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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s provisional application 63/377,773 filed September 30th, 2022. The effective filing date is September 30th, 2022.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined on the merits.
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 6, 8 and 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 states “The system of claim 3, wherein the computing device performs assembly using many half-mapped reads, a smaller number of fully mapped reads, and the smallest number of unmapped reads.” The terms “many”, “a smaller number” and “the smallest number” in claim 6 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are 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. One of ordinary skill in the art of bioinformatics would not understand what standard range of reads the computer device is fit to assemble. For the purposes of speedy examination, the Examiner interprets the claim as a sequencing device, system, or method that separates mapped reads into separate, relative priority bins.
Claim 8 states “the computing device employs smart selector”. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a definition, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art of bioinformatics would be unclear as to the facet of a smart selector or whether it is a method or an apparatus. For the purposes of speedy examination, the Examiner interprets the claim as an assembly quality analysis.
Claim 13 states “The system of claim 1, wherein the system is a field instrument to analyze waste water, for example.” One of ordinary skill in the art of bioinformatics would not understand if the system is limited to analyzing waste water or if the system or not. For the purposes of speedy examination, the Examiner interprets the claim such that the system is a field instrument used to analyze elements and/or materials inclusive of or other than water.
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.
Regarding claim 6, for the purposes of speedy examination, the Examiner interprets the claim as a sequencing device, system, or method that separates mapped reads into separate, relative priority bins.
Regarding claim 8, the Examiner interprets the claim as an assembly quality analysis.
Regarding claim 13, the Examiner interprets the claim such that the system is a field instrument used to analyze elements and/or materials inclusive of or other than water.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental steps, mathematic concepts, organizing human activity, or a natural law without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (claims 1-13 are drawn to a system, claims 14-20 are drawn to a method) (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims (listed numerically) recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea (reasonings in parentheses):
Claim 1 states:
“a computing device that analyzes the reads to assemble, annotate, and/or visualize genetic elements of interest.” (which is a mental step, i.e. can be completed with pen and paper)
Claim 3 states: “the computing device employs smart-filtering to select reads for assembly that will optimize assembly output regardless of the number or distribution of reads.” (mental step)
Claim 4 states: “the reads are selected based on how much information they contain about the genetic elements of interest and its flanking region.” (mental step)
Claim 5 states: “the reads are broken into the three types: fully mapped, half mapped, and unmapped reads.” (mental step)
Claim 7 states: “the computing device employs an assembly quality analysis to determine which node sets are to be used.” (mental step)
Claim 8 states: “the computing device employs smart selector” (mental step).
Claim 9 states: “the computing device employs an assembly quality score that is used to compare different runs of the same sample in the sequencer to score and rank for each run.” (mental step).
Claim 10 states: “the runs are compared using the average ranking, and the run with the lowest average ranking was set as the default for the pipeline.” (mental step)
Claim 11 states: “the computing device employs a crosstalk metric created to predict whether a GEI exists in a sample from crosstalk or not.” (which is a mathematical process of a mathematical calculation)
Claim 14 states:
“analyzing the reads to assemble, annotate, and/or visualize genetic elements of interest.” (mental step)
Claim 15 states: “employing smart-filtering to select reads for assembly that will optimize assembly output regardless of the number or distribution of reads.” (mental step)
Claim 16 states: “the reads are selected based on how much information they contain about the genetic elements of interest and its flanking region.” (mental step)
Claim 17 states: “employing an assembly quality analysis to determine which node sets are to be used.” (mental step)
Claim 18 states: “…employing smart selection” (mental step)
Claim 19 states: “employing an assembly quality score that is used to compare different runs of the same sample in the sequencer to score and rank for each run.” (mental step)
Claim 20 states: “employing a crosstalk metric to predict whether a GEI exists in a sample from crosstalk or not.” (mathematical calculation)
The claims recite an abstract idea of analyzing DNA (See MPEP 2106.07(a)).
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
While claim 1 recites performing some aspects of the analysis using a “system”, there are no
additional limitations that indicate that this system requires anything other than carrying out the recited mental process or mathematical concept in a generic computer environment. Merely reciting that a mental process is being performed in a generic computer environment does not preclude the steps from being performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then if falls within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claim(s) 1-16 recite(s) an abstract idea/law of nature/natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 2
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the
claims do not recite an additional element that reflects an improvement to technology or applies or uses
the recited judicial exception to affect a particular treatment for a condition. Rather, the instant claims
recite additional elements that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic computing environment or mere instructions to apply the recited judicial exception via a generic
treatment. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1 recites: “a DNA sequencer that generates a series of reads associated with a sample containing DNA” (which further limits the abstract idea of claim 1)
Claim 2 recites: “wherein the DNA sequencer is used in combination with probe based enrichment” (which further limits the abstract idea of claim 1).
Claim 12 recites: “the system is a laboratory instrument.” (which further limits the abstract idea of claim 1).
Claim 13 recites: “the system is a field instrument to analyze waste water, for example.” (which further limits the abstract idea of claim 1).
Claim 14 states: “generating a series of reads associated with a sample containing DNA using a sequencer” (which further limits the abstract idea of claim 14)
There are no limitations that indicate that the claimed analysis engine or the formats of the
provided data require anything other than generic computing systems. As such, these limitations equate does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. As such, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to mere
instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment. The
instant claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1 recites: “a DNA sequencer that generates a series of reads associated with a sample containing DNA” (which further limits the abstract idea of claim 1)
Claim 2 recites: “wherein the DNA sequencer is used in combination with probe based enrichment” (which further limits the abstract idea of claim 1).
Claim 12 recites: “the system is a laboratory instrument.” (which further limits the abstract idea of claim 1).
Claim 13 recites: “the system is a field instrument to analyze waste water, for example.” (which further limits the abstract idea of claim 1).
Claim 14 states: “generating a series of reads associated with a sample containing DNA using a sequencer” (which further limits the abstract idea of claim 14)
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 12-14, the steps of outputting sequencing data, aggregating/storing sequencing data, and the receiving of a request (which amounts to input of information) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and constitutes an insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering and presentation), which does not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
As discussed above, there are no additional limitations to indicate that the claimed
analysis requires anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. MPEP 2106.05(f) discloses that mere instructions to apply the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept to the claims.
Additionally, the claims are directed to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as evidenced by Hinlo et al. (PLoS One. 2017 Jun 12;12(6):e0179251. Pg. 1-22), who teaches methods to maximize recovery of environmental DNA from water samples.
The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or
as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No). As such, claims 1-20 is/are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Debode et al. (Sci Rep. 2019 Oct 30;9(1):15595. Pg. 1-9)
Claim references are italicized.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Debode et al. teaches a next generation sequencing (NGS) study of transgenic events for the purposes of studying genetically modified organisms (plant genomes with transgenic events/structural elements). Debode et al. teaches in the methods that sequencing was performed on an Illumina MiSeq instrument with MiSeq Reagent Kit, and the analysis of results included various free access programs including those for read calling/assembly and visualization (pg. 7, “Next generation sequencing” lines 9-15, re. clm. 1, … A system, comprising: a DNA sequencer that generates a series of reads associated with a sample containing DNA; and a computing device that analyzes the reads to assemble, annotate, and/or visualize genetic elements of interest., clm. 14, … A method of analysis of a DNA-containing sample, the method comprising: generating a series of reads associated with a sample containing DNA using a sequencer; and analyzing the reads to assemble, annotate, and/or visualize genetic elements of interest.). Debode et al. teaches DNA sequencing and analysis in anticipation of claims 1 and 14.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Debode et al. teaches the use of probe based enrichment in the methods on pg. 7, stating “DNA was sheared on a Picoruptor (Diagenode, Liège, Belgium) to produce
fragments of ~150–200 bp. The SureSelect XT Target Enrichment system (Agilent technologies) was used
to capture sequences of interest prior to sequencing. The design includes 458 enrichment probes.” (re: clm. 2, … the DNA sequencer is used in combination with probe based enrichment.) In the same paragraph, Debode et al. teaches the use of an Illumina MiSeq Instrument, which is laboratory equipment (re: clm. 12, … the system is a laboratory instrument.). Debode et al. teaches a system using a sequencer with probes and laboratory equipment in anticipation of claims 2 and 12.
Regarding claim 13, For the purposes of speedy examination, the Examiner interprets the claim such that the system is a field instrument used to analyze elements and/or materials inclusive of or other than water. Debode et al. teaches in the specification that “Fig. 1A shows the system to which the present invention is applied. In general, this can be a laboratory system or a portable device that is used in the field to analyze novel DNA sequences. One specific example is to analyze viruses found in wastewater at a wastewater treatment facility.” Therefore, a field instrument could be a laboratory system, which Debode et al. teaches to detect and identify transgenic events in plants (Abstract, Methods). Debode et al. teaches next generation sequencing methods to identify transgenic events in plants in anticipation of claim 13.
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.
Claim(s) 3-8, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debode et al. as applied to claims 1,2, 12-14 above and in view of Junwoo Bae et al. (BMC Genomics. 2018 Dec 18;19(1):944. Pg. 1-11).
Debode et al. as applied to claims 1,2, 12-14 above.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Bae et al. teaches iMGEins, a program to identify mobile genetic elements (MGEs) by using sequencing reads of individual genomes and exploring the breakpoints with the supporting reads and MGEs detected. Bae et al. discloses in Fig. 1 and Fig 2. an overview of the pipeline, including read classification, breakpoint prediction, MGE identification, and de novo assembly phases (pg. 3). The Applicant’s specification discloses (regarding the claimed “smart-filter”):
“Table 1 shows the full smart-filter algorithm, including the examples of specific thresholds that worked well during testing with experimental data. The parameters implemented in the smart filter were developed by testing various parameter sets on multiple types of samples.”
The read classification and breakpoint prediction phases reads on a rules-based read filtering phase occurring prior to an alignment phase, as stated in the details of the legend of Figs. 1 and 2, as well as the “Identification of MGEs using one-end unmapped reads and soft-clipped reads” section beginning on pg. 4. These phases disclose optimization of reads according to the parameters of the classification pipeline leading to assembly (re: clm. 3, 15 … the computing device employs smart-filtering to select reads for assembly that will optimize assembly output regardless of the number or distribution of reads.).
Bae et al. does not explicitly teach a DNA sequencer itself or the direct use of a DNA sequencer to generate DNA reads from a sample, as Debode et al. does.
In KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court, in rejecting the rigid application of the teaching, suggestion, and motivation test by the Federal Circuit, indicated that “The principles underlying [earlier] cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to Debode et al., and Bae et al., the examiner concludes that the combination of the sequencing method according to Debode et al. with the read classification and assembly pipeline for MGEs as disclosed by Bae et al. represents a combination of known elements which yield the predictable result of a DNA sequencer used to obtain a DNA reads from a sample which are then applied to a read classification pipeline. The use of the DNA sequencer as taught by Debode et al. in this combination would have further served to achieve the predictable result of sequenced reads applicable to a classification pipeline because all instructions to said DNA sequencer are readily available in the methods of Debode et al. and are additionally publicly and commercially available tools and methods known in the art. Such a combination is merely a "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR Int’l 7, 127 S. Ct. at 1740.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Bae et al. teaches a study of DNA reads containing mobile genetic elements. As disclosed in Fig. 3, and pgs. 4-5 unmapped reads are considered during the assembly of MGEs, which inherently includes both genetic elements of interest and regions flanking said interest regions (re: clm. 4,16 … wherein the reads are selected based on how much information they contain about the genetic elements of interest and its flanking region.). Bae et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Bae et al. teaches on pg. 2, “According to the mapping status, such as bitwise FLAG and the CIGAR string in the SAM format file, the reads are grouped into one of the following three types:
– Soft-clipped (S) if the reads are partially mapped
with the sufficient length of clipped sequence.
– Mapped (M) if one-end read is fully mapped.
– Unmapped (U) if one-end reads is not mapped.” These mappings are inherent to BAM files and teach the limitation of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, for the purposes of speedy examination, the Examiner interprets the claim as a sequencing device, system, or method that separates mapped reads into separate, relative priority bins. Bae et al. discloses read breakpoints on pg. 2, stating: “Candidate breakpoints are predicted by taking five consecutive steps shown in Fig. 2b. First, the initial breakpoints are estimated by taking into account the three aspects…” and additionally teaches read mapping on the same page (re: clm. 6, … wherein the computing device performs assembly using many half-mapped reads, a smaller number of fully mapped reads, and the smallest number of unmapped reads.). Bae et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 17 and 18, Bae et al. teaches on pg. 2-4, Figs 2-3 read breakpoint filtering, which reads on an assembly quality analysis to determine sequence sets (which read on node sets under the broadest reasonable interpretation) (re: clm. 7, 17, … wherein the computing device employs an assembly quality analysis to determine which node sets are to be used. ). Bae et al. therefore additionally teaches on the employment of a computational selection criterion with rules (re: clm. 8, 18, … the computing device employs smart selector.). Bae et al. teaches on the limitations of claims 7, 8, 17, and 18.
Claims 9, 10 and, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debode et al. in view of Junwoo Bae et al. as applied to claims 1-8 and 12-18 above, and in view of Bradnam et al. (GigaScience, Volume 2, Issue 1, Dec. 2013, 2:10, pg. 1-32)
Debode et al. in view of Bae et al. as applied to claims 1-8 and 12-18 above.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Debode et al. in view of Bae et al. teaches a DNA sequencer that employs an assembly quality score (Debode et al., methods, Bae et al. pg. 4, “Some reads could be soft-clipped by sequencing errors and/or low-quality bases at the end of the reads…” but does not explicitly disclose that said quality score is used to compare sequencing runs of the same sample (re: clm. 9, 19, … the computing device employs an assembly quality score that is used to compare different runs of the same sample in the sequencer to score and rank for each run…)
Bradnam et al. teaches Assemblathon 2, a genome assembly contest applied to an exercise using real sequencing reads from a mixture of NGS technologies (pg. 3). Bradnam et al. teaches various metrics with which to rank genome assemblies on pg. 18 (“Ranking Assemblies”).
Bradnam et al. does not teach a device to conduct DNA sequencing.
Applying the KSR standard to Bradnam et al., Debode et al. and Bae et al., the examiner concludes that the combination of the scoring and ranking methods as disclosed by Bradnam et al. with the sequencer of Debode et al. and the scoring methods of Bae et al. represents some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art that would hav lead one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art of bioinformatics would be motivated to combine the teachings of Bradnam et al. with the system of Debode et al. and method of Bae et al. because the combination would result in a stronger sequencing system capable of producing a comparative assembly quality score for ranking use.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as the teachings of Debode et al., Bradnam et al. and Bae et al. utilize DNA sequencing methods in the same field of invention. Therefore, claims 9 and 19 of the instant claims would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debode et al. in view of Junwoo Bae et al. and in view of Bradnam et al. as applied to claims 1-9 and 12-19 above, and in view of Costello et al. (BMC Genomics. 2018 May 8;19(1):332. Pg. 1-10).
Debode et al. in view of Junwoo Bae et al. and in view of Bradnam et al. is applied to claims 1-9 and 12-19 above.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Costello et al. teaches a metric to characterize sample index swaps occurring during massively parallel sequencing, and a method to remediate the impact of said swaps (Abstract, Fig. 5, Methods, pg. 1, 7, 9, “Sequencing data analysis”). Costello et al. describes counterswapping in Fig. 5, true index combinations vs index swapped combination in Figure legend b and c, with both detailing a metric for detection. Costello details this metric as a sample contamination rate; incorrect or impossible reads divided by total reads in a pool (pg. 3). Costello illustrates the swapping rates in Fig. 4 as a variability average, and on pg. 9, (as chimerism was linked to swapping, as stated: “Insert size, the rate of chimerism, and GC content were then calculated independently for the swapped and non-swapped BAMs”). The Applicant’s specification defines a metric to define a genomic element with crosstalk as a “weighted sum” of patterns paragraph 0090, which relates and reads on the rates of swapping disclosed in Costello et al (re: clm. 11, 20, …wherein the computing device employs a crosstalk metric created to predict whether a GEI exists in a sample from crosstalk or not.)
Costello et al. does not explicitly define a genomic region indexed as a genomic region of interest.
Debode et al. in view of Bae et al. and Bradnam et al. details a sequencing method, a method of detecting mobile genetic elements (which are regions of interest), and a method of assembling the genome.
Applying the KSR standard to Debode et al., Bae et al., Bradnam et al., and Costello et al., the examiner concludes that the combination of the sequencer of Debode et al. , the scoring methods of Bae et al., the scoring and ranking methods as disclosed by Bradnam et al. , and the sample index swapping metric and remediation method as disclosed by Costello et al. represents some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art that would have lead one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art of bioinformatics would be motivated to combine the teachings of the system of Debode et al., the method of Bae et al., Bradnam et al. and Costello et al. because the combination would result in a stronger sequencing system capable of producing a DNA sequence without sample contamination via index swapping.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as the teachings of Debode et al., Bradnam et al., Bae et al. and Costello et al. utilize DNA sequencing methods in the same field of invention. It would be obvious to one of skill in the art to combine the rate of swapping and related characterizations of genomic sequencing data with genomic regions of interest (as defined by any bioinformatics study defined by one of skill in the art) in order to define a sample pool without contamination. Therefore, claims 11 and 20 of the instant claims would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN T STUBBS whose telephone number is (571)272-0340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Larry Riggs can be reached at 571-270-3062. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights