CTNF 18/293,683 CTNF 101471 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This office action is in reply to the Response to Election/Restriction filed on 05 May 2026 for application 18/293,683 filed 30 January 2024, 371 of PCT/US2022/039883 filed 09 August 2022, with PRO 63/231,216 filed 09 August 2021. Claims 3 - 4 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 27 - 30 , 34 - 36 , 38 and 45 are amended. Claims 5 - 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 - 15 , 17 , 19 - 20 , 22 , 24 , 26 , 31 - 33 , 39 - 44 and 46 are canceled. Currently, claims 1 - 4 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 27 - 30 , 34 - 38 and 45 are pending. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 05 May 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of compound 32-134D, illustrated below, in the reply filed on 05 May 2026 is acknowledged: PNG media_image1.png 99 255 media_image1.png Greyscale Applicant’s election of the condition or disease of “blinding eye disease” in the reply filed on 05 May 2026 is acknowledged. The elected species reads upon claims 1 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 27 - 30 , 34 and 45 . As such, claims 2 - 4 , 9 , 11 and 35 - 38 are withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made in the reply filed 05 May 2026. The elected species was searched and found to be free of the prior art. The search was expanded to the full scope of the claims. The closest match are structures detailed by Jiang et al . ( Syntheses and cytotoxicity evaluation of bis(indolyl)thiazole, bis(indolyl)pyrazinone and bis(indolyl)pyrazine: analogues of cytotoxic marine bis(indole) alkaloid , Bioorg. Med. Chem . 2000 , 8 , 363-371). Jiang discloses structures 10, 12, and 14 with Br substitution on positions 5 and 6 on the indole moieties: PNG media_image2.png 304 368 media_image2.png Greyscale It does not read upon the elected species 32-134D as the Br-substitution are positions 7 and 8 on the indole moieties. Furthermore, while the compounds are screened for cytotoxic activity against several cancer cell lines, no mention of HIF-1 or HIF-2 inhibition is taught. Tcherkassov et al . ( Human androgen receptor DNA-binding domain (DBD) compounds as therapeutics and methods for their use , WO 2015/120543 A1 , 2015 ) discloses compound 14471, containing no indole-halogen substitutions, as a candidate for androgen receptor inhibition: PNG media_image3.png 79 167 media_image3.png Greyscale Müller et al . ( Compounds for use in the treatment of bacterial infections , WO 2018/060367 A1 , 2018 ) discloses the same compound for use in the treatment of bacterial infections with a focus on methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Scheuermann et al . ( Isoform-selective and stereoselective inhibition of hypoxia inducible factor-2 , J. Med. Chem . 2015 , 58 , 5930-5941) discloses a series of A-B-C structured compounds, illustrated by compound 13, for the inhibition of HIF-2, where R 2 are substituted phenyls, but ultimately does not read upon formula I: PNG media_image4.png 105 101 media_image4.png Greyscale No structures of known HIF-1 and HIF-2 inhibitors found read upon formula I. 08-43 Claims 1 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 27 - 30 , 34 and 45 are directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 2 - 4 , 9 , 11 and 35 - 38 , previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 05 May 2026 is hereby withdrawn . In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are 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 non-statutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 1 - 4 , 9 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 27 - 30 and 34 - 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A review of the rejected claim language indicates that these claims are drawn toward “a method of treating a condition or disease in which inhibiting HIF-1 and/or HIF-2 is beneficial, the method comprising administering to a subject in need of such treatment a compound of formula (I)” in the case of claim 1 , “the method of claim 1 , wherein the method comprises administering a second therapeutic agent” in the case of claim 2 , “the method of claim 3 , wherein the second therapeutic agent is a chemotherapeutic agent” in the case of claim 3 , “the method of claim 1 , wherein the condition of the disease is cancer” as in the case of claim 4 , or “a method of treating blinding eye disease, method comprising administering to a subject in need of such a treatment an inhibitor of HIF-1 and/or HIF-2” as in the case of claim 37 , expanded by “wherein the blinding eye disease is selected from the group consisting of dry AMD, wet AMD, ischemic retinopathy, diabetic retinopathy, retinal vein occlusion, sickle cell retinopathy, and retinopathy of prematurity” in the case of claim 38 . A description of the term “a method of treating or preventing a disease or disorder…” may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus. Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F3d 1559, 1569, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly (43 USPQ2d 1398-1412), the court held that a generic statement which defines a genus of nucleic acids by only their functional activity does not provide an adequate written description of the genus. The court indicated that, while applicants are not required to disclose every species encompassed by a genus, the description of the genus is achieved by the recitation of a representative number of species falling within the scope of the claimed genus. At section B (1), the court states “An adequate written description of a DNA ... requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, not a mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed chemical invention”. Hence, an adequate written description of the components requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention. The description requirement of the patent statue requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ Application/Control Number: 18/335,687 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In Applicant’s originally filed specification, the ability to block HIFs to alter gene expression, i.e. genes required for tumor vascularization and immune evasion, can provide therapeutic benefit in the cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and blinding eye diseases. The applicant provides several working examples under the section Summary of Biology and Pharmacology (starting para. 00267), including the effects of compound 32-134D on Hep3B human HCC tumor xenografts (para. 00270), effects of 32-134D on Hepa1-6 mouse HCC cells and tumors (para. 00272), evaluating HIF expression in MIO-M1 in vitro (para. 00280), evaluating HIF accumulation and expression in human-inducible pluripotent stem cell-derived organoids (para. 00282), treating in vivo oxygen induced retinopathy in mice with 32-132D and associated toxicity (para. 00284, 00289, 00291), mouse model treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration with 32-134D (para. 00311), and some pharmacokinetic parameters though no values are reported (para. 00331-00332). Applicant does not demonstrate that the product is capable of the claim limitations to the breadth and scope of which the broadest reasonable interpretation requires. Llovet et al . ( Hepatocellular carcinoma , Nat. Rev. Disease Primers 2021 , 7 , 6) teaches that HCC is the most common form of liver cancer and accounts for ~90% of cases, where infection by hepatitis B and C viruses are the main, but not only, risk factors for development. Approximately 25% of all HCCs present with potentially actionable mutations, though not all yet translated into clinical practice. In 2021, six systemic therapies were approved including Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab, Sorafenib, Lenvatinib, Regorafenib, Cabozantinib and Ramucirumab, along with exploration into combination therapies including checkpoint inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, anti-VEGF therapies, or combinations of (abstract). The idiopathic factors, etiology, patient populations, co-morbidities, etc. undermine the concept that the working examples provided in the instant specification are prophetic to the final therapeutic application of the invention to all the various diseases and conditions claimed. Indeed, the claimed blinding eye diseases include several different patient populations including diabetic individuals, individuals with sickle cell disease, and severely premature infants. These varied etiologies undermine the concept that the in vitro and in vivo results are prophetic to the final therapeutic application of the invention to all the various diseases and conditions claimed. Whether the specification shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. Factors to be considered in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of possession include the level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structures, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. In contrast, for inventions in emerging and unpredictable technologies, or for inventions characterized by factors not reasonably predicable which are known to one of ordinary skill in the art, more evidence is required to show possession. One of skill in the art would not recognize from the disclosure that the applicant was in possession of a “method of treatment” for the diseases and conditions as claimed. Additionally, it is known that there are significant challenges translating biochemical, in vitro , and in vivo studies to a clinical setting, and that not all biochemical, in vitro , and in vivo studies can be directly translated to the clinical setting. Indeed, J. M. McKim ( Building a tiered approach to in vitro predictive toxicity screening: a focus on assays with in vivo resistance , Combo. Chem. & High Throughput Scr . 2010 , 13 , 188-206) emphasizes a truism of the pharmaceutical industry that persists to this day, is the failure of over 90% of promising new drug candidates due to unanticipated adverse effects or a lack of efficacy in humans, contrary to anticipated results based on prior biochemical, cell, or animal models (introduction). As the specification discloses working examples only performed biochemically, one of skill in the art would not recognize that the Applicant was in possession of “a method of treatment” of the various diseases and conditions claimed in an in vivo, much less a clinical, setting. 07-31-03 AIA Claim s 1 - 4 , 9 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 27 - 30 and 34 - 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for including the effects of compound 32-134D on Hep3B human HCC tumor xenografts (para. 00270), effects of 32-134D on Hepa1-6 mouse HCC cells and tumors (para. 00272), evaluating HIF expression in MIO-M1 in vitro (para. 00280), evaluating HIF accumulation and expression in human-inducible pluripotent stem cell-derived organoids (para. 00282), treating in vivo oxygen induced retinopathy in mice with 32-132D and associated toxicity (para. 00284, 00289, 00291), mouse model treating neovascular age-related macular degeneration with 32-134D (para. 00311) , does not reasonably provide enablement for treating a condition or disease in which inhibiting HIF-1 and/or HIF-2, administering to a subject in need, where the disease is cancer or blinding eye disease . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to: (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. See MPEP § 2164.01(a). Upon consideration of the factors discussed below, the examiner concludes that one skilled in the art could not practice the invention without being burdened with undue experimentation based on the information provided by the applicant. A discussion of these factors as they relate to the pending claims is as follows: (A) Breadth of claims & (B) Nature of invention – The applicant’s claims are broad. For example, claim 1 is directed to “a method of treating a condition or disease in which inhibiting HIF-1 and/or HIF-2 is beneficial, the method comprising administering to a subject in need of such treatment a compound of formula (I)”, claim 9 further limits this “wherein the condition of disease is cancer”, and claim 37 is directed to “a method of treating blinding eye disease, method comprising administering to a subject in need of such a treatment an inhibitor of HIF-1 and/or HIF-2”. Not only are the diseases and conditions varied as different genera, with disparate etiologies, patient populations, and numerous other relevant factors, the term patient is extremely broad as it includes not only humans but any creature of whom this treatment may be relevant for, including mammals of which there are far too many examples to list here. As the specification discloses working examples only performed in mouse models, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that the evidence provided by the Applicant in the instant specification is “a method of treating” for any disease or condition claimed considering the possible breadth of what are individually diverse diseases and conditions that can arise from multiple factors and pathways, never mind considering the aggregate. (C) The state of the prior art – The state of the prior art provides evidence for the degree of predictability in the art and is related to the amount of direction or guidance needed in the specification as filed to meet the enablement requirement. The state of the prior art is also related to the need for working examples in the specification. See MPEP § 2164.05(a). As taught by Llovet , HCC has a variety of etiologies, patient populations and outcomes. This is but a sub-genus of the genus of cancer claimed. The genus of blinding eye disease is similarly varied. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the current state of the art is highly unpredictable, indicating that more details, working examples, and guidance would be required to practice the invention as disclosed for the treatment of the diseases and conditions claimed. (D) The level of one of ordinary skill in the art – MPEP 2141.03 states (in part), “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 167 LEd2d 705, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. At 1396, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The “hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art' to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity, have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) disagreeing with the examiner' s definition of one of ordinary skill in the art (i.e. a doctorate level engineer or scientist working at least 40 hours per week in semiconductor research or development), and finding that the hypothetical person is not definable by way of credentials, and that the evidence in the application did not support the conclusion that such a person would require a doctorate or equivalent knowledge in science or engineering). These hurdles render application of “a method of treatment” of the diseases and conditions claimed to a very high level of unpredictability. The lack of significant guidance from the present specification makes practicing the claimed invention unpredictable. Where the predictability in the art is low, the Applicant is required to provide greater disclosure and guidance to comply with the enablement requirement. MPEP § 2164.03. (E) Existence of working examples & (F) Amount of direction or guidance by the inventor – As previously established by Llovet , HCC is a complex and sophisticated disease, retinopathy being equally so. Conversely, the specification does not demonstrate a means to treat these diseases in subjects of need to the requirements of broadest reasonable interpretation. Instead, the instant specification only provides in vitro , in vivo , and biochemical results. Therefore, the applicant has not provided sufficient guidance to enable one of skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention in a manner reasonably correlated with the scope of the claims. (G) Quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention – Taken together, the prior art demonstrates that the diseases and conditions arise from multiple factors and etiologies. This covers a breadth and scope of material that is far from adequately addressed in the instant specification. While the specification demonstrates binding to the target proteins, it does not demonstrate how “a compound” would be able to matriculate into a preclinical candidate, much less a new investigational drug with a reasonable chance of success to reach the status as a demonstrative drug containing therapeutically efficacious properties. Even if the compound was not being considered for human treatment, there are, as established by McKim , numerous hurdles that must be overcome for use in the broad category of a patient which is not a guaranteed, linear progression. This constitutes undue experimentation. Therefore, the lack of working examples commensurate in scope to the claimed invention and the unpredictability in successful application as described by claims 1 - 4 , 9 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 27 - 30 and 34 - 38 , and as described in the specification, as filed, does not provide enablement for the claimed method of use. In conclusion, the claimed invention does not provide enablement for the application in the method of use in treating the diseases and conditions claimed. Thus, for the reasons outlined above, the specification is not considered to be enabling for one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention as the amount of experimentation is undue, due to the broad scope of the claim, the lack of guidance and working examples provided in the specification. Therefore, the specification is not representative of the instant claims and the specification is not fully enabled for the instant claims. In view of the above, one of ordinary skill in the art would be forced into undue experimentation to practice the claimed invention . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Lequeux et al . ( Targeting HIF-1 alpha transcriptional activity drives cytotoxic immune effector cells into melanoma and improves combination immunotherapy , Oncogene 2021 , 40 , 4725-4735) . Lequeux discloses the combination therapy of Acriflavine, inhibitor of HIF-1 α/HIF-1 β dimerization, anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint blockade antibody, and TRP-2 180-188 peptide vaccination, either as singular, double, or triple therapies in the treatment of B16-F10 melanoma. Lequeux reports that anti-PD-1 treatment alone had no impact on tumor growth, TRP-2-based vaccine treatment significantly slowed but did not arrest tumor growth, ACF treatment induced a moderate inhibition of tumor growth. The triple combination therapy completely inhibited tumor growth compared to either the double agent or single agent therapies (pg. 4732 – combining ACF improves the therapeutic benefit of TRP-2 based vaccine and anti-PD-1 in melanoma). As such, Lequeux anticipates claim 11 . 07-15 AIA Claim s 37 - 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Hoppe et al . ( Rank order of small molecule induced hypoxiamimesis to prevent retinopathy of prematurity , Front. Cell Dev. Biol . 2020 , 8 , 488, 1-11) . Hoppe discloses evaluating seven small molecule HIF prolyl hydroxylases inhibitors in the mediated protection against oxygen induced retinopathy, a hallmark of retinopathy of prematurity, where excessive oxygen saturation levels inhibit the growth of vascular tissues, blinding 170,000 infants annually worldwide (pg. 1 – introduction). Three groups of drugs were tested: DMOG, Roxadustat, AK9 along with AR0, AR2, AR4 and AX1. Two were identified as potentially safe to treat retinopathy in severely premature infants, DMOG and Roxadustat, with demonstrative efficacy in protecting against oxygen induced retinopathy (pg. 6-7). As such, Hoppe anticipates claim 37 . Regarding the limitations of claim 38 , wherein the blinding eye disease is selected from the group consisting of dry AMD, wet AMD, ischemic retinopathy, diabetic retinopathy, retinal vein occlusion, sickle cell retinopathy, and retinopathy of prematurity, are met as Hoppe discloses the treatment of prematurity . 07-15 AIA Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Pedras et al . ( Detoxification of cruciferous phytoalexins in Botrytis cinerea: Spontaneous dimerization of a camalexin metabolite , Phytochemistry 2011 , 72 , 199-206) . Pedras discloses compound 12 as an inhibitory compound against Botrytis cinerea isolates: PNG media_image5.png 138 309 media_image5.png Greyscale As such, claim 45 is anticipated . Allowable Subject Matter 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: elected species 32-134D was found to be free of the prior art: PNG media_image1.png 99 255 media_image1.png Greyscale The closest match are structures detailed by Jiang et al . ( Syntheses and cytotoxicity evaluation of bis(indolyl)thiazole, bis(indolyl)pyrazinone and bis(indolyl)pyrazine: analogues of cytotoxic marine bis(indole) alkaloid , Bioorg. Med. Chem . 2000 , 8 , 363-371). Wu discloses structures 10, 12 and 14 with Br substitution on positions 5 and 6 on the indole moieties: PNG media_image2.png 304 368 media_image2.png Greyscale It does not read upon the elected species 32-134D as the Br-substitution are positions 7 and 8 on the indole moieties. Furthermore, while the compounds are screened for cytotoxic activity against several cancer cell lines, no mention of HIF-1 or HIF-2 inhibition is taught. Tcherkassov et al . ( Human androgen receptor DNA-binding domain (DBD) compounds as therapeutics and methods for their use , WO 2015/120543 A1 , 2015 ) discloses compound 14471, containing no indole-halogen substitutions, as a candidate for androgen receptor inhibition: PNG media_image3.png 79 167 media_image3.png Greyscale Müller et al . ( Compounds for use in the treatment of bacterial infections , WO 2018/060367 A1 , 2018 ) discloses the same compound for use in the treatment of bacterial infections with a focus on methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Scheuermann et al . ( Isoform-selective and stereoselective inhibition of hypoxia inducible factor-2 , J. Med. Chem . 2015 , 58 , 5930-5941) discloses a series of A-B-C structured compounds, illustrated by compound 13, for the inhibition of HIF-2, where R 2 are substituted phenyls, but ultimately does not read upon formula I: PNG media_image4.png 105 101 media_image4.png Greyscale No structures of known HIF-1 and HIF-2 inhibitors found read upon formula I. Summary Claims 1 - 4 , 9 , 13 , 16 , 18 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 27 - 30 and 34 - 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claims 11 , 37 - 38, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen Chao whose telephone number is (571)272-7001. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0700-1300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James H Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached at 571-272-5548. 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. /ALLEN CHAO/Examiner, Art Unit 1622 /JAMES H ALSTRUM-ACEVEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 2 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 3 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 4 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 5 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 6 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 7 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 8 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 9 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 10 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 11 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 12 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 13 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 14 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 15 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 17 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 18 Art Unit: 1622 Application/Control Number: 18/293,683 Page 19 Art Unit: 1622
Prosecution Insights