to form a metal hydride (“a voltage of -0.9V vs was applied” para. n0101 and see below) in an aqueous electrolyte solution (“a 0.1M sodium phosphate buffer solution” para. n0101); and
contacting the electrode with an oxidized cofactor to reduce the cofactor (“0.5mM NAD+” para. n0101 and “the CoMoSx catalyst has high activity in the electrocatalytic NADH regeneration reaction” para. n0102), wherein the oxidized cofactor is NAD+ (Id.).
Regarding the limitation “a potential sufficient to form a metal hydride”, the instant specification indicates that a potential of -0.6 V vs. SHE is sufficient to form an Mo(III)Sx hydride species (e.g., claim 3 and paras. 4 and 62). Li teaches a potential of -0.9 V vs. Ag/AgCl (para. n0101), which is equivalent to about -0.7 V vs. SHE as evidenced by e.g., Jerkiewicz1.
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches a method of improving the rate of an oxidoreductase-catalyzed reaction (para. n0052) comprising:
reacting an oxidoreductase and a substrate thereof in the presence of an oxidoreductase cofactor, whereby the substrate is converted to a first product and the cofactor is oxidized (“NADH obtained by electrocatalytic reduction is consumed by the formaldehyde reduction reaction catalyzed by alcohol dehydrogenase” para. n0131);
regenerating the oxidized cofactor with an electrode comprising a Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst at a potential sufficient to form a metal hydride (“The NADH obtained by electrocatalytic reduction of NAD+ using a metal sulfide catalyst in the aforementioned reaction” para. n0130, “a Cu/CoMoSx electrode” para. n0101, and “a voltage of -0.9V vs was applied” para. n0101 and see below), wherein the rate of the reaction is improved compared to the rate of a corresponding oxidoreductase-catalyzed reaction performed without regenerating the oxidized cofactor (“Figure 5 shows that the NADH obtained by electrocatalytic reduction is consumed by the formaldehyde reduction reaction catalyzed by alcohol dehydrogenase.” para. n0131),
wherein the oxidoreductase is an NADH-dependent oxidoreductase (“alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH)” para. n0131),
wherein the oxidoreductase is an alcohol dehydrogenase (Id.).
Regarding the limitation “a potential sufficient to form a metal hydride”, the instant specification indicates that a potential of -0.6 V vs. SHE is sufficient to form an Mo(III)Sx hydride species (e.g., claim 3 and paras. 4 and 62). Li teaches a potential of -0.9 V vs. Ag/AgCl (para. n0101), which is equivalent to about -0.7 V vs. SHE as evidenced by e.g., Jerkiewicz2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0044723 A1) in view of Hu (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0068613 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Vincent anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Vincent does not teach the Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst has the formula MEx, where M is a Group VI transition metal, E is a non-metal element, and x is a number greater than 2.
Vincent instead teaches the Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst is MoS2 (“molybdenum disulfide” para. 74) i.e., wherein x is exactly 2.
However, Hu teaches that amorphous MoS3, a Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst having the formula MEx, where M is a Group VI transition metal, E is a non-metal element, and x is a number greater than 2, has a lower overpotential/higher catalytic activity for the electrochemical interconversion of H+ and H2 relative to MoS2 (“The apparent current density (J) for the MoS3-DM film at η=150 mV is ca. 0.4 mA/cm2 at pH=0, higher than that for the MoS2 crystals at the same overpotential (J ≈ 0.2 mA/cm2” para. 67, see also para. 78).
As Vincent teaches a method for the regeneration of oxidoreductase cofactors, Vincent is analogous art to the instant invention. As Hu teaches the catalytic properties of group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalysts, Hu is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Vincent, such that the Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst is MoS3, as taught by Hu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this motivation because Hu teaches MoS3 has superior catalytic properties for the electrochemical interconversion of H2 and H+ relative to MoS2. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., MoS3 as an catalyst for converting H2 to H+) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 5, modified Vincent, via Hu, further teaches M is Mo and E is S (“MoS3-DM film” para. 67).
Regarding claim 6, Vincent anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Vincent does not teach the Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst is selected from the group of MoSx, MoSex, WSex, and WSx, wherein x is a number greater than 2.
Vincent instead teaches the Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst is MoS2 (“molybdenum disulfide” para. 74) i.e., wherein x is exactly 2.
However, Hu teaches that MoS3 has a lower overpotential/higher catalytic activity for the electrochemical interconversion of H+ and H2 relative to MoS2 (“The apparent current density (J) for the MoS3-DM film at η=150 mV is ca. 0.4 mA/cm2 at pH=0, higher than that for the MoS2 crystals at the same overpotential (J ≈ 0.2 mA/cm2” para. 67, see also para. 78).
As Vincent teaches a method for the regeneration of oxidoreductase cofactors, Vincent is analogous art to the instant invention. As Hu teaches the catalytic properties of group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalysts, Hu is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Vincent, such that the Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst is MoS3, as taught by Hu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this motivation because Hu teaches MoS3 has superior catalytic properties for the electrochemical interconversion of H2 and H+ relative to MoS2. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., MoS3 as an catalyst for converting H2 to H+) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, Vincent anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), incorporated herein by reference.
Vincent does not explicitly teach the Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst is amorphous.
However, Hu teaches that amorphous MoS3, has a lower overpotential/higher catalytic activity for the electrochemical interconversion of H+ and H2 relative to MoS2 (“The apparent current density (J) for the MoS3-DM film at η=150 mV is ca. 0.4 mA/cm2 at pH=0, higher than that for the MoS2 crystals at the same overpotential (J ≈ 0.2 mA/cm2” para. 67 and “amorphous MoS3-DM compares favorably with the best known non-precious catalysts in terms of bulk catalytic properties” para. 78).
As Vincent teaches a method for the regeneration of oxidoreductase cofactors, Vincent is analogous art to the instant invention. As Hu teaches the catalytic properties of group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalysts, Hu is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Vincent, such that the Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst is amorphous MoS3, as taught by Hu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this motivation because Hu teaches MoS3 has superior catalytic properties for the electrochemical interconversion of H2 and H+ relative to MoS2. Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose (i.e., amorphous MoS3 as an catalyst for converting H2 to H+) establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11, 13-15, and 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not reasonably teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claim 10, with a particular emphasis on the limitation “regenerating the oxidized cofactor with an electrode comprising a Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst at a potential sufficient to form a metal hydride”.
The closest prior art is considered to be Vincent (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0044723 A1), Yoo (WO 2009/028920), and Armiger (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0335473 A1). Morrison et al. (“Improved strategies for electrochemical 1,4-NAD(P)H2 regeneration: A new era of bioreactors for industrial biocatalysis” Biotechnology Advances 36 (2018) 120–131) and Immanuel et al. (“Recent Progress and Perspectives on Electrochemical Regeneration of Reduced Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide (NADH)” Chem Asian J. 2020, 15, 4256–4270) are considered to provide context as to the knowledge available to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant application.
As described in the rejection of claim 1, above, Vincent teaches a method comprising steps of holding an electrode comprising a group VI transition metal chalcogenide (i.e., MoS2) at a potential sufficient to form a metal hydride (i.e., -0.6 V vs. SHE) in an aqueous electrolyte solution, wherein said electrode is contacted with an oxidized cofactor (i.e., NAD+ or NADP+) to reduce the cofactor.
However, Vincent does not reach the oxidized cofactor is regenerated by holding said transition metal chalcogenide at said potential sufficient to form a metal hydride. Rather, Vincent teaches the steps of electrochemically forming a metal hydride and contacting the electrode with the oxidized cofactor are discreet.
Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have had a particular motivation to modify the method of Vincent such that the step of holding the electrode at a potential sufficient to form a metal hydride and the step of contacting the electrode with an oxidized cofactor are simultaneous. Specifically, Vincent uses HoxFU to catalyze the reduction of the oxidized cofactor, and it is considered that the ability of MoS2 (or Group VI transition metal sulfides in general) to catalyze the reduction of oxidized cofactors was not recognized prior to the effective filing date of the instant application (see below).
Yoo teaches a method of improving the rate of an oxidoreductase-catalyzed reaction (para. 56 et seq.) comprising:
reacting an oxidoreductase (“an alcohol dehydrogenase was used as the oxidoreductase,” para. 57) and a substrate thereof (“The substance used as the substrate was 2-propanol” Id.) in the presence of an oxidoreductase cofactor (“0.5 mM NADP+ was used as the cofactor” Id.).
Yoo does not teach the substrate is converted to a first product and the cofactor is oxidized, regenerating the oxidized cofactor with an electrode comprising a Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst, or the rate of reaction is improved compared to the rate of a corresponding oxidoreductase-catalyzed reaction performed without regenerating the oxidized cofactor.
Yoo instead teaches the substrate is converted to a first product and the cofactor is reduced (“NADP+ introduced in the initial reaction was reduced by the enzymatic reaction,” para. 58 and Figs. 1b and 5), regenerating the reduced cofactor with an electrode comprising a Group VI transition metal chalcogenide catalyst (“and the reduced form, NADPH, underwent an oxidation reaction” para. 58 and “Cr2O3” Table 1 and Fig. 8), wherein the rate of the reaction is improved compared to the rate of a corresponding oxidoreductase-catalyzed reaction performed without regenerating the reduced cofactor (e.g., paras. 1 and 58 and Fig. 5).
Yoo further teaches that the transition metal chalcogenide catalyst (i.e., Cr2O3) can also be used to regenerate an oxidized cofactor by an electrochemical reduction (Table 1 lists a reduction potential for Cr2O3, and see paras. 53-55, and Figs. 1a and 4). It is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of Yoo such that the substrate is converted to a first product and the cofactor is oxidized, and the oxidized cofactor is regenerated at the electrode, because Yoo teaches this system can be operated in reverse from that described in the Example 1-4 (paras. 56 et seq.).
However, Yoo provides no suggestion that a metal hydride is formed at the potentials used to electrochemically reduce the oxidized cofactor. Furthermore, no suggestion that Cr2O3 (or any of the metal oxides used in Yoo) form metal hydrides at the potentials used. It therefore cannot reasonably be considered that Yoo teaches “a potential sufficient to form a metal hydride” implicitly or inherently based on the available evidence.
Armiger teaches a method for improving the rate of an oxidoreductase-catalyzed reaction by electrochemically reducing an oxidized cofactor at a cathode (see e.g., Fig. 3 and “The ETM is optional as it is possible to deliver electrons from the cathode directly to the NAD(P) cofactor” para. 66).
However, Armiger does not teach the electrode comprises a Group VI transition metal chalcogenide, but rather carbon (“the cathode chamber comprises a cathode primarily composed of carbon” para. 92).
In general, it appears that the ability of Group VI transition metal chalcogenides to catalyze the reduction of oxidized cofactors was not recognized in the prior art before the (earliest) effective filing date of the instant invention.
Morrison and Immanuel each provide reviews of methods for electrochemically reducing oxidized cofactors, but neither report describes any examples using Group VI transition metal chalcogenides for this purpose.
It is therefore considered that the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or disclose the cumulative limitations of claim 10. Claim 10 is therefore considered to be patentably distinguished over the prior art.
Regarding claims 11, 13-15, and 17, these claims depend from claim 10, and therefore incorporate the allowable subject matter of claim 10. Claims 11, 13-15, and 17 are therefore patentably distinguished over the prior art for at least the reasons enumerated for claim 10, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
1Converted by adding 0.2 V, see Jerkiewicz Fig. 7 and para. directly below Fig. 7
2Converted by adding 0.2 V, see Jerkiewicz Fig. 7 and para. directly below Fig. 7
Prosecution Insights