DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 4, 10-14, 24, 32, 35-36, 42-43, and 48-55 are currently pending and are examined herein.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 08/08/2023, 12/08/2023, 01/29/2024, 01/07/2025, and 03/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
As per MPEP § 2111 and § 2111.01, during patent examination, the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow while being consistent with the specification. The words of a claim must be given their ‘plain meaning’ unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, wherein ‘plain meaning’ of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
Below are notes made by the examiner regarding claim interpretation of the most recent set of claims. Applicant is respectfully invited to comment on or dispute any of these statements.
Claim 4 recites a product comprising a material for tagging, the material including at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, representing N digits of a bar code that identifies an attribute for which the material tags, wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA represents one value of a corresponding one of the N digits, N being a positive integer greater than 1, and wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA are constructed to be distinguishable from DNA present prior to addition introduction of the material. Claim 43 similarly recites an “applied taggant” with essentially identical corresponding limitations as the “material” in claim 4.
As per MPEP § 2173.05(g), a “claim term is functional when it recites a feature ‘by what it does rather than by what it is’”. The same MPEP section states that “[t]here is nothing inherently wrong with defining some part of an invention in functional terms” and that “[a] functional limitation must be evaluated and considered, just like any other limitation of the claim, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art in the context in which it is used.” MPEP § 2114 further explains that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does" citing Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original), further stating that a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, citing Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In other words, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Therefore, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The manner or method in which a product is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. See MPEP § 2111.02, citing In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus), and MPEP § 2112.01 citing In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) stating that “discovery of an unobvious property and use does not overcome the statutory restraint of section 102 when the claimed composition is known”.
Thus, for the “material including at least N unique independent pieces of DNA … N being a positive integer greater than 1” recited in claims 4 and 43, the limitations of “representing N digits of a bar code that identifies an attribute” and “are constructed to be distinguishable from DNA present prior to the introduction of the material” are reasonably interpreted as functional limitations of the “N unique independent pieces of DNA”. The corresponding structural limitation implied by these limitations is that there must be at least two unique pieces of DNA that can be distinguished from one another, for example, being of different sequences. Sequences of DNA are very well known as being able to represent information. Aside from their use in nature as encoding corresponding mRNA and/or protein sequences, DNA sequences have long been utilized to represent (sometimes arbitrary) information owing to their linear sequences of nucleotides, which can routinely be synthesized and sequenced. Therefore, it is reasonable that nearly any unique sequence of DNA can be (arbitrarily) assigned to represent an attribute or other pieces of information, and that nearly any N unique pieces of DNA (wherein N > 1) can represent N pieces of information, absent factual evidence to the contrary.
Claims 10 and 48 further define the types of information that are to be represented by the N unique pieces of DNA, however, this does not change the structural limitations of the DNA. Claims 11 and 49 merely increase the number of unique independent pieces of DNA required to 2N (with N > 1). Claim 12 requires that at least N unique pieces of DNA contain different sequences or lengths. Claims 13 and 50 require that the “at least N unique independent pieces of DNA include synthetic DNA”, and claims 14 and 51 likewise require that the “at least N unique independent pieces of DNA include DNA that exists in nature” and are interpreted by the structural limitations implied.
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 4, 10-14, 43, and 48-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more.
Claims 4 and 43 each recite a product (“a material … including at least N unique independent pieces of DNA” and “an applied taggant [that] includes at least N unique independent pieces of DNA”, respectively) and the broadest reasonable interpretation of these products of the claims encompass embodiments that are either naturally occurring, or are non-naturally occurring but lacking markedly different characteristics as compared to their naturally occurring counterparts, and therefore are “product of nature” judicial exceptions as per MPEP 2106.04(c). As per the Claim Interpretation section herein, the structural limitations implied by the claims are merely that each and every one of the N unique and independent pieces of DNA are distinguishable from one another, for example, by having different sequences. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims encompasses embodiments wherein the DNA sequences and either naturally occurring, or are non-naturally occurring but lacking markedly different characteristics as compared to their naturally occurring counterparts. Therefore, claims 4 and 43 are not patent eligible. Claims 10 and 48 further define the types of information that are to be represented by the N unique pieces of DNA, however, this does not change the structural limitations of the DNA and therefore they are similarly patent ineligible. Claims 11 and 49 merely increase the number of unique independent pieces of DNA required to 2N (with N > 1) and claim 12 requires that at least N unique pieces of DNA contain different sequences or lengths, none of which imparts properties to the products that exclude them being either naturally occurring, or non-naturally occurring but lacking markedly different characteristics as compared to their naturally occurring counterparts. Claims 13 and 50 require that the “at least N unique independent pieces of DNA include synthetic DNA”, however, it is noted that as per MPEP 2106.04(c), pieces of DNA designated as being “synthetically created” may still have structural characteristics that are not markedly different than their corresponding pieces of DNA found in nature, citing University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp., 774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claims 14 and 51 each require that the “at least N unique independent pieces of DNA include DNA that exists in nature” and therefore encompass patent ineligible subject matter, at least because the claims therefore reasonably include embodiments wherein each and every N unique independent pieces of DNA include DNA that exists in nature.
In conclusion, product claims 4, 10-14, 43, and 48-51 are “product of nature” judicial exceptions as per MPEP 2106.04(c). Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that the analysis for patent eligibility fails Prong One of Step 2A, and the claims must be further analyzed in the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application or there are additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, based on the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit, are discussed at length in MPEP 2106.04(d) and in the Federal Register (Vol. 84, No. 4, from January 7, 2019). In the present case, there are no “additional elements” in claims 4, 10-14, 43, and 48-51 and therefore there is nothing that can transform the claims into something patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
For further information, please see the latest revision of MPEP § 2104-2106 {Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101}, including MPEP § 2106.04 {Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception} and 2106.05 {Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More}, as well as any additional guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility, provided on the USPTO website at
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) -- Indefiniteness
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.
Claim 32 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "applying the material further comprises spraying the material with a carrier". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the claim nor any claim from which it depends recites a step of spraying.
As per MPEP 2173: It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter. Therefore, claims that do not meet this standard must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph as indefinite. Further, as per MPEP 2173.02: If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, would be appropriate. As currently written, the metes and bounds of the rejected claims are unascertainable for the reasons set forth above, thus the above claim(s) and all dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102
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 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 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)(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.
Macula et al.
Claims 4, 10-14, 43, and 48-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Macula et al. (U.S. PGPub 2014/0220576 A1, cited in IDS of 08/08/2023).
Regarding claims 4, 10-14, 43, and 48-51, Macula discloses four or more unique, independent pieces of DNA which can represent digits of a bar code with the at least four unique, independent pieces of DNA able to be distinguishable from DNA present prior to introduction and/or from other sources (e.g., throughout the entire document and particularly as per Table 2 and/or para 0090-0099). As detailed in the Claim Interpretation section, above, as well as MPEP 2114, features of a product may be recited either structurally or functionally. If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In the present case, the functional limitations of representing data/information by various sequences and/or combinations of sequences of DNA is inherent in its structure. In support of this, it is noted that nature itself stores and reads data/information in DNA sequences for transcription and/or translation of DNA into mRNA and proteins, respectively. In addition, a very great number of people have successfully used these inherent features of DNA to store and retrieve all sorts of information in unique independent pieces of DNA, much like Macula. The precise form or nature of the data stored and retrieved is merely a matter of defining beforehand which DNA sequences correspond to which pieces of information. Therefore, the present product claims are anticipated by at least the disclosure of Macula, absent factual evidence showing that the DNA of Macula does not inherently possess the characteristics relied on.
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 obviousness-type 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
U.S. 11,200,383 B2
Claims 4, 10, 12-13, 24, 32, 43, 48, 50, 52, and 54 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,200,383 B2 (the ‘383 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected claims of the present invention would be anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the subject matter in the claims of the reference patent.
Regarding claims 4, 10, 12, 43, 48, and 52, the claims of the ‘383 patent disclose materials/taggants comprising at least one bar code for identifying an attribute, wherein the at least one DNA bar code includes at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, representing N digits of a bar code that identifies the attribute of the material, wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA represents one value of a corresponding one of the N digits, N being a positive integer greater than one, and wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA are constructed to be distinguishable from DNA present prior to introduction of the material or from sources other than the applied taggant (e.g., as per claims 6-7, 14, and/or 16 of the ‘383 patent).
Regarding claim 24, the claims of the ‘383 patent disclose a method for detecting an attribute for a material including at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, representing N digits of a DNA bar code that identifies the attribute, N being a positive integer greater than 1, wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA represents one value of a corresponding one of the N digits, said method comprising: detecting detected pieces of DNA of the material; deriving a derived DNA bar code from the detected pieces of DNA; and comparing the derived DNA bar code to a predetermined DNA bar code that identifies the attribute to detect the attribute (e.g., as per claims 6 and 14 of the ‘383 patent).
Regarding claims 13, 50, and 54, the claims of the ‘383 patent disclose the above, wherein said at least N unique pieces of DNA include synthetic DNA (e.g., as per claim 7 of the ‘383 patent).
Regarding claim 32, the claims of the ‘383 patent disclose the above, wherein applying the material further comprises spraying the material with a carrier (e.g., as per claim 16 of the ‘383 patent).
U.S. 11,853,832 B2
Claims 4, 10, 12-13, 24, 32, 43, 48, 50, 52, and 54 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,853,832 B2 (the ‘832 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected claims of the present invention would be anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the subject matter in the claims of the reference patent.
Regarding claims 4, 10, 12, 43, 48, and 52, the claims of the ‘832 patent disclose materials/taggants comprising at least one bar code for identifying an attribute, wherein the at least one DNA bar code includes at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, representing N digits of a bar code that identifies the attribute of the material, wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA represents one value of a corresponding one of the N digits, N being a positive integer greater than one, and wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA are constructed to be distinguishable from DNA present prior to introduction of the material or from sources other than the applied taggant (e.g., as per claims 6 and/or 9 of the ‘832 patent).
Regarding claim 24, the claims of the ‘832 patent disclose a method for detecting an attribute for a material including at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, representing N digits of a DNA bar code that identifies the attribute, N being a positive integer greater than 1, wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA represents one value of a corresponding one of the N digits, said method comprising: detecting detected pieces of DNA of the material; deriving a derived DNA bar code from the detected pieces of DNA; and comparing the derived DNA bar code to a predetermined DNA bar code that identifies the attribute to detect the attribute (e.g., as per claims 6 and 9 of the ‘832 patent).
Regarding claims 13, 50, and 54, the claims of the ‘832 patent disclose the above, wherein said at least N unique pieces of DNA include synthetic DNA (e.g., as per claim 7 of the ‘832 patent).
Regarding claim 32, the claims of the ‘832 patent disclose the above, wherein applying the material further comprises spraying the material with a carrier (e.g., as per claims 1 and/or 9 of the ‘832 patent).
U.S. 11,699,045 B2
Claims 4, 10, 12-13, 24, 32, 43, 48, 50, 52, and 54 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,699,045 B2 (the ‘045 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected claims of the present invention would be anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the subject matter in the claims of the reference patent.
Regarding claims 4, 10, 12, 43, 48, and 52, the claims of the ‘045 patent disclose materials/taggants comprising at least one bar code for identifying an attribute, wherein the at least one DNA bar code includes at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, representing N digits of a bar code that identifies the attribute of the material, wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA represents one value of a corresponding one of the N digits, N being a positive integer greater than one, and wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA are constructed to be distinguishable from DNA present prior to introduction of the material or from sources other than the applied taggant (e.g., as per claims 2, 14, and/or 16 of the ‘045 patent).
Regarding claim 24, the claims of the ‘045 patent disclose a method for detecting an attribute for a material including at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, representing N digits of a DNA bar code that identifies the attribute, N being a positive integer greater than 1, wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA represents one value of a corresponding one of the N digits, said method comprising: detecting detected pieces of DNA of the material; deriving a derived DNA bar code from the detected pieces of DNA; and comparing the derived DNA bar code to a predetermined DNA bar code that identifies the attribute to detect the attribute (e.g., as per claims 2 and 14 of the ‘045 patent).
Regarding claims 13, 50, and 54, the claims of the ‘045 patent disclose the above, wherein said at least N unique pieces of DNA include synthetic DNA (e.g., as per claim 7 of the ‘045 patent).
Regarding claim 32, the claims of the ‘045 patent disclose the above, wherein applying the material further comprises spraying the material with a carrier (e.g., as per claims 3 and/or 16 of the ‘045 patent).
U.S. 10,302,614 B2
Claims 4, 10-14, 24, 32, 35-36, 42-43, and 48-55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,302,614 B2 (the ‘614 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected claims of the present invention would be anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the subject matter in the claims of the reference patent.
Regarding claims 4, 10, 12, 43, 48, and 52, the claims of the ‘614 patent disclose materials/taggants comprising at least one bar code for identifying an attribute, wherein the at least one DNA bar code includes at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, representing N digits of a bar code that identifies the attribute of the material, wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA represents one value of a corresponding one of the N digits, N being a positive integer greater than one, and wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA are constructed to be distinguishable from DNA present prior to introduction of the material or from sources other than the applied taggant (e.g., as per claims 1, 4, 10, 15, 17, 22, 24, and/or 26 of the ‘614 patent).
Regarding claim 24, the claims of the ‘614 patent disclose a method for detecting an attribute for a material including at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, representing N digits of a DNA bar code that identifies the attribute, N being a positive integer greater than 1, wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA represents one value of a corresponding one of the N digits, said method comprising: detecting detected pieces of DNA of the material; deriving a derived DNA bar code from the detected pieces of DNA; and comparing the derived DNA bar code to a predetermined DNA bar code that identifies the attribute to detect the attribute (e.g., as per claims 10-11 of the ‘614 patent).
Regarding claim 36, the claims of the ‘614 patent disclose the above, wherein for each unique independent piece of DNA of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, determining the corresponding binary digit of N binary digits of the DNA bar code by: (1) causing a polymerase chain reaction of the unique independent piece of DNA through one or more heating cycles to increase a number of copies of the unique independent piece of DNA; and (2) detecting the number of copies of the unique independent piece of DNA to determine a value of the corresponding binary digit of the N binary digits of the DNA bar code; and based on the N binary digits of the DNA bar code, determining the attribute (e.g., as per claims 22 and/or 26 of the ‘614 patent).
Regarding claims 11, 49, and 53, the claims of the ‘614 patent disclose the above, wherein said material including 2N unique independent pieces of DNA, wherein presence in the material of a first one of the 2N unique independent pieces of DNA tagged to the item indicates a first value of a bit in the digital bar code corresponding to such piece of DNA, and the presence in the material of a second one of the 2N unique independent pieces of DNA tagged to the item and different from the first piece of DNA indicates a second value of such bit in the digital bar code different from the first value of such bit (e.g., as per claim 11 of the ‘614 patent).
Regarding claims 13, 50, and 54, the claims of the ‘614 patent disclose the above, wherein said at least N unique pieces of DNA include synthetic DNA (e.g., as per claims 13 and/or 27 of the ‘614 patent).
Regarding claims 14, 51, and 55, the claims of the ‘614 patent disclose the above, wherein said at least N unique pieces of DNA include DNA that exists in nature (e.g., as per claim 14 of the ‘614 patent).
Regarding claims 32, 35, and 42, the claims of the ‘614 patent disclose the above, wherein applying the material further comprises spraying the material with a carrier that includes water, lipids, polysaccharides, proteins, or agar gel (e.g., as per claims 19-20 of the ‘614 patent).
U.S. 11,692,988 B2
Claims 4, 10, 12, 24, 32, 35-36, 42-43, 48, and 52 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,692,988 B2 (the ‘988 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the rejected claims of the present invention would be anticipated and/or rendered obvious by the subject matter in the claims of the reference patent.
Regarding claims 4, 10, 12, 43, 48, and 52, the claims of the ‘988 patent disclose materials/taggants comprising at least one bar code for identifying an attribute, wherein the at least one DNA bar code includes at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, representing N digits of a bar code that identifies the attribute of the material, wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA represents one value of a corresponding one of the N digits, N being a positive integer greater than one, and wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA are constructed to be distinguishable from DNA present prior to introduction of the material or from sources other than the applied taggant (e.g., as per claims 1, 9, and/or 16 of the ‘988 patent).
Regarding claim 24, the claims of the ‘988 patent disclose a method for detecting an attribute for a material including at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, representing N digits of a DNA bar code that identifies the attribute, N being a positive integer greater than 1, wherein each of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA represents one value of a corresponding one of the N digits, said method comprising: detecting detected pieces of DNA of the material; deriving a derived DNA bar code from the detected pieces of DNA; and comparing the derived DNA bar code to a predetermined DNA bar code that identifies the attribute to detect the attribute (e.g., as per claim 9 of the ‘988 patent).
Regarding claim 36, the claims of the ‘988 patent disclose the above, wherein for each unique independent piece of DNA of the at least N unique independent pieces of DNA, determining the corresponding binary digit of N binary digits of the DNA bar code by: (1) causing a polymerase chain reaction of the unique independent piece of DNA through one or more heating cycles to increase a number of copies of the unique independent piece of DNA; and (2) detecting the number of copies of the unique independent piece of DNA to determine a value of the corresponding binary digit of the N binary digits of the DNA bar code; and based on the N binary digits of the DNA bar code, determining the attribute (e.g., as per claim 9 of the ‘988 patent).
Regarding claims 32, 35, and 42, the claims of the ‘988 patent disclose the above, wherein applying the material further comprises spraying the material with a carrier that includes water, lipids, polysaccharides, proteins, or agar gel (e.g., as per claims 5, 8, 13, 15, and/or 19-20 of the ‘988 patent).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY FLINDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:00 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, Heather Calamita can be reached on (571)272-2876. 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.
/JEREMY C FLINDERS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1684
Prosecution Insights