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 .
The claim amendment and response filed on May 01, 2026 is received.
Claims 1-22 are pending in this application ,claims 19-22 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-18 are being examined.
Restriction/Election:
Applicant’s election without traverse of, Group I claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 05/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Groups II and III0, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/01/2026.
Claim Rejection - 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.
Claims 6 and 11-13 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.
In claim 6, the phrase “wherein health-promoting comprises growth-promoting and/or producing a bacteriocin or antimicrobial” is confusing which renders the claim indefinite. From the way the phrase is written it is not exactly what applicant is trying to claim a Markush group ?
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: amend to better define the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitations “other P. syringae pathovars “ and “other pathogenic Xanthamona”, and the claim also recites “Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato” and “X. axonopodis pv. glycines, X. axonopodis pv. vasculorum, X vasicola pv. holcicola, X vasicola pv. vasculorum, X campestris pv. campestris”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitations “other Bacillus species”, “other Serratia species” and “other Pseudomonas species”, and the claim also recites “Bacillus cereus, B. circulans, B. coagulans, B. lichen formis, B. megaterium, B. pseudomycoides, B. pumilus“, “Serratia marcescens, S. plymuthica, S. rubidaea” and “P. aeruginosa”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitations “other Citrobacter species”, “other Hafnia species”, “other Morganella species”, “other Pantoea species”, “other Salmonella species”, and the claim also recites “Citrobacter amalonaticus, C. freundii, C. koseri”, “Hafnia alvei, Morganella morganiior, Pantoea vagans, Salmonella enterica” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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.
In claim 9, the phrase “wherein the method comprises: selecting one or more plant-associated bacterial isolates for promoting plant health, comprising: (a) co-culturing each of the bacterial isolates with a phytopathogen; (b) determining the level of inhibition activity for each bacterial isolate against the phytopathogen; (c) co-culturing each of the bacterial isolates with a plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, a probiotic, or a plant commensal; (d) determining the level of inhibition activity for each bacterial isolate against the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, probiotic, or plant commensal; …” fails to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which it depends.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: in claim 9, line 1, replace “comprises” with –is--.
In claim 10, the phrase “wherein promoting plant health comprises promoting one or more plant health parameters selected from the following list: (i) disease resistance; (ii) the ability to produce or change the concentration of indoleacetic acid, gibberellic acid, cytokinins, and/or ethylene; (iii) the ability to perform a symbiotic N2 fixation; (iv) the ability to produce siderophores, antibiotics, or cyanide; (v) the ability to solubilize mineral phosphates and other nutrients; and (vi) the ability to change performance of symbiotic N2 fixation, nodulation, or nodule occupancy” fails to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which it depends.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: in claim 10, line 1, replace “comprises” with –is--.
In claim 11, the phrase “wherein the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria comprises Alcaligens species, Arthrobacter species, Bacillus cereus, B. circulans, B. coagulans, B. lichen formis, B. megaterium, B. pseudomycoides, B. pumilus, and other Bacillus species., Enterobacter aerogenes, E. cloacae, E. taylorae, Klebsiella oxytoca, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and other Pseudomonas species, Paraburkholderia species, Serratia marcescens, S. plymuthica, S. rubidaea and other Serratia species, and Acinetobacter baumanniiorother Acinetobacter species” fails to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which it depends.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: in claim 11, line 1, replace “comprises” with –is--.
In claim 12, the phrase “wherein the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria comprises Alcaligens species, Arthrobacter species, Bacillus cereus, B. circulans, B. coagulans, B. lichen formis, B. megaterium, B. pseudomycoides, B. pumilus, and other Bacillus species., Enterobacter aerogenes, E. cloacae, E. taylorae, Klebsiella oxytoca, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and other Pseudomonas species, Paraburkholderia species, Serratia marcescens, S. plymuthica, S. rubidaea and other Serratia species, and Acinetobacter baumanniiorother Acinetobacter species” fails to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which it depends.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: in claim 12, line 1, replace “comprises” with –is--.
In claim 13, the phrase “wherein the plant commensal comprises Arabidopsis species, Citrobacter amalonaticus, C. freundii, C. koseri or other Citrobacter species, Escherichia coli, Hafnia alveior other Hafnia species, Morganella morganiior other Morganella species, Pantoea vagans or other Pantoea species, Proteus mirabilis, Providencia rettgeri, Salmonella enterica or other Salmonella species, or Stenotrophomonas maltophili” fails to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which it depends.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: in claim 13, line 1, replace “comprises” with –is--.
In claim 14, the phrase “wherein co-culturing comprises co-culturing on a transwell plate, in a microfluidic platform, on a solid support, or in a broth” fails to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which it depends.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: in claim 14, line 1, replace “comprises” with –is--.
In claim 15, the phrase “wherein co-culturing comprises co-culturing on a solid support” fails to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which it depends.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: in claim 15, line 1, replace “comprises” with –is--.
In claim 16, the phrase “wherein a solid support comprises a plate, a three- dimensional scaffold, a hydrogel, or a microarray” fails to further limit the subject matter of the claims upon which it depends.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: in claim 16, line 1, replace “comprises” with –is--.
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 Rejection - 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 1-7, 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pliego et al. (Plant Soil, 2011, 340, 505–520).
Regarding claim 1, Pliego et al. disclose a method of selecting one or more organism-associated bacterial isolates for promoting organism health, comprising: (a) co-culturing each of the bacterial isolates with an organism-associated pathogen; b) determining the level of inhibition activity for each bacterial isolate against the organism-associated pathogen; (c) co-culturing each of the bacterial isolates with an organism health-promoting bacteria; (d) determining the level of inhibition activity for each bacterial isolate against the organism health-promoting bacteria; and (e) selecting the one or more bacterial isolates for promoting organism health if: the bacterial isolate has inhibition activity against the organism-associated pathogen according to step (b); and the bacterial isolate has substantially no inhibition activity against the organism health- promoting bacteria according to step (d) (dual plate assay searching for antagonistic bacteria, screening for bacterial control agent or BCA of soil phytopathogenic fungus of avocado root rot, and correlation between biocontrol and colonization, and selection of competitive root tip colonizers) (See for example, p. 514 both columns and p. 515 figure 1 and related description, and p. 510 both columns).
Regarding claim 2, Pliego et al. disclose the organism is a non-microbial eukaryote (plants) (See for example, p. 511 left-hand column 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Pliego et al. disclose the non-microbial eukaryote is an aquatic organism, a terrestrial organism, a human, or a plant (plants) (See for example, p. 511 left-hand column 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Pliego et al. disclose the organism is a plant (plants) (See for example, p. 511 left-hand column 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Pliego et al. disclose the organism-associated pathogen is a phytopathogen (phytopathogenic fungi, etc.) (See for example, p. 509 left-hand column last paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Pliego et al. disclose health-promoting comprises growth-promoting and/or producing a bacteriocin or antimicrobial (stimulate plant growth) (See for example, p. 510 right-hand column 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Pliego et al. disclose the organism health-promoting bacteria is a rhizobacteria, a probiotic, or a plant commensal (rhizobacteria) (See for example, p. 510 right-hand column 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Pliego et al. disclose the method comprises: selecting one or more plant-associated bacterial isolates for promoting plant health, comprising: (a) co-culturing each of the bacterial isolates with a phytopathogen; (b) determining the level of inhibition activity for each bacterial isolate against the phytopathogen; (c) co-culturing each of the bacterial isolates with a plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, a probiotic, or a plant commensal; (d) determining the level of inhibition activity for each bacterial isolate against the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, probiotic, or plant commensal; and e)selecting the one or more bacterial isolates for promoting plant health if: the bacterial isolate has inhibition activity against the phytopathogen according to step (b); and the bacterial isolate has substantially no inhibition activity against the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, probiotic, or plant commensal according to step (d) (dual plate assay searching for antagonistic bacteria, screening for bacterial control agent or BCA of soil phytopathogenic fungus of avocado root rot, and correlation between biocontrol and colonization, and selection of competitive root tip colonizers) (See for example, p. 514 both columns and p. 515 figure 1 and related description, and p. 510 both columns).
Regarding claim 10, Pliego et al. disclose the method of promoting plant health comprises promoting one or more plant health parameters selected from the following list: (i) disease resistance; (ii) the ability to produce or change the concentration of indoleacetic acid, gibberellic acid, cytokinins, and/or ethylene; (iii) the ability to perform a symbiotic N2 fixation; (iv) the ability to produce siderophores, antibiotics, or cyanide; (v) the ability to solubilize mineral phosphates and other nutrients; and (vi) the ability to change performance of symbiotic N2 fixation, nodulation, or nodule occupancy (biological control agent or BCA, suppress disease) (See for example, p. 505 right-hand column last paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Pliego et al. disclose the phytopathogen comprises Erwinia amylovora, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato or other P. syringae pathovars, P. cichorii, Xanthomonas campestris pv. armoraciae and pv. vesicatoria, Ralstonia solanacearum, X. axonopodis pv. glycines, X. axonopodis pv. vasculorum, X vasicola pv. holcicola, X vasicola pv. vasculorum, X campestris pv. campestris or other pathogenic Xanthamonas, or Xylella fastidiosa (Agrobacterium tumefaciens) (See for example, p. 507 Table 1, 3rd column, 8th row).
Regarding claim 12, Pliego et al. disclose the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria comprises Alcaligens species, Arthrobacter species, Bacillus cereus, B. circulans, B. coagulans, B. lichen formis, B. megaterium, B. pseudomycoides, B. pumilus, and other Bacillus species., Enterobacter aerogenes, E. cloacae, E. taylorae, Klebsiella oxytoca, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and other Pseudomonas species, Paraburkholderia species, Serratia marcescens, S. plymuthica, S. rubidaea and other Serratia species, and Acinetobacter baumanniiorother or other Acinetobacter species (Pseudomonas species) (See for example, p. 507 Table 1, 3rd column, 9th row).
Regarding claim 13, Pliego et al. disclose the plant commensal comprises Arabidopsis species, Citrobacter amalonaticus, C. freundii, C. koseri or other Citrobacter species, Escherichia coli, Hafnia alveior other Hafnia species, Morganella morganiior other Morganella species, Pantoea vagans or other Pantoea species, Proteus mirabilis, Providencia rettgeri, Salmonella enterica or other Salmonella species, or Stenotrophomonas maltophili (Arabidopsis) (See for example, p. 511 left-hand column 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Pliego et al. disclose co-culturing comprises co-culturing on a transwell plate, in a microfluidic platform, on a solid support, or in a broth (plate assay) (See for example, p. 514 right-hand column 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Pliego et al. disclose co-culturing comprises co-culturing on a solid support (agar plates) (See for example, p. 514 right-hand column 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, Pliego et al. disclose a solid support comprises a plate, a three-dimensional scaffold, a hydrogel, or a microarray (agar plates) (See for example, p. 514 right-hand column 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, Pliego et al. disclose the plate is a nutrient agar plate (agar plates) (See for example, p. 514 right-hand column 1st paragraph).
Pliego et al. therefore anticipate the claimed method of selecting one or more organism-associated bacterial isolates for promoting organism health.
Claim Rejection - 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.
Claim 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pliego et al. (Plant Soil, 2011, 340, 505–520) and Kinkel et al. (WO 2020/023808 A1, which is also cited in the IDS filed on 05/01/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Pliego et al. teach a method of selecting one or more organism-associated bacterial isolates for promoting organism health, comprising: (a) co-culturing each of the bacterial isolates with an organism-associated pathogen; b) determining the level of inhibition activity for each bacterial isolate against the organism-associated pathogen; (c) co-culturing each of the bacterial isolates with an organism health-promoting bacteria; (d) determining the level of inhibition activity for each bacterial isolate against the organism health-promoting bacteria; and (e) selecting the one or more bacterial isolates for promoting organism health if: the bacterial isolate has inhibition activity against the organism-associated pathogen according to step (b); and the bacterial isolate has substantially no inhibition activity against the organism health- promoting bacteria according to step (d) (dual plate assay searching for antagonistic bacteria, screening for bacterial control agent or BCA of soil phytopathogenic fungus of avocado root rot, and correlation between biocontrol and colonization, and selection of competitive root tip colonizers) (See for example, p. 514 both columns and p. 515 figure 1 and related description, and p. 510 both columns).
Regarding claim 2, Pliego et al. teach the organism is a non-microbial eukaryote (plants) (See for example, p. 511 left-hand column 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Pliego et al. teach the non-microbial eukaryote is an aquatic organism, a terrestrial organism, a human, or a plant (plants) (See for example, p. 511 left-hand column 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Pliego et al. teach the organism is a plant (plants) (See for example, p. 511 left-hand column 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Pliego et al. teach the organism-associated pathogen is a phytopathogen (phytopathogenic fungi, etc.) (See for example, p. 509 left-hand column last paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Pliego et al. teach health-promoting comprises growth-promoting and/or producing a bacteriocin or antimicrobial (stimulate plant growth) (See for example, p. 510 right-hand column 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Pliego et al. teach the organism health-promoting bacteria is a rhizobacteria, a probiotic, or a plant commensal (rhizobacteria) (See for example, p. 510 right-hand column 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Pliego et al. teach the method comprises: selecting one or more plant-associated bacterial isolates for promoting plant health, comprising: (a) co-culturing each of the bacterial isolates with a phytopathogen; (b) determining the level of inhibition activity for each bacterial isolate against the phytopathogen; (c) co-culturing each of the bacterial isolates with a plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, a probiotic, or a plant commensal; (d) determining the level of inhibition activity for each bacterial isolate against the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, probiotic, or plant commensal; and e)selecting the one or more bacterial isolates for promoting plant health if: the bacterial isolate has inhibition activity against the phytopathogen according to step (b); and the bacterial isolate has substantially no inhibition activity against the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, probiotic, or plant commensal according to step (d) (dual plate assay searching for antagonistic bacteria, screening for bacterial control agent or BCA of soil phytopathogenic fungus of avocado root rot, and correlation between biocontrol and colonization, and selection of competitive root tip colonizers) (See for example, p. 514 both columns and p. 515 figure 1 and related description, and p. 510 both columns).
Regarding claim 10, Pliego et al. teach the method of promoting plant health comprises promoting one or more plant health parameters selected from the following list: (i) disease resistance; (ii) the ability to produce or change the concentration of indoleacetic acid, gibberellic acid, cytokinins, and/or ethylene; (iii) the ability to perform a symbiotic N2 fixation; (iv) the ability to produce siderophores, antibiotics, or cyanide; (v) the ability to solubilize mineral phosphates and other nutrients; and (vi) the ability to change performance of symbiotic N2 fixation, nodulation, or nodule occupancy (biological control agent or BCA, suppress disease) (See for example, p. 505 right-hand column last paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Pliego et al. teach the phytopathogen comprises Erwinia amylovora, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato or other P. syringae pathovars, P. cichorii, Xanthomonas campestris pv. armoraciae and pv. vesicatoria, Ralstonia solanacearum, X. axonopodis pv. glycines, X. axonopodis pv. vasculorum, X vasicola pv. holcicola, X vasicola pv. vasculorum, X campestris pv. campestris or other pathogenic Xanthamonas, or Xylella fastidiosa (Agrobacterium tumefaciens) (See for example, p. 507 Table 1, 3rd column, 8th row).
Regarding claim 12, Pliego et al. teach the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria comprises Alcaligens species, Arthrobacter species, Bacillus cereus, B. circulans, B. coagulans, B. lichen formis, B. megaterium, B. pseudomycoides, B. pumilus, and other Bacillus species., Enterobacter aerogenes, E. cloacae, E. taylorae, Klebsiella oxytoca, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and other Pseudomonas species, Paraburkholderia species, Serratia marcescens, S. plymuthica, S. rubidaea and other Serratia species, and Acinetobacter baumanniiorother or other Acinetobacter species (Pseudomonas species) (See for example, p. 507 Table 1, 3rd column, 9th row).
Regarding claim 13, Pliego et al. teach the plant commensal comprises Arabidopsis species, Citrobacter amalonaticus, C. freundii, C. koseri or other Citrobacter species, Escherichia coli, Hafnia alveior other Hafnia species, Morganella morganiior other Morganella species, Pantoea vagans or other Pantoea species, Proteus mirabilis, Providencia rettgeri, Salmonella enterica or other Salmonella species, or Stenotrophomonas maltophili (Arabidopsis) (See for example, p. 511 left-hand column 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Pliego et al. teach co-culturing comprises co-culturing on a transwell plate, in a microfluidic platform, on a solid support, or in a broth (plate assay) (See for example, p. 514 right-hand column 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Pliego et al. teach co-culturing comprises co-culturing on a solid support (agar plates) (See for example, p. 514 right-hand column 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, Pliego et al. teach a solid support comprises a plate, a three-dimensional scaffold, a hydrogel, or a microarray (agar plates) (See for example, p. 514 right-hand column 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, Pliego et al. teach the plate is a nutrient agar plate (agar plates) (See for example, p. 514 right-hand column 1st paragraph).
Pliego et al. do not teach Regarding claim 8, substantially no inhibition comprises a zone of inhibition of less than 5 mm (claim 8), and co-culturing on a broth (claim 18).
However, Kinkel et al. teach zone of inhibition of less than 5 mm (zone of inhibition for each plant pathogen tested) (See for example, p. 121 and paragraph [0370] Table 1.), and further teach co-culturing on a broth (microbial isolates inoculated in a nutrient broth, etc.) (See for example, p. 143 paragraph [0427]).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, would have been capable of applying the teachings of Kinkel et al. in the selection method taught by Pliego et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the method of selecting one or more organism-associated bacterial isolates for promoting organism health, wherein co-culturing comprises co-culturing in a broth and wherein substantially no inhibition comprises a zone of inhibition of less than 5 mm.
Conclusion(s):
No claim(s) is allowed at this point.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KADE ARIANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6083. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM -4:00 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, Melenie L. Gordon can be reached at (571)272-8037. 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.
/KADE ARIANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights