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 .
New Examiner
The new examiner of record is Erin Hirt.
Claim Interpretation
Because there does not appear to be a clear distinguishing definition of dispenser or granule which distinguish the two from each other and a granule can be a dispenser and a dispenser can be a granule the examiner is interpreting all of the claims that are only directed to a granule can read on a dispenser and all of the claimed directed only to a dispenser can read on a granule except for claim 20 which appears to distinguish some forms of each from the other.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-28 and the species, polycaprolactone, polyvinyl acetate, calcined kaolin, and Z-9-tetradecenyl acetate in the reply filed on 03/18/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 9, 11-12, 25, and 29-35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/18/26. Thus, claims 1-8, 10, and 13-24, 26-28 are being examined in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: oflow is missing a space and should be of low.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should recite wherein the dispenser further comprises about 1 wt% to about 80 wt% of filler.
Claims 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should recite: the semiochemical composition to the biodegradable polymer.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should recite: the filler to the semiochemical composition.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word around should be replaced with about for consistency purposes and the claim should say the filler and the semiochemical composition.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: comprises is misspelled.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains improper capitalizations of words which are not proper nouns.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 10, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it recites (including organoclay) in parentheses and it is unclear whether this limitation is meant to be part of the claim or not. If it is meant to be part of the claim, removing the parentheses would overcome this rejection. If this limitation is meant to be part of the claim however, it is also unclear because clay including organoclay is unclear. Including means “comprising” as per MPEP 2111.03. So this limitation makes it unclear if applicants actually want all types of clay or if the clay being claimed must comprise organoclay as per the including term? If applicants actually want all types of clay and organoclay, then rewriting the limitation as …a clay, an organoclay…would overcome this rejection.
Claim 10 is indefinite because it recites wherein the dispenser comprises polycaprolactone and calcined kaolin. It is unclear if these are in addition to the matrix comprising the biodegradable polymer and semiochemical, or if these are meant to be part of the matrix or just part of the dispenser separate from the matrix or the polycaprolactone is meant to be the biodegradable polymer being claimed in claim 1 and is further limiting the biodegradable polymer. For compact prosecution purposes the examiner has interpreted this claim as if it depends from claim 1 and the polycaprolactone is the biodegradable polymer and wherein the matrix further comprises the calcined kaolin. If applicant’s intend the calcined kaolin to actually be the filler as was elected then this claim could also depend from claim 6 and applicants could rewrite the claim as follows which would overcome the rejection. The dispenser or granule of claim 6, wherein the biodegradable polymer comprises polycaprolactone and wherein the filler is calcined kaolin.
Claim 24 is indefinite because it states that it comprises a list of various semiochemicals the comprising language would indicate that all of them are required to be included however this listing then ends with and mixtures thereof which indicates that not all of the semiochemicals are actually required to be present and contrary to the comprising language appears to indicate that applicant’s actually mean this listing to be a Markush grouping if you can have various mixtures thereof because if the claim comprises all of them as the comprising language reads as written then it could only be a mixture of all of them at once and not mixtures thereof. Thus, the language of the claim disagrees with itself making it unclear what applicants are actually trying to encompass with this claim. Additionally, as per applicant’s election of only one semiochemical in their response to the election/restriction indicates that applicant’s actually mean this listing to be a Markush grouping. Thus, to correct the indefiniteness caused by the disagreement in the claim with the contradicting language the claim should read…wherein the semiochemical composition is selected from the group consisting of….and mixtures thereof. Such amendments would overcome this rejection and correct the internal disagreement caused by the comprising…and mixtures thereof. The examiner is interpreting this claim as the grouping is a Markush group based on applicant’s election for examination purposes.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13, 20-24, and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakurada et al. (US5993843).
Regarding claims 1-6, 8, 20, 23-24, 26, Sakurada teaches in Example 19 cylinder shaped sustained/controlled release matrix granule/dispenser (applicants have not specifically defined granules thus the mm length cylinders read on/anticipate the claimed granules/dispensers) for controlled release comprising a matrix comprising a biodegradable polymer in 30 wt% based on the total weight of the dispenser/granule, specifically the elected polycaprolactone, non-biodegradable polymer specifically the claimed ethylene vinyl acetate, in 10 wt% based on the total weight of the dispenser/granule, and wherein the matrix comprises a filler contained within the matrix in amounts of 10 wt% based on the total weight of the dispenser/granule, and wherein the dispenser comprises a semiochemical is a pheromone, specifically Z-11-tetradecenyl acetate, in 50 wt% based on the total weight of the dispenser/granule (Example 19; Col. 3, ln. 57-64).
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above Sakurada teaches in Example 19 that 50 wt% of semiochemical is used with respect to 30 wt% of biodegradable polymer which reads on the claimed weight ratios 20:80 to 80:20 (Example 19; Col. 3, ln. 57-64).
Regarding claim 27, Sakurada also expressly teaches a matrix controlled release dispensers/granules comprising a matrix comprising a biodegradable polymer and a semiochemical are mixed and formed into sheets and the sheets are cut into the strips, Sakurada also expressly teaches wherein these sheets can be used in the form of chips obtained by cutting the sheet into pieces which specifically reads on/anticipates the flakes of claim 27 (See Col. 19, ln. 58-62; Examples 14-16; Col. 3, ln. 57-64), because one of ordinary skill in the art can readily envision forming the sheet into chips/flakes as is expressly taught by Sakurada.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 8, 13, 20-24, 26, and 28, Sakurada also teaches examples 14-16, which comprise biodegradable polymers including the claimed polycaprolactone in total amounts of 70 wt%, with a filler in amounts of 10 wt%, semiochemicals in amounts of 20 wt%, which is a weight ratio of semiochemical to biodegradable polymer of 20:70 which anticipates the claimed range, and the sheets cut into strips for instance in example 14 (50mm x 70mm x 0.5mm) are/read on the claimed rectangle prism (dispenser) having a thickness of 0.5 mm and anticipates claims 20 and 22, and the surface area is 71.2 cm2 which anticipates claim 21, and example 15 (0.5mm x 40mm x 50mm) and the sheets cut into strips for instance this example/read on/anticipate the claimed rectangle prism dispenser having a thickness of 0.5 mm, and the dispenser/granule having a surface area of 40.9 cm2, and the granule having a volume/mean volume of 1000 mm3 and as applicants have not specifically defined a granule these small strips also read on/anticipate the each of these various granule/dispenser limitations of the claims since they have each of the claimed measurements and anticipate the instant claims (Examples 14-15; Col. 3, ln. 57-64).
Regarding claims 1, 3-8, 20, 22, 23-24, and 26, are also anticipated by Example 18 in Sakurada which teaches biodegradable poly with the claimed ethylene-vinyl acetate and 2 wt% talc as filler and wherein the granules/dispensers are formed to a size of 42 mesh= 0.398 mm which reads on the thickness claimed, etc. (See Example 18).
Sakurada teaches all limitations of the claims and thereby anticipates the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
With respect to applicant’s elected species of polycaprolactone, polyvinyl acetate, calcined kaolin and Z-9-tetradecenyl acetate the following obviousness rejection applies to the instant claims:
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 13-24, 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada et al. (US5993843), and further in view of CN110810406 and Gaytan et al. (US20080064663).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1-6, 8, 23-24, and 26, Sakurada teaches in Example 19 a matrix controlled/sustained release dispensers/granules comprising a matrix comprising a biodegradable polymer in 30 wt% based on the total weight of the dispenser/granule, specifically the elected polycaprolactone, non-biodegradable polymer specifically the claimed ethylene vinyl acetate, in 10 wt% based on the total weight of the dispenser/granule, and wherein the matrix comprises a filler contained within the matrix in amounts of 10 wt% based on the total weight of the dispenser/granule, and wherein the dispenser comprises a semiochemical is a pheromone, specifically Z-11-tetradecenyl acetate, in 50 wt% based on the total weight of the dispenser/granule (Col. 3, ln. 57-64; Example 19). Sakurada also teaches wherein the biodegradable aliphatic polyester is/can be present in amount of 30 to 95% by weight of the matrix example (third group of Sakurada’s invention) and the biodegradable aliphatic polyesters include the instantly elected polycaprolactone (which does ring open polymerization) and forms/is an aliphatic polyester and is specifically used as an aliphatic polyester in example 19 (See entire document; Col. 18, ln. 17-34; Col. 5, ln. ~35-51; example 19, all of the other sections cited throughout this rejection) which reads on the instant claims. Sakurada also teaches wherein each of these components (biodegradable polymer, filler, and semiochemical) are present in the matrix dispenser/granules/composition in amounts of 30 wt% to 95 wt% of biodegradable aliphatic polyester, e.g. the claimed polycaprolactone, (see entire document; Col. 18, ln. 17-34; Col. 5, ln. ~35-51; examples 14—16, 18-19, etc.), the concentration of the active agent/semiochemical/pheromone is from 2 to 60 wt% based on the total weight of the matrix dispenser/granules/composition (see entire document; Col. 18, ln. 35-55; Col. 6, ln. 13-40; other sections cited within the 103 rejection), and filler in amounts of 2 to 50 wt% (Col. 18, ln. 56-Col. 19, ln. 5; Col. 19, ln. 24-32).
Regarding claims 4-5, Sakurada teaches wherein their matrix dispenser/granules/flakes can also comprise the claimed non-biodegradable polymers instantly claimed including the instantly elected polyvinyl acetate as it is for instance used in example 17 as a carrier and because they teach it in a list of polymers which also include the instantly claimed polycaprolactone, ethylene vinyl acetate, etc. are useful as carriers for holding the active ingredient (See also Col. 18, ln. 56-Col. 19, ln. 5).
Regarding claims 6-8, Sakurada also teaches that the filler is not particularly limited and can be a variety of materials which are known to be organic or inorganic fillers wherein examples include kaolin (which would broadly include calcined kaolin), clay, talc, wood meal/wood dust, etc. and wherein the fillers are contained within the matrix granules/dispenser in the claimed amounts (See entire document; Col. 19, ln. 6-32; Example 19; etc.).
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above Sakurada teaches in Example 19 that 50 wt% of semiochemical is used with respect to 30 wt% of biodegradable polymer which reads on the claimed weight ratios 20:80 to 80:20 (Example 19), though they do not exemplify that the semiochemical is the instantly elected Z-9-tetradecenyl acetate.
Regarding claims 17-18, Sakurada also teaches wherein their matrix dispensers/granules can further comprise additional additives including the claimed antioxidant, UV-blocking agent (see entire document; Col. 19, ln. 66-Col. 20, ln. 3).
Regarding claims 20-21, Sakurada teaches wherein the matrix pest controlling formulation/dispenser or granule can be formed into any desired shape insofar as the shape is suitable for pest control including chips/flakes (which are irregular 3D objects), cylindrical/column/pipe shaped/cylindrical disk shaped and sheets cut into strips which read on the claimed rectangular prism, and Sakurada also teaches wherein the useful surface area of their various types and/or other types of semiochemical dispensers overlaps the instantly claimed range, specifically they teach surface area ranges of 1cm2 or larger but that a range of from 2cm2 to 2m2 is more preferred (see entire document; Col. 19, ln. 33-65; Col. 13, ln. 66-Col. 14, ln. 15; Examples 14-16).
Regarding claim 22, Sakurada teaches wherein the thickness of their matrix device (e.g. the claimed granule or dispenser) is from 0.5mm which reads on the claimed range and that by changing the thickness the release period can be easily regulated (See Examples 14-16).
Regarding claims 23-24, and 26, Sakurada also teaches wherein the semiochemical/active agent can comprise the claimed and elected Z-9-tetradecenyl acetate pheromone and can be used in their matrix dispensers/granules in amounts of 2 wt% to 60 wt% based on the total weight of the matrix dispenser/device (See entire document; Col. 6, ln. 13-40; Col. 4, ln. 45-55).
Regarding claim 27, Sakurada also expressly teaches a matrix controlled release dispensers/granules comprising a matrix comprising a biodegradable polymer and a semiochemical are mixed and formed into sheets and the sheets are cut into the strips, Sakurada also expressly teaches wherein these sheets can be used in the form of chips obtained by cutting the sheet into pieces which specifically reads on the flakes of claim 27 (See Col. 19, ln. 58-62; Examples 14-16), because one of ordinary skill in the art can readily envision forming the sheet into chips/flakes as is expressly taught by Sakurada. Though Sakurada does not exemplify the specifically elected combination as flakes.
Regarding claims 20-22, and 28, Sakurada teaches various mean volumes of their variously shaped matrix dispensers or granules including powders/granules, including sheets cut into strips with a volume of 1000 mm3 (50mm x 40mm x 0.5 mm (thickness)) which reads on the claimed mean volume of about 1000 mm3 of the claimed granules but also reads on the rectangular prism shaped dispensers and the surface area of the instantly claimed dispenser/granule and also reads on the thickness of the claimed dispenser and as such is both of applicants dispenser and granule as in example 15, etc. (See entire document; e.g. examples 14-16).
Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)/ Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
Regarding claims 1-8, 13-18, 20-24, 26-28, Sakurada does not teach any examples which comprise the instantly elected polycaprolactone, calcined kaolin, polyvinyl acetate and Z-9-tetradecenyl acetate together. However, as discussed above Sakurada clearly teaches that their biodegradable polymer to form the matrix devices/dispensers/granules which deliver the same semiochemicals instantly claimed including the instantly elected Z-9-tetradecenyl acetate, can be formed from polycaprolactone as they teach examples which employ polycaprolactone as is discussed above. The also teach wherein the matrix can comprise the non-biodegradable polymers instantly claimed and specifically exemplify polyvinyl acetate as it is for instance used in example 17 as they teach it in a list of polymers which also include the instantly claimed polycaprolactone, ethylene vinyl acetate, etc. are useful as carriers for holding the active ingredient (See also Col. 18, ln. 56-Col. 19, ln. 5), and they teach that the filler is not particularly limited and can be a variety of materials which are known to be organic or inorganic fillers wherein examples include kaolin (which would broadly include calcined kaolin), clay, talc, wood meal/wood dust, etc. (See entire document; Col. 19, ln. 6-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have combined the polycaprolactone with the elected polyvinyl acetate and the claimed filler(s) in the claimed amounts in order to form the claimed granules and/or dispensers having the claimed properties (surface area, mean volume, shape, thickness) that are instantly claimed because Sakurada teaches that the claimed polycaprolactone is one of their exemplified biodegradable aliphatic polyesters which are useful in the claimed amounts, and that the polycaprolactone can be combined with the claimed polyvinyl acetate as a carrier in the claimed amounts as it is also exemplified in Sakurada’s examples of useful carrier polymers and broad disclosure and examples as is discussed and cited above. It would be obvious to make the dispensers or granules comprising the polycaprolactone, polyvinyl acetate to have the claimed shapes, surface areas, volumes, thicknesses instantly claimed because Sakurada already teaches examples which have all of these claimed features are useful for delivering pheromones which broadly include the claimed pheromones for agrochemical/agricultural uses. Thus, it would be obvious to substitute the elected species of polymers and pheromones for the exemplified polymers and pheromones in the examples of Sakurada in order to form the claimed granules or dispensers because each of these elected features is expressly taught by Sakurada to be useful for forming matrix dispensers or granules which are already exemplified in Sakurada to have the claimed shapes, volumes, surface areas and thicknesses. Thus, it would merely be optimization of the features taught by the prior art in order to form the most effective dispensers/granules for delivering the elected pheromone which is something that one or ordinary skill in the art routinely does because it is known to optimize the concentrations of the pheromones and polymers together to form effective matrix dispenser/granules for delivering the claimed/elected pheromone and it was known to form the dispensers granules into the claimed shapes, sizes, having the claimed areas, volumes and thicknesses because these characteristics were known to be useful for delivering the same types of pheromones to the environment for the same purpose and as such the optimization to form the claimed dispensers and granules with the elected species would have been obvious when taken in view of the totality of the teachings of Sakurada as discussed and cited above.
Regarding claims 14-16, Sakurada does not teach any examples wherein the weight ratios of the semiochemical to the biodegradable polymer is about 1:1 or wherein the filler to semiochemical are about 1:1 or wherein the biodegradable polymer to filler to semiochemical are about 1:1:1. However, Sakurada does teach wherein each of these components is present in the matrix dispenser/granules/composition in amounts of 30 wt% to 95 wt% of biodegradable aliphatic polyester, e.g. the claimed polycaprolactone, (see entire document; Col. 18, ln. 17-34; Col. 5, ln. ~35-51; examples 14—16, 18-19, etc.), the concentration of the active agent/semiochemical/pheromone is from 2 to 60 wt% based on the total weight of the matrix dispenser/granules/composition (see entire document; Col. 18, ln. 35-55; Col. 6, ln. 13-40; other sections cited within the 103 rejection), and wherein the filler can be present in amounts of 2 to 50 wt% (Col. 18, ln. 56-Col. 19, ln. 5; Col. 19, ln. 24-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amounts of each of these components to be about 1:1:1 and each of the subcombinations of these three components to be 1:1 as claimed because firstly 1:1:1 would be the easiest weight ratio of the dispenser/granule to make/manufacture as the main components would all be present in equal amounts by weight, and secondly it would be obvious to form matrix dispenser/granules/compositions with these compounds present in these weight ratios because it was known in the art to optimize the components of agricultural dispenser/granules in order to afford the most effective dispensers and granules for delivering the semiochemicals. It was known in the art for one of ordinary skill to optimize components within known/disclose ranges such as those of Sakurada in order to determine the most effective amounts for forming controlled release dispensers/granules for delivering the semiochemical/pheromones where needed. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[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.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), and see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382, “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Sakurada does not teach any examples wherein their matrix dispenser or granules/devices comprise both polycaprolactone and calcined kaolin or wherein the filler is the specifically elected calcined kaolin. As discussed above Sakurada does teach that the filler is not limited at all as long it is an organic or inorganic carrier and exemplifies kaolin, and Sakurada also teaches using polycaprolactone as either/both the biodegradable aliphatic polyester and/or the carrier polymer for combining with the semiochemical which broadly includes the elected semiochemical for forming controlled release matrix dispensers and granules as is discussed above.
However, this deficiency in Sakurada is addressed by CN110810406.
CN110810406 teaches that calcined kaolin was a known effective carrier/filler for sustained release agrochemical formulation as in CN110810406 they prefer the use of calcined kaolin (See paragraph beginning: Preferably, the sustained-release carrier is sodium carboxymethyl…).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have formed the claimed dispenser or granules with the instantly elected species of polycaprolactone, etc. for the reasons already discussed above especially since it is a specifically exemplified biodegradable polymer useful for delivering semiochemicals/pheromones including those instantly claimed and/or elected as discussed above and because Sakurada teaches that the filler is not limited at all in scope as long as it is useful filler for agricultural compositions. It also would have been obvious to select the claimed/instantly elected calcined kaolin to use as a carrier in the dispensers made of polylactone or granules of Sakurada in order to develop the instantly claimed dispensers but to particularly use the calcined kaolin in place of the fillers in the examples containing polycaprolactone of Sakurada because CN110810406 teaches that calcined kaolin is a particularly effective filler for forming sustained release agrochemical formulations and Sakurada teaches that kaolin (Which would broadly include calcined kaolin) is an effective filler for forming their sustained release dispensers/granules which are not at all limited in scope.
Regarding claim 19, Sakurada also does not specifically teach including an anticaking agent in their dispenser or granules. However, they teach using silica as a filler in their examples and silica is a well-known anticaking agent. Gaytan teaches silica is a known effective anticaking agent used when extruding/making granules (which read on the claimed dispensers/granules) with agrochemicals and/or insecticides ([0055]). Thus, whenever Sakurada uses silica it can be/will be functioning as both a filler and/or an anticaking agent and/or it would be obvious to add silica to the matrix dispenser/granules taught by Sakurada which comprise the instantly elected polymer(s), polycaprolactone, and with the elected pheromone and with or without the elected polyvinyl acetate in order to provide both effectiveness as a filler and/or anticaking agent in addition with the elected filler since silica has both of these functions especially since Gaytan teaches that silica is a particularly useful anticaking agent for use when forming/extruding granules/dispensers for agricultural uses.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin E Hirt whose telephone number is (571)270-1077. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-7:30 ET M-F.
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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/ERIN E HIRT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616