DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application is the national stage of PCT/KR2022/003242, filed 08 March 2022, claiming foreign priority to KR10-2021-0029877, filed 08 March 2021. The International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in the PCT application have been received and reviewed. Regarding Applicant’s foreign priority claim, it is noted that while a certified copy of the foreign priority document is present in the application file, a certified translation has not been provided; accordingly, the effective filing date for purposes of comparing the claimed invention to the prior art is 08 March 2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 22-33) in the reply filed on 23 February 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 34-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 23 February 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species of “a combination of PLD4, ID3, and IL-7R” and “a gene encoding the protein” in the reply filed on 23 February 2026 is also acknowledged.
Claims 26-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 23 February 2026.
While the elected species is the three gene combination PLD4, ID3, and IL-7R, it is noted that independent claim 22 does not recite or otherwise require IL-7R; thus, the majority of the claims have been examined as directed to the combination of PLD4 and ID3. Dependent claims 25 and 31 recite IL-7R, and thus the elected species has been addressed via examination of claims 25 and 31.
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency – Nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences appearing in the specification are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(d). See in particular pages 30-32 and 35; in addition, as the Sequence Listing is required to be provided as a separate part of the disclosure, the additional copy of the listing incorporated into the specification should be removed from the required substitute specification.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers, consisting of:
A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the limitation “a primer, a probe, and an antisense nucleotide, which bind specifically to the gene” in claim 28, it is noted that while the limitation “the gene” is indefinite (as discussed below), this language is otherwise clear, with the phrase “which bind specifically to” being interpreted as a further limitation of each of the recited primer, probe, and “antisense nucleotide”, and with the term “antisense nucleotide” being interpreted as referring to an oligomer having complementarity to a target nucleotide acid (although not necessarily full/complete complementarity), as discussed in the specification at paragraph 45.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)/second paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-25 and 28-33 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 22-25 and 28-33 are indefinite over the recitation in independent claim 22 (from which all rejected claims depend) of the limitation “a biological sample isolated from a subject of interest” (see claim 22 at line 5), because it is unclear what types of samples are embraced by this language, particularly with regard to the known characteristics of the “subject” from whom the sample is/was isolated. The specification (paragraph 23) states that:
In the present invention, the term “subject of interest” refers to individuals that have cancer or are highly likely to have cancer, wherein the individuals may be mammals, including humans.
Based on this definition, some persons of skill in the art would interpret the claims as require that the required sample be isolated from a subject known to have, or known to be “highly likely” to have, cancer; however, given that the preamble of the claim recites an intended use of “diagnosing pancreatic cancer”, other such persons of skill could reasonably interpret the claims as embracing, e.g., a subject of unknown status who is “diagnosed” via the performance of the claimed method. In addition, the claims embrace subjects ‘highly likely” to have cancer, and this relative terminology
is not defined, 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. Thus, as the claims have various reasonable interpretations that impart different boundaries on what is claimed, further clarification is needed.
Claims 22-25 and 28-33 are also indefinite because independent claim 22 is directed to “a method of diagnosing pancreatic cancer” (see independent claim 22, line 1), but fails to recite or otherwise indicate how performance of the active steps of the claims (and particularly the “measuring an expression level” of claim 22) relates to and/or results in such “diagnosing”. Accordingly, the present claim language – while requiring a method having the intended use of “diagnosing pancreatic cancer” – fails to make clear how such a “diagnosing” is to actually occur, be achieved, etc. While the specification provides a definition of the term “subject of interest”, this definition does not render the “diagnosing” of the claims clear (as the term “subject of interest” is itself indefinite, as noted above); the status of the “subject of interest” might or might not be previously known, and it is not clear what would be encompassed by “diagnosing pancreatic cancer” to the extent that the claims might apply to subjects already known to have such cancer, etc. Further clarification is therefore needed to ensure that the boundaries of the claims are clear.
Claim 28 is indefinite over the recitation of the limitations “the agent for measuring the expression level of the gene” (lines 1-2) and “the gene” (lines 2 and 3), because sufficient antecedent basis is lacking for these limitations. More particularly, claim 22 (from which claim 28 depends) does not reference any “agent for measuring” expression level, and embraces multiple possible genes (as the claim refers to “a gene encoding the at least one protein”), such that it is not clear what is being referenced/further limited by use of the term “the gene” in claim 28.
Regarding claims 30-33, the term “highly likely” in each of the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly likely” 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. While it is noted that these claims recite conditional/contingent limitations (given the recitation of activities that occur “when” recited conditions occur), further clarification is still needed to ensure that the boundaries of the claims are clear.
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.
Claim(s) 22-23, 28-30, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandimalla et al (Clinical Cancer Research 26(14):3641 [July 2020; online 31 March 2020) in view of Lee et al (Molecular Cancer Research 9(6):782 [2011]; cited herein).
Independent claim 22 is directed to a method “of diagnosing pancreatic cancer” comprising (as drawn to the elected species) “a step of measuring an expression level” of genes encoding PLD4 and ID3 “in a biological sample isolated from a subject of interest”. It is reiterated that the manner in which the recitations “of diagnosing pancreatic cancer” and “subject of interest” limit the claims is unclear (as discussed above). The claims have been interpreted as encompassing performing the recited “measuring” on biological samples isolated from subjects with pancreatic cancer, as this is one reasonable interpretation of the language of the claims in light of the teachings of the specification.
Kandimalla et al teach a 15 gene signature that significantly associates with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) survival, which signature includes the elected gene PLD4; see entire reference, particularly the Abstract, the “Translational Relevance” on page 3642 (left column), and the Results at pages 3644-3646, particularly the disclosure of genes on page 3644, right column). Kandimalla et al disclose methods including measuring expression levels of their disclosed genes in FFPE PDAC specimens via qRT-PCR analysis of total RNA isolated from the specimens (see “Materials and Methods” on page 3642, right column, and the Results at page 3645, right column, first full paragraph). Kandimalla et al thereby teach methods meeting all of the requirements of claim 22 with respect to PLD4. (Again, the preamble limitation “diagnosing pancreatic cancer” as used in the present claims is considered a (indefinite) statement of an intended use that is non-limiting of what is claimed, as the claim language does not clearly require any particular outcome, and does not result in any manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art (see MPEP 2111.02)).
Kandimalla et al do not teach measuring expression level of the ID3 gene (i.e., the other claim 22 gene of the elected species under consideration herein).
Lee et al teach that Id3 (the protein encoded by ID3) is “pervasively expressed in neoplastic lesions in human PDA in situ”, and was also found to be expressed in pancreatitis, suggesting that Id3 “might induce cell cycle entry in ducts” (see entire reference, particularly the Abstract, and the Discussion on page 789, left column, first full paragraph). Lee et al also suggest that this pattern observed with Id3 “as an early and sustained feature of ductal pathogenesis” may provide a “potential therapeutic target for intervention in pancreatitis and PDA” (see the Abstract, and see also the Discussion at page 788, first paragraph in the left column). Lee et al teach that ID3 RNA may – like the signature genes of Kandimalla et al – be detected via qRT-PCR (see page 783, right column, last paragraph bridging to the top of the left column on page 784).
In view of teachings of Kandimalla et al and Lee et al, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed measurement of gene expression levels of both PLD4 and ID3 on biological samples isolated from pancreatic cancer patients, including via the quantitation of expressed RNA via qRT-PCR (as is taught by both references), and thereby to have performed methods meeting the requirements of independent claim 22, as well as dependent claims 28-29 (given the disclosure in both references of the use of primers targeting the elected genes in qRT-PCR). Both references pertain to measurement of expression levels of genes exhibiting altered expression patterns in association with PDAC, with the signature of Kandimalla et al (which includes PLD4) being taught as providing a benefit in determining prognosis and diagnosis, and the teachings regarding ID3 of Lee et al indicating a possible benefit in early disease detection/diagnosis and therapeutic intervention; i.e., an ordinary artisan would have recognized that the performance of both methods could provide different and complementary information about the status of a particular subject’s disease. An ordinary artisan would thus have been motivated to have performed both methods together on samples isolated from PDAC patients and/or pancreatitis patients (which are also taught by Lee et al) for the benefits of gaining information regarding disease status and prognosis, as suggested by both references, as well as for the potential benefit of earlier therapy/treatment and/or intervention (taught by Lee et al as discussed above, and also taught by Kandimalla et al as a potential benefit of their methods [see page 3647, both columns]). Furthermore, given the disclosures in both references of qRT-PCR analysis of RNA of the target genes in question, an ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in performing such methods.
With further regard to dependent claim 23, it is an inherent property of the specimens of each of Kandimalla et al and Lee et al that they include cells and “cell extracts”, such that embodiments embraced by claim 23 are taught by both references.
Regarding claims 28-29, the teachings of the references regarding the practice of qRT-PCR (which employs primers meeting the requirements of the “agent” of claim 28) are discussed above. Regarding claims 30 and 32-33, each of these claims recites activities that are performed only “when” particular conditions are met, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims reciting such conditional/contingent limitations “requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” (see MPEP 2111.04(II)). Furthermore, the “predicting” of claims 30 and 32 is an instructional limitation added to a method suggested by the prior art, i.e., nonfunctional descriptive material that need not be given patentable weight when comparing a claimed invention to the prior art (see MPEP 2111.05) (although it is noted that the cited does in fact suggest that PLD4 and ID3 expression levels are informative with regard to pancreatic cancer status, prognosis, etc.). With further regard to claim 33, while it is reiterated that the claim as written does not require the performance of therapy/treatment, the cited art does disclose the administration of pancreatic cancer therapies/treatments to tested subjects (e.g., see page 3647 of Kandimalla et al, disclosing “multi-disciplinary treatments including neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy given for resectable patients with PDAC in the clinical validation cohort”).
Accordingly, Kandimalla et al in view of Lee et al suggest the methods of claims 22-23, 28-30, and 32-33.
Claim(s) 23-25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandimalla et al in view of Lee et al, as applied to claims 22-23, 28-30, and 32-33, above, and further in view of Xu et al (Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology 8(4):656 [2019]; cited herein).
It is noted that claim 23 is also rejected as indicated in the preceding paragraph; this rejection applies to the claim to the extent that it requires a ‘liquid biopsy” type sample. The specification at paragraph 22 teaches that blood, serum, and plasma are all examples of a “liquid biopsy” sample.
The relevant teachings of Kandimalla et al and Lee et al are set forth above. Neither Kandimalla et al nor Lee et al teach the performance of gene expression measurements using a “liquid biopsy” such as blood (which is among the alternatives of claim 23 and encompassed by claim 24), or the measurement of expression levels of IL-7R (as set forth in claims 25 and 31).
Xu et al disclose the testing of T cells isolated from the blood of chemotherapy-refractory PDAC patients, teaching that PDAC “shows remarkable resistance to immunotherapy”, and that “T-cell ‘fitness’…has emerged as a key determinant of immunotherapy outcomes” (see entire reference, particularly page 656, left column). Xu et al further teach measuring expression levels of genes include IL7R (including via qRT-PCR) in such patient samples, reporting that IL7R was found to exhibit decreased expression in association with decreased survival (see entire reference, particularly page 656, center and right columns).
In view of the teachings of Xu et al, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the methods of Kandimalla et al in view of Lee et al so as to have performed measurement of gene expression levels of all of PLD4, ID3, and IL7R on blood samples isolated from pancreatic cancer patients, and more particularly on T cells present in such blood as taught by Xu et al, thereby meeting the requirements of all of claims 23-25 and 31. As Xu et al teach that the testing of T cells in blood aids in identifying disease resistant to treatment, an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to have performed such testing with regard to IL7R for the specific benefit taught by Xu et al (of identifying poor prognosis and likely poor immunotherapy response), and with regard to PLD4 and ID3 for the benefit of establishing/determining any such patterns with regard to these additional genes, and/or for the benefit of characterizing expression patterns in different types of PDAC biological samples (as compared to tested cell/tissue specimens taught by Kandimalla et al and Lee et al). Further, given Xu et al’s disclosure of the use of qRT-PCR in their testing - i.e., of the same technique disclosed by both Kandimalla et al and Lee et al - an ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in performing such methods (including with respect to blood/T cells from blood). With further regard to dependent claim 31, which recites a conditional/contingent “predicting”, it is reiterated that (as was the case with claims 30 and 32, addressed above), the claim recites activities that are performed only “when” particular conditions are met, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims reciting such conditional/contingent limitations “requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met” (see MPEP 2111.04(II)). Furthermore, the “predicting” of claim 31 is an instructional limitation added to a method suggested by the prior art, i.e., nonfunctional descriptive material that need not be given patentable weight when comparing a claimed invention to the prior art (see MPEP 2111.05) (although it is noted that the cited does in fact suggest that PLD4, ID3, and IL7R expression levels are informative with regard to pancreatic cancer status, prognosis, etc., as discussed above).
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 22-25 and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 22 is drawn to a “method of diagnosing pancreatic cancer” comprising “a step of measuring an expression level” of a gene encoding at least one of the proteins recited in the claim (with the elected species as recited in claim 22 corresponding to PLD4 and ID3) “in a biological sample isolated from a subject of interest”. The activity of “diagnosing pancreatic cancer” as recited in this claim, while indefinite, appears to encompass activities such as thinking about and drawing conclusions regarding what the results of the “measuring” are, which is an activity that may be conducted entirely in the human mind, i.e., an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the “measuring an expression level” of the claims is a data gathering step that fails to implement/apply the abstract idea of the claims, i.e., it does not add a meaningful limitation to the method as it is insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the broadly and generally recited activity of “measuring an expression level” of a known gene or genes in a biological sample (including via various preferred methods as set forth in dependent claim 29) corresponds to the types of laboratory techniques/activities that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the life science arts when claimed a generic manner (as they are in the instant claims); see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). It is also noted that measurement of expression of each of the genes of the elected species (including in the context of pancreatic cancer) was well-known, routine, and conventional as of Applicant’s effective filing date (see again Kandimalla et al, Lee et al, Xu et al); additionally, the occurrence of altered expression levels of such genes in biological samples of a subject with pancreatic cancer is a natural phenomenon, i.e., another JE, not something “more” than a JE. An inventive concept cannot be furnished by a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract idea) itself (see MPEP 2106.05(I)). Thus, independent claim 22 is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
With further regard to dependent claims 23-24, these claims recite types of sample from which data is gathered (i.e., a more particular type of data gathering rather than an application/implementation of a JE), which sample types were also in routine and conventional use as of Applicant’s effective filing date (such that nothing “significantly more” than a JE is added; it is again noted that the term “liquid biopsy” in claim 24 encompasses well-known sample types such as blood, serum, plasma, etc.; see, e.g., the specification at paragraph 22). Regarding claim 25, this claim recites the gathering of data regarding an additional gene, i.e., another type of insignificant extrasolution activity (rather than any type of application of a JE), and such “measuring” fails to add something “significantly more” for the same reasons noted above regarding the “measuring” of independent claim 22 (as even when these activities are considered in combination, such broadly recited “measuring” is a type of activity considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, and was also well-known in the prior art as exemplified by the teachings of Xu et al; further, any altered expression of IL7R in the context of cancer is also a natural phenomenon, i.e., a JE, rather than something “more” than a JE). Regarding claim 28, this claim embraces the use of a generally recited “agent” such as a primer or probe in data gathering; this is a further limitation on data gathering rather than any type of application/implementation of a JE, and such use of a generically recited primer/probe again corresponds to a laboratory technique/activity that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the life science arts (again see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The analysis applied to claim 28 also applies to claim 29, as this claim recites broad categories of types of ‘measuring” that were well-known as of Applicant’s effective filing date. Claims 30-33 each recite further limitations that are conditional/contingent (as the claims specify activities that occur “when” a condition is met, with that condition not being required by the claims). As discussed in MPEP 2111.04(II), “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”; thus, the same analysis applied to claim 22 also applies to these claims. Furthermore, the activity of “predicting” as set forth in claims 30-32 encompasses, e.g., further thought about the implications of test results, which is another type of abstract idea (rather than something “more” than a JE), and as such “predicting” does not require any further action/implementation of a JE, nothing that could be considered a practical application is set forth in the claims. Finally, while it is noted that claim 33 states “administering an anticancer therapeutic drug”, such administering only occurs “when” a condition is met (such that the “administering” is not a required activity, as noted above). Further, “administering an anticancer therapeutic” embraces the use of any type of therapy, i.e., an extremely broad/general “administering” rather than something that could be considered a “particular treatment”; thus, even if such an “administering” were to be required by the claim language, this would not be considered a practical application of a JE (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). Additionally, such a generally recited “administering an anticancer therapeutic drug” to a “subject of interest” having pancreatic cancer also clearly constituted well-known, routine, and conventional activity as of Applicant’s effective filing date.
Accordingly, none of claims 22-25 and 28-33 is directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA B JOHANNSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am-3:30 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, Wu-Cheng Winston Shen can be reached at (571) 272-3157. 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.
/DIANA B JOHANNSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682