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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 of W. Mei, et al, US 18/335,773 (06/15/2023) are pending, under examination on merits and are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 06/16/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202210682828.4 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the claim must apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope so as to provide clear warning to others as to what constitutes infringement. MPEP 2173.02(II); Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1379, 55 USPQ2d 1279, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. MPEP § 2173.05(a).
§ 112(b) Rejections – Lack of Antecedent Basis
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it recites the limitation " the cancer diagnostic reagent" in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
§ 112(b) Rejections – Improper Method Claim
Claims 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite because claim 8 provides a method of using (application) of the claim 1 nanoprobe but does not set forth any method steps. As such, it is unclear what method applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use (in the case an “application”) without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP §2173.05(q)/2173.05(p)(II).
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 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP § 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Q. Wu, et al. 41.1 Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 201, (2022)(“published on 06/13/2022) (“Wu”).
Wu teaches a method for preparation of a nanoprobe AS1411@RuPEP as follows:
AS1411 formed a G-quadruplex conformation in Tris-HCl KCl buffer by renaturation at 4 °C for 24 h after 95 °C denaturation for 5 min. Aqueous solutions of AS1411 (50 μM in Tris–HCl KCl buffer) and RuPEP (50 μM in Tris–HCl KCl buffer) were mixed in equal volumes and incubated at 37 °C for three days. The final samples were obtained by dialysis of the mixed solutions for overnight. All biological experiments were performed by using fresh self-assembled nanoprobe after dialysis, vacuum freeze drying and quantified the concentration of Ru atom.
Wu at page 2 of 17, right col, Construction and characterization of nanoprobe AS1411@ RuPEP, line 1-7, emphasis added. Per Scheme 1,
Wu teaches that RuPEP has a chemical structure as indicated below, which has a same structure as that of the Formula 1 in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
623
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7 are anticipated because the Wu method is the same method as the method used for synthesis of the nanoprobe AS1411@RuPEP in the specification except Wu does not specify the molecular weight cutoff of the dialysis is 0.5-3.0 KDa. Specification at 10-11, [0083]-[0086]. The same method using the same reagents/starting material would form the same product through the same bonding.
Claims 2 and 11 are anticipated because Wu teaches that the content of ruthenium element in the AS1411@RuPEP nanoprobe is 4.83 wt% which anticipates the claimed 3-10 wt%. Wu at page 5 of 17, right col., paragraph 2, line 8-9.
Claims 3, 10 and 12 are anticipated because Wu teaches that the particle size of his nanoprobe AS1411@RuPEP is 200-500 nm. Wu at page 5 of 17, right col., paragraph 2, line 22-23.
Claims 8-9 and 13-14 are anticipated because Wu teaches to use the nanoprobe AS1411@RuPEP for tumor image in mice bearing MDA-MB-231 tumor cells. Wu at page 2 of 10, right col, paragraph 1, line 7-9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
35 USC § 103 Rejection over Wu
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Q. Wu, et al. 41.1 Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 201, (2022) as applied above for the rejection of claim 4.
Q. Wu, et al. 41.1 Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research 201, (2022)
As detail discussed above that Wu teaches a method meeting each and every limitation of claim 4.
Difference Between Wu and Claim 6
Wu differs from the instant claim 6 only in that Wu does not specify the molecular weight cutoff of the dialysis is 0.5-3.0 KDa.
Claim 6 is Obvious
Claim 6 is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to further modify Wu by optimize the molecular weight cutoff of the dialysis to the claimed ranges so that can remove off the unreacted reacting materials and/or reagents . [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II.A. Herein, neither the prior art nor the application provides any evidence the claimed ranges is critical for the claimed method, rather, the specification disclose that “the molecular weight cutoff of the dialysis is preferably 0.5-3.0 kDa, and more preferably 1-2 kDa”. Specification at page 9, [0076].
35 USC § 103 Rejection over Mei in view of Bate
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over W. Mei, US9765382B2 (2017)(“Mei”) in view of P. J. Bate, et al, 1861.5 Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-General Subjects 1414-1428 (2017)(“Bate”); Claim 7 is rejected as applied above for the rejection of claim 4 further in view of Y.A. Shieh, et al. 4.3 ACS nano 1433-1442 (2010)(“Shieh”).
W. Mei, US 9765382B2 (2017)(“Mei”)
Mei teaches that ruthenium (II) complexes may be effectively combined with nucleic acid sequence to change the morphologies of the long nucleic acid sequence (e.g., more than 50 base pairs) and effectively deliver the nucleic acids into viable cells via transmembrane transport located within cell nucleuses, thereby greatly improving transport efficiency of the nucleic acids. Mei at col. 1, line 63 to col, 2, line 4. Mei teaches examples of the ruthenium (II) complexes such as the complexes having the following chemical structures:
PNG
media_image2.png
731
2344
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mei at col 5, the first compound for Ru (bpy)2pBEPIP and col 7, the third compound for Ru (bpy)2pEPIP that has a same chemical structure as that of the Formula 1 in the instant claim 1.
Thus, Mei fairly teaches one ordinary skilled artisan that Ru (bpy)2pBEPIP and Ru (bpy)2pEPIP are alternative to forming a complex with long nucleic acid sequence.
Mei also teaches examples of long nucleic acid sequence such as AS1411. Wei at col. 18, line 11, AS1411 sequence.
Mei teaches working examples for preparation of nanoparticles comprising ruthenium (II) complexes and nucleic acid sequence, such as Example 6 and example 15 as follows respectively:
Example 6 : Preparation of [Ru(bpy)2pBEPIP ]C12 Aptamer AS1411 DNA Nano-complex
Experimental method : 1 mM Ru (bpy)pBEPIPCl2 , is uniformly mixed with 1 mM AS1411 DNA solution in a ratio of 1:1 , then the mixture obtained is heated to 90° under microwave radiation and maintained at the temperature for 30 seconds to 10 minutes , then the mixture is naturally cooled down to room temperature. The reaction mixture is dialyzed against distilled water to remove the polypyridyl ruthenium (II) complexes unloaded onto the nucleic acid, thereby forming a polypyridyl ruthenium (II) coordination complex-nucleic acid complex. TEM revealed that the ruthenium complex facilitates the telomere DNA sequence to self- assemble into an analogous nanotube structure (Fig.5).
Mei at col 19, Example 6, emphasis added.
Example 15: Preparation of [Ru(bpy)2pEPIP](ClO4)2-c-myc Promoter Region DNA Nano-Complex
Experimental method: 1 mM [Ru(bpy)2pEPIP](ClO4)2 (FIG. 15A) is uniformly mixed with 1 mM c-myc Pu22 DNA solution in a ratio of 1: 1, then the mixture obtained is heated to 90°C. under microwave radiation and maintained at the temperature for 30 seconds to 10 minutes, then the mixture is naturally cooled down to room temperature and left to stand for 24 hours at 4 °C. The reaction mixture is dialyzed against distilled water to remove the polypyridyl ruthenium (II) complexes unloaded onto the nucleic acid, thereby forming a polypyridyl ruthenium (II) coordination complex-nucleic acid complex. TEM revealed that the ruthenium complex facilitates the telomere DNA sequence to self-assemble into an analogous nanotube structure (FIG.15B).
Mei at col 22, Example 15, emphasis added.
The Mei Nano-complex in Example 6 comprises an AS 1411 oligonucleotide and a ruthenium complex Ru(bpy)2pBEPIP bound to the AS 1411 oligonucleotide.
The Mei method for preparation of the Nano-complex in Example 6 comprises:
(i).mixing a dispersion of an AS 1411 oligonucleotide with a ruthenium complex, and
(ii). performing self-assembly and dialysis.
Mei further teaches that the Nano-complex in Example 6 can be used to image MCF-7 cells. Mei at col., 30, line 53-67; and Fig. 48.
Difference between Mei and the Claims
The Mei Nano-complex in Example 6 differs from the instant claim 1, and the Wei method of preparation differs from the instant claim 4 in that:
(i).Mei does not specify the AS 1411 oligonucleotide having a G-quadruplex conformation;
(ii). Ru(bpy)2pBEPIP does not have a structure as that of the Formula 1 in the instant claim 1, however, Mei teaches that (bpy)2pEPIP having a structure as that of the Formula 1 in the instant claim 1 is an alternative of Ru(bpy)2pBEPIP.
P.J. Bate, et al, 1861.5 Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-General Subjects 1414-1428 (2017)(“Bate”)
Bate teaches that:
AS1411 is a 26-mer G-rich DNA oligonucleotide that forms a variety of G-quadruplex structures. It was identified based on its cancer-selective antiproliferative activity and subsequently determined to be an aptamer to nucleolin, a multifunctional protein that preferentially binds quadruplex nucleic acids and which is present at high levels on the surface of cancer cells. AS1411 has exceptionally efficient cellular internalization compared to non-quadruplex DNA sequences.
Bate at abstract, emphasis added.
Bate teaches that the quadruplex structure or the G-rich nature of AS1411 is important for its biological activities. Bate at page 1415, right col., paragraph 2, line 11-13, emphasis added.
Y.A. Shieh, et al. 4.3 ACS nano 1433-1442 (2010)(“Shieh”)
Consistent with Bate, Shieh teaches that the AS1411 aptamer is based on a 26-base guanine-rich oligonucleotide which forms a dimeric G-quadruplex structure to target nucleolin with high affinity and specificity. Shieh at page 1433, left col., line 5-9.
Per the Experimental section, Shieh teaches that G-quadruplex structure of the AS1411 can be achieved as follows:
G-quadruplex structure of the AS1411 aptamer in a salt solution, containing 200 mM KCl, 4 mM MgCl2, and 28 mM Tris-HCl, was formed by annealing it at 100 °C for 5 min and slowly cooling it to room temperature.
Shieh at page 1440, left col., Method, Synthesis and Characteristics of the apt-TMP Complex, line 1-4, emphasis added.
Claim 1-14 are Obvious
It would have been prima facie obvious for one skilled artisan to arrive at the instantly claimed invention based on the teachings from Mei with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Obviousness of a claimed compound can also be supported where there is motivation to substitute particular chemical moieties in a prior art compound for others so as to arrive at a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B). For example, in the pharmaceutical arts, the rational is stated as motivation to select a known compound and also motivation to structurally modify the selected compound in a particular way to achieve a claimed compound. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) (see for example, MPEP § 2143(I)(B) Example 9, citing Eisai Co. Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., 533 F.3d 1353, 87 USPQ2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
One of ordinary skilled artisan seeking imaging of tumor such as MCF-7 is motivated to select Mei’s Nano-complex in Example 6 for further investigation because Mei teaches it can binding MCF-7 cell lines.
Having selected Mei’s Nano-complex in Example 6, one of ordinary skilled artisan is motivated to replace the Ru(bpy)2pBEPIP in the Nano-complex with Ru(bpy)2pEPIP through the preparation method taught by Wei as indicated below.
PNG
media_image3.png
1379
1758
media_image3.png
Greyscale
One ordinary skilled artisan has a motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Mei teaches that Ru(bpy)2pEPIP is an alternative of Ru(bpy)2pBEPIP for forming a complex with long nucleic acid sequence. The rational supporting the modification is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143.I.(B).
While Mei does not specify the AS1411 oligonucleotide having a G-quadruplex conformation, however, as evidenced from Bate that AS1411 forms a variety of G-quadruplex structures, therefore, at least there is some AS1411 having the G-quadruplex conformation which forms complex with the ruthenium (II) compound through hydrogen bonding1 in the proposed method. Therefore, the proposed product and the proposed method meets each and every limitation of claim 1 and claim 4 respectively, thus, claims 1 and 4 are obvious.
Claims 2 and 11 are obvious because [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II.A. Herein, neither the prior art nor the application provides any evidence the claimed ranges is critical for the claimed composition/method, rather, the specification disclose that “Preferably, the content of ruthenium element in the AS 1411 oligonucleotide composite ruthenium complex nanoprobe is 3-10 wt%”. Specification at page 2, [0008].
Claims 3, 10 and 12 are obvious because one ordinary skill is further motivated to optimize the size of the proposed nanotube structure into the claimed ranges so that can be effectively target to tumor. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II.A. Herein, neither the prior art nor the application provides any evidence the claimed ranges is critical for the claimed method, rather, the specification disclose that “In the present disclosure, the particle size of the AS1411 oligonucleotide composite ruthenium complex nanoprobe is preferably 200-500 nm, and more preferably 300-400 nm”. Specification at page 7, [0062].
Claim 5 is obvious because one ordinary skill is motivated to further optimize the self-assembly condition to arrive at the claimed condition so that to maximize the yield of the desired nanotube complex. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 6 is obvious because one ordinary skill is motivated to further optimize the dialysis condition to arrive at the claimed condition so that can remove off the unreacted reacting materials and/or reagents . [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II.A. Herein, neither the prior art nor the application provides any evidence the claimed condition is critical for the claimed method, rather, the specification disclose that “Preferably, a molecular weight cutoff of the dialysis is 0.5-3.0 kDa; and the dialysis is performed at a temperature of 25-40ºC for a period of 1-3 days”. Specification at page 2, [0013].
Claims 8-9 and 13-14 are obvious because one ordinary skilled artisan is motivated to use the proposed Ru(bpy)2pEPIP-AS1411 nanotube as a breast cancer diagnostic reagent as Wei teaches that it can be used to image MCF-7 breast cancer.
Regarding to Claim 7, one ordinary skilled artisan is motivated first preparation G-quadruplex structure of the AS1411 solution containing potassium as taught by Shieh, and then use the solution to prepared the proposed Ru(bpy)2pEPIP-AS1411 nanotube as taught by Mei. One ordinary skilled artisan is motivated to do so with a reasonable of success because Bate teaches that the quadruplex structure or the G-rich nature of AS1411 is important for its biological activities. Bate at page 1415, right col., paragraph 2, line 11-13.
Claim 7 is obvious because Shieh teaches that G-quadruplex structure of the AS1411 can be prepared by mixing an AS 1411 oligonucleotide with a buffer solution containing potassium ion, and sequentially performing high temperature denaturation at a temperature of 100ºC for a period of 5 min and then slowly cooling it to room temperature. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05 II.A. Herein, neither the prior art nor the application provides any evidence the claimed renaturation condition is critical for the claimed method, rather one ordinary skilled artisan is motivated to further optimize the renaturation condition so that can maximize the amount of G-quadruplex structure of the AS1411.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 6 and 13 of US9765382B2 (2017)(“Mei”) in view of P. J. Bate, et al, 1861.5 Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-General Subjects 1414-1428 (2017)(“Bate”); or further in view of Y.A. Shieh, et al. 4.3 ACS nano 1433-1442 (2010)(“Shieh”).
Conflicting Claims
Conflicting claim 13 claims a fluorescent probe, characterized in that the fluorescent probe is prepared by the following steps:
uniformly mixing a ruthenium complex with a nucleic acid solution to obtain a mixture;
then heating the mixture obtained to a temperature ranging from 70° C. to 100° C.;
maintaining the temperature for 30 seconds to 30 minutes;
cooling the mixture; and
removing free ruthenium complexes after cooling to form a ruthenium coordination complex-nucleic acid complex;
wherein the ruthenium complex has a structural formula according to claim 2 and the nucleic acid has a length that is not shorter than 4 bp.
Conflicting claim 2 claims species of the ruthenium complex including the ruthenium complex Formula 1 of the instant claim 1.
Conflicting claim 6 claims species of nucleic acid sequence including DAN of AS1411.
Difference between Conflicting Claims and the Claims
The combination of conflicting claims 2, 6 and 13 differs from the instant claims 1 and 4, in that conflicting claims do not specify to elect AS 1411 oligonucleotide having a G-quadruplex conformation as a nucleic acid and the ruthenium complex Formula 1 as ruthenium complex.
P.J. Bate, et al, 1861.5 Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-General Subjects 1414-1428 (2017)(“Bate”)
Bate has been discussed above.
Y.A. Shieh, et al. 4.3 ACS nano 1433-1442 (2010)(“Shieh”)
Shieh has been discussed above.
Claims 1-14 are Obvious
One ordinary skilled artisan seeking cancer imaging is motivated to conduct the conflicting claim 13 by election AS1411 oligonucleotide having a G-quadruplex conformation as a nucleic acid to prepare a AS1411 based fluorescent probe because Bate teaches that:
(i).AS1411 oligonucleotide is cancer-selective by binding to nucleolin which is present at high levels on the surface of cancer cells; and
(ii). the quadruplex structure or the G-rich nature of AS1411 is important for its biological activities.
One ordinary skilled artisan is also motivated to elect the ruthenium complex Formula 1 as ruthenium complex as claimed by conflicting claim 2. The rational supporting this election is “obvious to try”- choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143.I (E). Thus arrive at a fluorescent probe and a method for preparation of the fluorescent probe meeting each and every limitation of claims 1 and 4 respectively, therefore, claims 1 and 4 are obvious.
Claims 2-3 and 5-14 are obvious for the same reasons as given in the 103 rejection above.
Terminal Disclaimer
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S. HOU whose telephone number is (571)272-1802. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 am-2:30 pm Eastern on Monday to Friday. 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)2705241. 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.
/FRANK S. HOU/Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP § 2112(V) (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).