DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12 December 2025 has been entered.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 2-4 are under examination on the merits.
Claim 5 is withdrawn.
Claim 1 is cancelled.
Priority
Claims 2-4 receive the U.S. effective filing date of 23 March 2021. Foreign priority to CN202110309020.7, filed 23 March 2021 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 & 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Grammatical error / incorrect word order; claims 2 & 5 recite ‘transcription factor GHFLS’ (i.e. adjective is following the noun) but should use standard English word order, wherein the descriptor ‘GHFLS’ precedes the noun it is describing (i.e. ‘GHFLS transcription factor’).
Typographical error / extra word; line 3 of claim 3 includes an extra word in ‘sequence is as a high-quality…’. The word ‘is’ should be removed to read ‘sequence .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites a SNP mutation at position 1391bp of a coding region sequence, but it is unclear if this is part of SEQ ID NO.2, and if so what part, or an SNP occurring in another coding region sequence. Because Applicant does not define the referenced SNP position (i.e. 1391bp) to a specific sequence, cited by SEQ ID NO., the claim is indefinite.
Further, the parameters of the SNP change are indefinite because Applicant does not indicate if the change from A to G, and Lys to Arg, is occurring as a function of the selection process in the claimed method or merely the detection of a SNP difference (i.e. testing or diagnosis). The claimed changes are also unclear because it is not indicated what they are relevant to, or what constitutes the baseline or ‘unchanged’ state from which the method distinguishes them from.
Claim 4 is dependent from claim 2, and is drawn to detecting the GHFLS SNP locus and selecting it. However it does not indicate if the detection of the SNP locus requires the use of primers and/or molecular methods of detecting. The claim language recites the molecular cause of observed phenotypic differences, but given broadest reasonable interpretation this would encompass any means of selecting the ‘A’ SNP. As written, it is unclear whether Applicant is requiring the use of primers and/or molecular methods of detection or merely presenting them as an option.
Because of this, the limitations of the claim are unclear and one would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of it, or understand how to avoid infringement.
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 2-4 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to a product of nature and/or natural phenomena without significantly more. The claim recites a method of identifying and/or selecting an allele of the gene GHFLS. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Applicant is claiming naturally occurring gene or allele able to be selected phenotypically.
Due to Applicant's amendment of the claims, the rejection is modified from that set forth in the Office action mailed 25 Sept 2025, as applied to claims 2-4. Applicant' s arguments filed 25 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant claims a method to test for a naturally occurring gene, GHFLS, or a naturally occurring allelic variant thereof. They do this through screening a collection of plant varieties in the public domain. These materials, particularly those harboring the gene/allele in question can be selected visually for improved fiber characteristics. Though Applicant describes the naturally occurring chemical structure of the underlying gene, the core method of ‘identifying’ can, is, and has been, performed visually by simply looking at cotton fibers.
The GHFLS ‘high quality’ allele claimed by Applicant is present in the majority (70%) of the elite global cotton breeding germplasm they surveyed. Such visual selections of long-fibered or ‘high quality’ cotton have clearly retained and spread the naturally occurring, causative allele of GHFLS being used in Applicant’s method claim.
Referring to applicant’s Table 1, multiple G. hirsutum cultivars are presented, which are tetraploid. Tetraploid cotton varieties have the ‘AD’ genome which is known to predate recorded agriculture. [Wendel, p.159, par.4] Comparison of applicant’s SEQ ID NO.2 of claim 1 to the publicly available cotton genome shows a 100% sequence match to the ‘high-quality’ tetraploid G. hirsutum variety ‘TM-1’ and a 98.7% similarity match to sequence from the diploid progenitor G. raimondii (‘D’) genome [Saski. Scientific Reports (Nature Publisher Group) 7:15274; Published 11-10-2017; Udall. G3 (Bethesda). 2019 Oct 7;9(10):3079-3085; Published 08-28-2019; see attached STIC sequence search results 02-28-2025, Results 1 & 3].
Moreover, Applicant’s data [Table 1] shows the desirable ‘A’ SNP allele of this gene to be extant in the majority (70%) of the elite global breeding germplasm they surveyed, indicating widespread presence of this gene, its alleles, and any polypeptides inherently encoded by such sequence [0041, lines 1-7].
This indicates the natural occurrence and selection of GHFLS by those skilled in the art of plant breeding. Persistence of such naturally occurring, valuable alleles based on their visually manifested phenotype (i.e. phenotypic markers) is the core principle of evolution and comprised all plant breeding efforts prior to the development of DNA sequencing. Modern technology now simply provides a more chemically detailed description of the underlying and naturally occurring cause (i.e. allelic sequence) of readily observable phenotypes that have long been utilized and/or selected.
Given broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 2-4 would encompass visually selecting the naturally occurring GHFLS sequence/SNP claimed. Any method of selecting ‘high quality’ fibers in wild or domesticated material not yet genotyped, as well as the majority of the world’s elite cotton breeding germplasm would predictably capture or select the desirable ‘A’ allele characterized in Applicant’s screening panel. The prevalence of the allele in existing ‘high quality’ global germplasm indicates traditional phenotypic selection of GHFLS alleles for improved fiber is effective.
Applicant indicates the genetic information is used for ‘selecting the upland cotton variety’, however, there is no description of what comprises such selection or what active steps are included in such ‘selection’ processes. Absent additional steps, ‘selection’ merely indicates one has identified (i.e. selected) an individual based on some characteristic. In the instant case, Applicant is only providing a genetic diagnosis.
Because of this, claims 2-4 are rejected for lack of including further active steps taken after genetic screening. Such diagnosis of the natural genetic state of an organism, absent further applied steps, lacks integration into a practical application or inventive method. It is merely describing the natural world.
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges the previous 101 rejection is improper because existing technology has not mentioned the specific three traits they describe [Remarks, p.5, par.2].
This is not found persuasive because the claimed methods are merely one of detecting a natural phenomenon of the plants – it is not an art rejection. It is a rejection that the claims do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The specific traits of interest from the prior art are not relevant to the issue that what Applicant is describing is simply the diagnosis of a naturally occurring gene/allele.
Applicant urges the difference between identifying molecular markers as compared to traditional phenotypic observation, and argues that such difference(s) in efficiency of approaches makes rejection of claim 2 under USC 101 improper [Remarks, p.4, par.5].
This is not found persuasive because the claims at issue are not drawn to the specific differences in efficiency – the reason the methods of claims 2-4 are non-inventive is because they merely present methods of diagnosing the gene in question for selection purposes. GHFLS is a naturally occurring gene with alleles that are clearly already effectively under selection without the aid of molecular markers. Diagnosing its presence is therefore merely a description of this existing natural phenomenon.
Applicant urges that their disclosure of three fiber quality traits makes 101 rejection improper because it is difficult and/or time-consuming to measure the three traits described in their study [Remarks, p.5, par.1]. They further argue that because existing technology has not mentioned all three traits, 101 rejection is improper [Remarks, p.5, par.2].
This is not found persuasive because, again, the previous 101 rejection is not directed to the potential differences in efficiency or difficulty of selection methods. Clearly there are wide differences in efficiency and difficulty among breeding methods, but required effort on its own account does not render a method inventive when it lacks further applied method steps.
Regarding the argument that existing technology has not mentioned all three of the traits studied in Applicant’s research program; this merely indicates that previous researchers did not measure the same exact characteristics as Applicant. Difference in the particular traits examined between research reports is common, and expected, because as admitted by Applicant it is difficult and time-consuming to include additional traits in genetic studies.
Plant breeders select the traits they will measure based on their limited time and/or budgets. No researcher would be expected to provide an exhaustive phenotypic analysis of every physical metric potentially imaginable for a given plant. That would be an impossible task.
Nor is it unreasonable to consider that three cotton fiber measurements, having the common thread of ‘fiber length’ grounded in the research literature, would not be correlated due to pleiotropy, absent significant evidence to the contrary. Correlations among the fiber traits in question are known [See Dong et al., p.5, ‘Identification of Two Genome Regions Pleiotropically Improving Fiber Qualities, par.1]. The act of merely ‘adding on’ a new measurement does not make something inventive. If this were the case, one could claim patentability by simply adding increasingly granular or superfluous measurements to that already in the public domain.
The characterization of natural genetic variation, or mere diagnosis of the genetic constitution of organisms with respect to naturally occurring genes, is not inventive but simply a technical description of a natural phenomenon. The fact that one is describing a natural phenomenon with more costly, precise, or technologically advanced tools than were available to other researchers does not make the observation of that natural phenomenon inventive, even if it may be more accurate. If so, inventorship claims directed to the natural world would be determined by those applications with the largest budgets or most byzantine descriptions, rather than determined on disclosure of new, applied inventive methods. The former is clearly not the intent of the patent system.
Applicant is advised to amend claims to include further meaningful limitations beyond mere genetic diagnosis, within the bounds of the specification.
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.
Claims 2 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoumkina [Mol Breeding (2020) 40: 31; Published 05-09-2020] in view of Jaganathan [Theoretical and Applied Genetics (2020) 133:1791–1810; Published 02-10-2020], and Feng [Plant Science 297 (2020) 110524; Published 05-31-2020].
Due to Applicant's amendment of the claims, the rejection is modified from that set forth in the Office action mailed 25 Sept 2025, as applied to claims 2 & 3. Applicant's arguments filed 25 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims are drawn to identification of a molecular marker for the transcription factor gene GHFLS which confers improved fiber quality in cotton.
Naoumkina teaches QTL and target genes, along with associated SNPs, for fiber length in cotton on chromosome D11 [p.31, col.2, line 17-18]. They disclose validation of the QTL region and provide graphic depiction of the probable location of the QTL and associated SNPs on chromosome D11. This is shown prominently in their Figure 1 (below), indicating a target region between the physical location of 20-25Mb on D11 [p.31]. They conclude this QTL will be useful for breeding for improved fiber quality [p.31, ‘Conclusions’].
PNG
media_image1.png
700
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Naoumkina does not teach fine mapping of the specific SEQ ID NO.2 SNP polymorphism claimed by Applicant. Naoumkina does not teach how one would select specific plants by applying the marker or QTL information (i.e. marker assisted selection).
Jaganathan teaches how one would fine map from a broader QTL region to the narrower, causative gene [p.172, col.1, par.1]. They further teach methods of generating new SNP markers or identifying genes from QTL reports used in conjunction with genomic sequence data [p.172, col.1, par.2].
Additionally, Feng teaches the process of MAS and line development. They describe development of introgression lines in their ‘Materials and methods’ section [p. 2, section 2.1]. They describe that identification of QTL, and their introgression, can be used for marker assisted selection [p.7, ‘Conclusion’]. They go on to teach this process via selection of introgression line progeny based on presence of desired chromosome segments (i.e. molecular markers) [p.2, ‘Materials and methods’ 2.1-2.2].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the molecular markers (i.e. QTL bounds) taught by Naoumkina to the fine mapping of the causative molecular marker using methods described by Jaganathan, with the additional application of such marker to MAS, as described by Feng. Converting the previously reported QTL to a more specific molecular marker would provide a useful breeding tool when selecting for a phenotype that is costly and time-consuming to measure, such as fiber quality.
Naoumkina indicates location of their fiber QTL between 20-25Mb on chromosome D11, flanked by the two markers Snp184 (<20Mb) and Snp289 (between 25Mb-30Mb) encompassing fiber length ‘FL QTL’ [Figure 1]. Applicant reports their specific sequence at 23,877,270 Mb [p.7, line 14]. Thus, the QTL region reported by Naoumkina encompasses the SNP currently claimed by Applicant.
QTL comprise various polymorphisms within their bounds that can be used as markers, and those which are more closely, physically linked to the genetic cause of an observed phenotype are more useful to plant breeders. The SNP as recited by the claim would be among those used to detect this ‘high fiber quality’ QTL region reported by Naoumkina.
Applicant’s claimed sequence is entirely within the bounds of the genomic region (i.e. ‘FL QTL’) previously pointed to by Naoumkina as well as being a 100% match to previously reported cotton genomic sequence, thus enabling fine mapping and characterization of the specific features comprising the disclosed QTL, as taught by both Jaganathan and by Feng. Applicant’s gene and its alleles would be reasonably expected to be carried with the previously described QTL, the described SNP being tightly linked physically to, and associated with, the fiber-length loci previously disclosed. As such, Applicant is simply providing a more granular description of the allele first reported by Naoumkina as a QTL.
Applicant provides a limitation of selecting this GHFLS SNP (i.e. the causative polymorphism of Naoumkina’s QTL) in cotton with simultaneously improved length, strength and elongation of fibers. This is obvious, as it is reasonable to expect some correlation, or pleiotropic effect, on cotton fiber characteristics when studying a gene known to alter fiber length. The related traits of fiber elongation and strength would be selected along with selection of the causative gene/allele known to impact fiber length and quality (i.e. GHFLS).
Use of molecular markers in conjunction with traditional phenotypic selection is now routine in the art of plant breeding. It would be obvious for one to use the QTL location of a potentially valuable gene and molecular marker(s) disclosed by another research group (Naoumkina 2020), along with further teachings in methods of fine mapping to develop molecular markers (Jaganathan) and apply their use via MAS (Feng). The increased ‘resolution’ of a causative SNP polymorphism would predictably accelerate identification and selection of plants with improved fiber length and potentially other desirable, correlated fiber characteristics. All prior art references teach and/or suggest the general utility of such MAS approaches which would be obvious to a plant breeder.
One would be motivated to do this to effectively save the time and cost associated with traditional selection of high quality GHFLS alleles based on direct phenotypic measurement of fiber length or other associated characteristics. One would be motivated to determine the specific causative molecular marker for the high fiber quality QTL previously reported, so that they could simply genotype plants to select the beneficial allele which currently dominates the majority of ‘high quality’ cotton germplasm. The cost and time savings of MAS are well known to plant breeders, who now routinely work to develop molecular markers to supplement or entirely replace phenotypes which are difficult or costly to measure. Applicant is obviously applying this routine practice to the naturally occurring GHFLS allele.
Applicant’s claimed sequence is within the bounds of this QTL (‘FL QTL’, Snp184 – Snp289), being linked to and slightly upstream of Naoumkina’s Snp244; Applicant’s tightly physically linked marker locus would be carried with the described QTL.
Further, sequence alignment and comparison between applicant’s claimed SEQ ID NO.2 and genetic databases provides a 100% similarity match to previously reported cotton sequences [see attached STIC sequence search results 02-28-2025, Results 1 & 3]. Such sequences can be used for marker development as in Jaganathan.
Because of this, claims 2 & 3 are obvious in view of the prior art and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges Naoumkina does not describe the transcription factor GHFLS as recited, and thus the previous 103 rejection relying on this art is improper [Remarks, p.6, par.4]. Applicant further argues that one of skill would not be able to obtain the subject matter of claim 2 by combining or modifying Naoumkina’s disclosure of the QTL harboring GHFLS with other references teaching fine mapping and applied use of MAS [Remarks, p.6, par.5].
This is not found persuasive for reasons stated in the previous Office action mailed 25 Sep 2025, and restated as above [See p.8-12]. Naoumkina clearly describes a QTL comprising the claimed GHFLS marker, with the process of fine-mapping such regions taught by Jaganathan and the applied use of MAS taught by Feng. Mapping of detailed genetic sequence data from regions first described as QTL is routine, and would be obvious to one skilled in the art of contemporary plant breeding.
Applicant urges that Naoumkina fails to describe the gene in “terms of structure, position, sequence, performance, etc” and thus previous 103 rejection is improper [Remarks, p.7, par.1]. Applicant admits that the sequence was known but argues the distinguishing feature of their disclosure is the simultaneous measurement of length, strength and elongation (as opposed to just length of fibers) [Remarks, p.7, par.1].
This is not found persuasive because Naoumkina describes the location [p.6, Figure 1; p.7, Figure 2], performance [p.7, ‘Discussion’, par.1-2], and relevant sequences [p.9, col.2 – p.10, col.1, par.1] to further map or characterize the causative cotton quality gene (i.e. GHFLS). The cited references make it obvious to identify ‘high quality’ cotton by detecting this region. Jaganathan teaches how one would fine map it, and simply applying their methods to Naoumkina’s teachings would identify the SNP marker being claimed.
With respect to phenotypic traits measured; these are all traits related to fiber quality, and specifically related to the anatomy or formation of cotton fibers. All traits referenced are direct measurements of the same plant organ. It is reasonable to expect some correlation, or pleiotropic effect, on cotton fiber characteristics when studying a gene known to alter fiber length. Such correlations among fiber length, elongation, and strength have been previously reported [See Dong et al., p.5, ‘Identification of Two Genome Regions Pleiotropically Improving Fiber Qualities, par.1]. Simply because a previous researcher chose to only measure one of three (or more) characteristics of a cotton fiber is not evidence that the gene they report on does not affect those traits.
Again, providing more granular technical description of genotype or phenotype does not make such disclosures non-obvious, absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Providing more thorough characterization of that which was already known, as time and technologies advance, is a basic iterative principle of the scientific method and is routine in plant breeding.
Applicant urges that the limited experiments of Naoumkina make the previous 103 rejection improper. Applicant argues the QTL interval reported by Naoumkina did not contain enough sequence information, or detailed study of all genes within the marker region, and did not include additional measurements beyond cotton fiber length [Remarks, p.7, par.2 – p.8, par.1].
This is not found persuasive because the QTL interval reported by Naoumkina, which comprises GHFLS, clearly provides sufficient genetic information necessary to perform the routine fine-mapping of the underlying causative gene (i.e. GHFLS).
It is not necessary, nor reasonable, to expect a researcher reporting QTL for a particular trait to provide ‘detailed study of all genes’ within a QTL interval – by definition, QTL studies define a region, or genetic target, which comprises a gene or allele of interest along with an assortment of other genes or non-coding sequence. The detailed study of all genes in a region would typically require an order of magnitude greater resources. This is why it is routine in plant breeding to first conduct a QTL study (i.e. initial targeting), then develop a subsequent fine-mapping project (i.e. detailed characterization) to arrive at a more granular characterization of the causative allele first identified by the QTL report. This routine approach is taught by Jaganathan, and is the same process being described by Applicant.
Further, it would be unreasonable to expect a researcher choosing one trait as a general measure of fiber quality (i.e. fiber length) to be required to test or report every other possible conceivable trait that could be associated with cotton fibers. Studies directed to such network analysis of total phenotypic effects or correlations among the potentially thousands of physical, chemical, or developmental phenotypes that could be envisioned fall under the purvey of phenomics, which is not research area that either the prior art or the instant application are drawn to or seek to address.
Absent evidence indicating the previously reported QTL does not have a relationship to what would otherwise be considered to be reasonably correlated traits (i.e. measures of the same plant organ), the argument that changes to cotton fiber length, elongation, and strength are not simply unreported pleiotropic effects of fiber lengthening due to GHFLS is unconvincing.
Applicant urges that the inclusion of three measurements associated with cotton fiber characteristics makes their disclosure non-obvious over the prior art [Remarks, p.8, par.2-3].
This is not found persuasive because, again, providing more granular technical description of phenotype does not make such disclosure non-obvious. Updated technical characterization of that which was already known, as time and technologies advance, is a basic principle of the scientific method and is routine in plant breeding.
Further, it would be unreasonable to expect a researcher to measure every potentially conceivable characteristic that may be associated with a particular phenotype or trait under study. That would require potentially unlimited resources of time and money, as even a single cotton fiber could be measured in thousands of differing ways. The argument that by simply choosing one of many cotton fiber traits due to resource constraints somehow provides evidence of no association or correlation among unmeasured traits is unreasonable and is not persuasive.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoumkina, Jaganathan and Feng as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Liu [An improved allele-specific PCR primer design method for SNP marker analysis and its application. Plant methods, 2012-08, Vol.8 (1), p.34-34, Article 34; Published 08-24-2012].
Due to Applicant's amendment of the claims, the rejection is modified from that set forth in the Office action mailed 25 Sept 2025, as applied to claim 4. Applicant' s arguments filed 25 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
One interpretation of the claim is that it is drawn to methods of using primers for selecting the GHFLS molecular marker recited in claims 2 & 3.
Naoumkina, Jaganathan and Feng teach the location of a valuable QTL, associated genomic sequences, development of new markers and their use in marker assisted breeding, as applied to claims 2 & 3 above [See p.8-12]. Naoumkina in particular describes development of primers generally, and within their specific population [p.31, ‘SNP primer design’].
Naoumkina, Jaganathan and Feng do not teach the specific primers that would need to be used to amplify Applicant’s SNP allele (SEQ ID NO.2). They also do not discuss development or optimization of new primers from alternate populations or research reports.
Liu teaches methods of developing primers for new SNP markers. In their ‘Methods’ on pages 7-8, a stepwise outline is provided including description of screening a population within a target region to identify SNPs [p.8, col.1, par.2] and design of SNP allele-specific primers for PCR [p.8, ‘Primer design and testing’]. They reference use of such markers in MAS [p.7, ‘Conclusion’]. This directly teaches how one would develop SNP-specific markers in a new collection of germplasm within the QTL region previously reported by Naoumkina.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the QTL location of a potentially valuable gene and molecular marker(s) disclosed by another research group (Naoumkina), along with methods of developing PCR primers taught by Liu for the predictable identification and selection of plants carrying relevant SNP markers.
Applicant recites the specific primers of SEQ ID NO: 5 & 6., but these are obvious because one can and would use any primers which identify the target region or SNP. One can make diverse variants of primers capable of amplifying a particular target region or SNP. The design of primers is merely a design choice for one skilled in the art, and routine.
One would be motivated to do this because of the potential time and cost savings associated with use of MAS, as mentioned previously [See p.11, par.3].
Because of this obviousness, claim 4 is rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant urges the arguments refuting rejection of amended claims 2 & 3 therefore also make claim 4 non-obvious as well [Remarks, p.9, par.3]
This is not found persuasive because, as indicated above, Applicant has not provided convincing argument overcoming the rejection of claims 2 & 3. Because arguments with respect to claims 2 & 3 are not persuasive, rejection of claim 4 is maintained as well.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH R WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 9:30 - 5:30 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, Amjad Abraham can be reached on (571)270-7058. 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.
/KEITH R. WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Anne Kubelik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663