DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's amendments filed 3/11/2025 to claims 1, 7-12, 14, 18, 20, and 22-27 have been entered. Claims 1-27 remain pending, of which claims 1, 7-12, 14, 18, 20 and 22-27 are being considered on their merits. Claims 2-6, 13, 15-17, 19 and 21 remain withdrawn from consideration. References not included with this Office action can be found in a prior action. Any rejections of record not particularly addressed below are withdrawn in light of the claim amendments and applicant’s comments.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to a flowable composition comprising decellularized human heart ECM, in the reply filed on 2/23/2024 stands.
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 1, 7-12, 14, 18, 20 and 22-27 remain 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 1 is drawn to a product of “[a] non-adhesive microwell including about 500 to about 4000 seeded human heart cells configured in a composition, the composition including a custom culture medium…and the composition including both 1) human heart tissue spheroids grown from the cells and 2) porous decellularized human heart ECM (extracellular matrix) spheres” (emphasis added). It is unclear how the cells in the claimed product of can simultaneously be both “seeded” cells, while at the same time be cells “grown” from said seeded cells. Independent claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. As such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. Clarification within each of the claims is required.
Claim 1 is drawn to a product “including a custom culture medium” (emphasis added). The phrase “custom culture medium” appears to be functional language, however said language is ambiguous as (1) there is not a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the limitation, (2) the language does not set forth well-defined boundaries of the invention, and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim terms what structure is encompassed by the phrase “custom culture medium”. Independent claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. As such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. Clarification within each of the claims is required.
Claim 1 is drawn to a product of “including a custom culture medium comprising transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta), or an anti-inflammatory mediator of interleukin 4, interleukin 10, interleukin 11 or interleukin 13” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear as it is unclear if the options include (1) an anti-inflammatory mediator of any one of interleukin 4, interleukin 10, interleukin 11 or interleukin 13, or (2) either an anti-inflammatory mediator of interleukin 4, or one option selected from the group consisting of interleukin 10, interleukin 11 and interleukin 13. Independent claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. As such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. Clarification within each of the claims is required.
The term “altered” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “altered” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant should note that this term is used four times in claim 1. Independent claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. As such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. Clarification within each of the claims is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation wherein “the human heart tissue spheroids 1) comprise each spheroid includes self-adherent human heart cells grown from the seeded cells seeded in the non-adhesive microwell and grown into an ECM” in lines 8-11 (emphasis added). Line 7 of claim 1 limits the composition to comprising an ECM, and it is unclear if the ECM in line 11 is the same ECM as recited in line 7, or if it is intended to be a second ECM in the composition. This is limitation is further unclear as the term “ECM” two additional times later in the claim, and if the claim is limiting to two ECMs, it is unclear which ECM is being referenced later in the claim. Independent claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. Additionally, the term “ECM” is recited in dependent claims 10, 18 and 20, and if the independent claims are limiting to two ECMs, it is unclear which ECM is being referenced these dependent claims. Therefore, dependent claims 10, 18 and 20 are also indefinite. As such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. Clarification within each of the claims is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation wherein “each spheroid includes self-adherent human heart cells grown from the seeded cells seeded in the non-adhesive microwell and grown into an ECM including an altered level of a collagen and a sulphated glycosaminoglycan (sGAG) grown from the TGF-beta or an altered level of a secreted anti-inflammatory property grown from the interleukin 4, 10, 11, or 13” (emphasis added). It is unclear how the term “including” is limiting to the “altered level” being included in the claimed composition. Independent claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. As such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. Clarification within each of the claims is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation wherein “each spheroid includes self-adherent human heart cells grown from the seeded cells seeded in the non-adhesive microwell and grown into an ECM including an altered level of a collagen and a sulphated glycosaminoglycan (sGAG) grown from the TGF-beta or an altered level of a secreted anti-inflammatory property grown from the interleukin 4, 10, 11, or 13 (emphasis added). It is unclear how a spheroid of self-adherent human heart cells can be “grown from the TGF-beta” or “grown from the interleukin 4, 10, 11, or 13” as each of these are signaling molecules that do not give rise to cells. Additionally, the claimed composition does not include “interleukin 4”, but rather limits to the inclusion of “an anti-inflammatory mediator of interleukin 4”, and therefore it is further unclear how the cells are “grown from the interleukin 4”. Similarly, as noted above, the claim is indefinite with respect to interleukins 10, 11, and 13, and it is unclear if these interleukins are part of the claimed composition or if the claim only limits to an anti-inflammatory mediator of these interleukins. Independent claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. As such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. Clarification within each of the claims is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation wherein “each spheroid includes self-adherent human heart cells grown from the seeded cells seeded in the non-adhesive microwell and grown into an ECM including an altered level of a collagen and a sulphated glycosaminoglycan (sGAG) grown from the TGF-beta or an altered level of a secreted anti-inflammatory property grown from the interleukin 4, 10, 11, or 13 and a 3D fibrous network architecture with a 3D spheroid shape, without an adherence to an adherent growth surface and without added growth scaffold material (emphasis added). It is unclear how a spheroid comprising self-adherent cells that are grown into an ECM, can be have the claimed characteristic of “without an adherence to an adherent growth surface” when the claimed spheroid is specifically limited to “self-adherent” cells, meaning they are adhering to at least other cells, and said other cells read on a “growth surface”. Similarly, it is unclear how a spheroid comprising self-adherent cells that are grown into an ECM, can be have the claimed characteristic of “without an adherence to an adherent growth surface” when the claimed spheroid is specifically limited to cells that are grown into an ECM, meaning they are in contact with, which reads on “adhering”, an ECM which reads on “growth surface”. Furthermore, it is unclear how a spheroid comprising self-adherent cells that are grown into an ECM, can be have the claimed characteristic of “without added growth scaffold material” when the claimed spheroid is specifically limited to cells that are grown into an ECM, and ECM reads on “added growth scaffold material”. Independent claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. As such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. Clarification within each of the claims is required.
Claim 1 is drawn to a product of “[a] non-adhesive microwell including about 500 to about 4000 seeded human heart cells configured in a composition… the composition including both 1) human heart tissue spheroids grown from the cells and 2) porous decellularized human heart ECM (extracellular matrix) spheres” (emphasis added). Claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein the human heart tissue spheroids 1) comprise a diameter about 50 µm -300 µm, and each spheroid includes self-adherent human heart cells grown from the seeded cells seeded in the non-adhesive microwell and grown into an ECM including an altered level of a collagen and a sulphated glycosaminoglycan (sGAG) grown from the TGF-beta or an altered level of a secreted anti-inflammatory property grown from the interleukin 4, 10, 11, or 13 and a 3D fibrous network architecture with a 3D spheroid shape, without an adherence to an adherent growth surface and without added growth scaffold material; then at least a portion of the 50 µm -300 µm spheroids are decellularized, to leave behind 2) (emphasis added). First, it is unclear how the phrase “then at least a portion of the 50 µm -300 µm spheroids are decellularized” further limits the claimed product as this limitation as it is unclear if this limitation is intended to be a product-by-process limitation or an intended use limitation. Given the phrasing, and the use of the term “then”, this limitation not a clear product-by-process limitation nor a clear intended use limitation, and therefore it is wholly indefinite. Additionally, this limitation is further unclear as the claimed product specifically limits to the composition including both 1) human heart tissue spheroids grown from the cells and 2) porous decellularized human heart ECM (extracellular matrix) spheres, but also limits component “1)” as “decellularized, to leave behind” component “2)”. It is wholly unclear how the claim is simulatinously limiting to both component “1)” and component “2)” being required in the claimed product, as recited in lines 5-7, while at the same time limiting to component “2)” being made from component “1)”, as recited in line 17. Independent claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. Dependent claims 22-23 are also indefinite as they further limit this indefinite limitation. As such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. Clarification within each of the claims is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation wherein “the porous spheres of decellularized human heart ECM 2) include the altered level of a collagen and a sulphated glycosaminoglycan (sGAG) or the altered level of a secreted anti-inflammatory property grown from the interleukin 4, 10, 11, or 13” in lines 18-21 (emphasis added). It is unclear how the term “include” is limiting to the “altered level” being included in the claimed composition. Additionally, as noted above, the claimed composition does not include “interleukin 4”, but rather limits to the inclusion of “an anti-inflammatory mediator of interleukin 4”, and therefore it is further unclear how the ECM are “grown from the interleukin 4”. Similarly, as noted above, the claim is indefinite with respect to interleukins 10, 11, and 13, and it is unclear if these interleukins are part of the claimed composition or if the claim only limits to an anti-inflammatory mediator of these interleukins. Independent claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. As such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. Clarification within each of the claims is required.
Claim 1 is drawn to a product of “[a] non-adhesive microwell including about 500 to about 4000 seeded human heart cells configured in a composition… the composition including both 1) human heart tissue spheroids grown from the cells and 2) porous decellularized human heart ECM (extracellular matrix) spheres” (emphasis added). Claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein the composition is in contact with at least one of: a detergent, a sterile phosphate buffered saline (PBS), or a DNase and/or an RNase” (emphasis added). As the claim only limits to the composition being “in contact with” at least one of: a detergent, a PBS, or a DNase and/or an RNase, it is unclear if the detergent, PBS, DNase or RNase are a required part of the claimed composition. Additionally, if the detergent, DNase or RNase are a required part of the claimed composition, it is further unclear how the composition, which appears to require growth of cells, can comprise detergent, DNase or RNase which are known to not be compatible with cell growth. Independent claim 7 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. Dependent claim 8 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. As such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. Clarification within each of the claims is required.
Because claims 8-12, 14, 18, 20 and 22-27 depend from indefinite claims 1 and 7, and do not clarify the point of confusion, they must also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the syringe comprises a 27 G needle and wherein one or more ECM spheres that are operative to pass through the 27 G needle each include a diameter of less than about 200 µm” (emphasis added). It is unclear if the claim is (1) requiring that one or more ECM spheres are operative to pass through the 27 G needle, and thereby requiring that they include a diameter of less than about 200 µm, or (2) if this is a statement of intended use and therefore does not require any of the ECM spheres to include a diameter of less than about 200 µm. As such the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For the purposes of applying prior art only, as the claim does not clearly require that one or more ECM spheres are operative to pass through the 27 G needle and include a diameter of less than about 200 µm, this limitation is given interpretation (2) above and is interpreted as a statement of intended use. Clarification within the claim is still required.
Claim 14 depends from independent claim 7 and recites the limitation wherein “the tube or container does not comprise an added growth scaffold material” (emphasis added). However, independent claim 7 requires that the tube or container comprises porous decellularized human heart ECM spheres, which read on “an added growth scaffold material”. It is therefore unclear how the composition can simultaneously both have, and not have, an added growth scaffold material. As such the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Clarification within the claim is required.
Claim 22 depends from independent claim 1, and recites the limitation “wherein a majority of the 50 µm -300 µm spheroids 1) are decellularized”. However, independent claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the human heart tissue spheroids 1) comprise a diameter about 50 µm -300 µm, and each spheroid includes self-adherent human heart cells grown from the seeded cells seeded in the non-adhesive microwell and grown into an ECM including”. Therefore, as the independent claim specifically requires that the “spheroids 1)” comprise cells, it is unclear how claim 22 is limiting to the being “decellularized”. Clam 26 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 22. As such the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined. Clarification within the claims is required.
Claim 23 depends from independent claim 7, and recites the limitation “wherein a majority of the 50 µm -300 µm spheroids 1) are decellularized”. However, independent claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the human heart tissue spheroids 1) comprise a diameter about 50 µm -300 µm, and each spheroid includes self-adherent human heart cells grown from the seeded cells seeded in the non-adhesive microwell and grown into an ECM including”. Therefore, as the independent claim specifically requires that the “spheroids 1)” comprise cells, it is unclear how claim 23 is limiting to the being “decellularized”. As such the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. Clarification within the claim is required.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “wherein the composition is in contact with …” (emphasis added). As the claim only limits to the composition being “in contact with” the listed components, it is unclear if the listed components are a required part of the claimed composition. As such the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined. For the purposes of applying prior art only, as the claim does not clearly require that the components are a required part of the composition, they are not interpreted as being part of the claimed composition. Clarification within the claim is still required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14, 22-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 depends from independent claim 7 and recites the limitation wherein “the tube or container does not comprise an added growth scaffold material” (emphasis added). However, independent claim 7 requires that the tube or container comprises porous decellularized human heart ECM spheres, which read on “an added growth scaffold material”. Therefore, as the independent claim specifically requires that the composition comprise ECM spheres, the limitation of “does not comprise an added growth scaffold material” fails to incorporate of the limitation of the independent claim.
Claim 22 depends from independent claim 1, and recites the limitation “wherein a majority of the 50 µm -300 µm spheroids 1) are decellularized”. However, independent claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the human heart tissue spheroids 1) comprise a diameter about 50 µm -300 µm, and each spheroid includes self-adherent human heart cells grown from the seeded cells seeded in the non-adhesive microwell and grown into an ECM including”. Therefore, as the independent claim specifically requires that the “spheroids 1)” comprise cells, the limitation of “decellularized” fails to incorporate of the limitation of the independent claim. Clam 26 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 22.
Claim 23 depends from independent claim 7, and recites the limitation “wherein a majority of the 50 µm -300 µm spheroids 1) are decellularized”. However, independent claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the human heart tissue spheroids 1) comprise a diameter about 50 µm -300 µm, and each spheroid includes self-adherent human heart cells grown from the seeded cells seeded in the non-adhesive microwell and grown into an ECM including”. Therefore, as the independent claim specifically requires that the “spheroids 1)” comprise cells, the limitation of “decellularized” fails to incorporate of the limitation of the independent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that the amendment to the claims overcome the indefiniteness rejections. However, for the reasons stated above, applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds for indefiniteness rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Given that the claimed product is wholly indefinite for the reasons outlined above, this rejection is withdrawn. However, any amendments to define the claimed will result in the withdraw of this rejection being reconsidered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
As stated above, the claimed product is wholly indefinite for the many reasons outlined above. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner has applied the following prior art rejection given the examiner’s best interpretation of the indefinite product of the claims.
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 1, 7-12, 14, 18, 20 and 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (U.S. PGPUB 20150337261; reference A) in view of Schmuck et al (U.S. PGPUB 20160220732).
Regarding claims 1, 7-8, 11, 14 and 27, Li teaches a flowable extracellular matrix (ECM) microspheres made by a method comprising growing different types of human cells in suspension culture (reads on without adherence and therefore “non-adherent” or an added scaffold) with culture medium as aggregates (reads on self-adherent), and decellularizing said aggregates a with a detergent and DNase (see abstract, Figure 1 and paragraphs 7, 29, 35 and 44). Regarding claims 1, 7, 10, 22-23 and 26, Li shows in Figure 3A-C that both the cellular aggregates and the ECM microspheres have a spherical shape, a diameter ≤ 200 µm, and that the fibers in the ECM have form a 3D fibrous network (see Figure 3A-C and paragraph 13). Regarding claims 1 and 7, while Li exemplifies seeding cells at a density of 2-4×10.sup.4 cells/cm.sup.2 in 3 mL into Ultra-Low Attachment (ULA) 6-well plates (reads on “at least 500”), Li also teaches placing the ECM constructs in plates with smaller wells, such as 96-well plates (see Examples), and Li’s exemplified cell density in a smaller well/container reads on “including about 500 to 4000 seeded” cells.
Regarding claims 9-10, Li teaches the ECM product is suitable for injection and operative to pass through a syringe (see paragraphs 28 and 37); reads on ECM spheres that are “operative to” pass through the 27 G needle. Regarding claims 18 and 20, Li teaches the ECM can be cross-linked to increase stability and/or stiffness (see paragraphs 28 and 29); reads on a range of the mechanical stiffness lower and higher than the range of mechanical stiffness of healthy human heart tissue. Regarding 24-25, Li teaches the ECM product comprises collagen and glycosaminoglycans (see paragraphs 7 and 29, and Figure 3C). Li teaches that the ECM product is useful for treatment of hearts (see paragraphs 33 and 35).
Li does not teach the product by process limitation wherein the cells used to make the ECM product are heart cells or including TGF-beta.
Like Li, Schmuck teaches composition comprising decellularized extracellular matrix (ECM) for use to treat human hearts (see abstract and paragraphs 3-7 and 15). Regarding claims 1, 7 and 11-12 Schmuck teaches the ECM is made by the method comprising isolating cardiac fibroblasts from cardiac tissue, seeding cultured cardiac fibroblasts at desired densities such that the form microtissues with desired sizes, wherein the cultured cells generate an ECM microtissue comprised of the cultured cells and an ECM; collecting the ECM, and decellularizing the ECM microtissue (see paragraphs 15-18 and examples). Shmuck teaches the ECM can be made from cardiac fibroblasts from different species (see paragraph 123), and that it is used for humans and compatible with human cells (see paragraphs 3-7 and 15). Regarding claims 1 and 7, Schmuck teaches cardiac ECM may include matricellular proteins, such as growth factors and cytokines, and specifically TGF-beta since it is known to be in the cardiac ECM, and is known to be secreted by myofibroblasts and promotes cell proliferation (see paragraphs 14, 49 and 129).
It would have been obvious to combine Li and Schmuck to use human heart cells, including recombinant heart cells, to make Li’s ECM microspheres. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using human heart cells, including recombinant heart cells, to make Li’s ECM microspheres because both Li and Shmuck teach the ECM products can be made from different cell type, and Schmuck specifically teaches that heart cells are useful for making ECM products. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use human heart cells, including recombinant heart cells, to make Li’s ECM microspheres because Shmuck teaches the ECM made from heart cells is useful for treating heart tissue, and Li’s product is for treating heart tissue.
It would have been obvious to combine Li and Schmuck to include TGF-beta to make Li’s ECM microspheres. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in including TGF-beta to make Li’s ECM microspheres because Schmuck teaches cardiac ECM may include matricellular proteins, such as growth factors and cytokines, and specifically TGF-beta since it is known to be in the cardiac ECM, and is known to be secreted by myofibroblasts and promotes cell proliferation. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to include TGF-beta to make Li’s ECM microspheres because Shmuck teaches the ECM made from heart cells is useful for treating heart tissue, and that TGF-beta is both beneficial to include and may be part of the cardiac ECM, and Li’s product is for treating heart tissue.
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant highlights that Li does not teach or suggest the interleukin or TGF-beta as required in claim 1 or claim 7, and that Li does not teach making an ECM as discussed above in paragraph [0075] of the instant specification. As an initial mater, as noted above, the claims are indefinite. Regarding the use of TGF-beta, as discussed above Schmuck renders it obvious to include TGF-beta in Li’s composition. Regarding the paragraph [0075] of the instant specification, applicant is reminded that embodiments in the specification are not read into the claims. Therefore these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant generally alleges that Schmuck does not cure the defects of Li. However, as applicant’s arguments regarding Li were not persuasive, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
No claims are free of the art. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephanie McNeil whose telephone number is (571)270-5250. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at 5712720614. 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.
/STEPHANIE A MCNEIL/Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights