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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 2-5 and 13 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 6-12, and 14-15 are pending.
Claims 1, 6-12, and 14-15 are examined herein.
Upon further consideration, claims 1, 6-12, and 14-15 are no longer considered free of the prior art and are not allowed.
Claims 1, 6-12, and 14-15 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Application No. 18/365,274 filed on 08/04/2023 claims foreign priority to Korean Patent Application No. KR10-2022-0100433 filed on 08/11/2022.
A certified English translation of the foreign priority document was received on 08/13/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 6-12, and 14-15 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 1 recites “…and (b) a guide RNA targeting an exon region of the SIJUL gene comprising SEQ ID NO: 57…”. As written, it is unclear if the recited sequence identifier is the sequence of the guide RNA, or is the sequence of the exon region of the SlJUL gene. That is, it is unclear if the guide RNA comprises SEQ ID NO: 57 and targets an exon region of the SlJUL gene, or if an exon region of the SlJUL gene comprises SEQ ID NO: 57 and this exon is targeted by a guide RNA. Applicant should amend the claim to clarify what the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 57 is in reference to.
Claims 6-12 and 14-15 are also rejected as a function of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US Patent Application Publication No. US-20210115458-A1, published on 04/22/2021) and Jin (Jin, Y., & Marquardt, S. (2020). Dual sgRNA-based targeted deletion of large genomic regions and isolation of heritable Cas9-free mutants in Arabidopsis. Bio-protocol, 10(20), e3796-e3796.).
Claim 1 is drawn to a composition for enhancing sink strength of a sink tissue in tomato, comprising an agent that reduces the activity or expression of a SIJUL protein, wherein the agent comprises at least one guide RNA targeting a SIJUL gene selected from the group consisting of:
(a) a pair of guide RNAs comprising a first guide RNA targeting a 5' Untranslated Region (5'UTR) and a second guide RNA targeting a 3' Untranslated Region (3'UTR); and
(b) a guide RNA targeting an exon region of the SIJUL gene comprising SEQ ID NO: 57,
wherein each of the first guide RNA and the second guide RNA is selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 53 and 55.
Claim 6 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition increases the number of phloem cells in a plant.
Claim 7 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition increases the expression of an SIAPL gene.
Claim 8 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition increases the phloem transport velocity of a plant.
Claim 9 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition increases the expression of one or more genes selected from the group consisting of SIAPL, SISUT1, SISUT2, SISUT4, and SISWEET1a.
Claim 10 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition increases the fruit yield of a plant.
Claim 11 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition increases the fruit sugar content of a plant.
Claim 12 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition increases the total fresh weight and dry weight of plant roots.
Claim 14 is drawn to a method for enhancing the sink strength of a sink tissue in a tomato plant, the method comprising treating the tomato plant body with the composition of claim 1.
Claim 15 is drawn to a tomato plant body with enhanced sink strength of a sink tissue of the tomato plant using the method of claim 14.
Regarding claim 1, Hwang teaches an invention related to a composition for increasing the sink strength of sink tissues, containing an inhibitor of the expression or activity of a JULGI protein, and a method of using the composition (abstract). JULGI is often referred to as a JUL protein throughout the prior art document, and is therefore reasonably interpreted as a JUL protein as recited in the instant application. Specifically regarding claim 1, Hwang teaches a method of increasing the sink strength of a sink tissue in a plant, comprising treating a plant body with an inhibitor of the expression or activity of a JULGI protein or a protein having 80% or more homology with the protein (claim 1 of Hwang), wherein the plant is tomato (i.e. the JUL protein is a SlJUL protein) (claim 10 of Hwang). Hwang teaches in working examples using VIGs to silence JUL1 in tomato (¶0136), which increased the number of phloem cells (¶0136) and is correlated with enhanced sink strength, and Hwang also observed the total yield of tomato flesh significantly increased, and a sugar content also significantly increased (¶0165). Hwang also teaches the JUL1 homolog in tomato is Solyc08g057180 as observed in Phytozome at locus SL30ch08:56220160-56220882 (p. 4, Table 1). Solyc08g057180 is interpreted as a typographical error because the specified locus of the Phytozome database actually comprises the gene ID Solyc08g067180. As seen in the Phytozome database, this gene comprises the portion of SEQ ID NO: 57 underlined here: gattggatgtggtgagccaagaca. Thus, the gene comprises all except the first 5 basepairs that are ‘gattg’. Additionally, the gene comprises the reverse complement of SEQ ID NO: 53, as is underlined here: attgctagcttgaaacaagtacaa. Thus, the gene comprises all except the first 4 basepairs that are ‘attg’. Similarly, the gene comprises the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 55, as is underlined here: attgtgattcaatcaaaatatgag. Thus, the gene comprises all except the first 4 basepairs that are ‘attg’.
Regarding claim 6, Hwang teaches silencing of JUL1 homologs in tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) using VIGs increased the number of phloem cells (40136).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Hwang teaches as a result of suppressing JULGI expression in tomatoes using VIGS, as shown in FIG. 7E, it was confirmed that the total yield of tomato flesh significantly increased, and a sugar content also significantly increased (¶0165).
Regarding claim 14, Hwang teaches a method of increasing the sink strength of a sink tissue in a plant, comprising treating a plant body with an inhibitor of the expression or activity of a JULGI protein or a protein having 80% or more homology with the protein, wherein the plant is tomato (claims 1 and 10 of Hwang).
Regarding claim 15, Hwang teaches a plant body which is increased in sink strength of a sink tissue in a plant, wherein the plant is tomato (claims 12 and 13 of Hwang).
However, Hwang does not explicitly teach using at least one guide RNA targeting a SIJUL gene selected from the group consisting of: (a) a pair of guide RNAs comprising a first guide RNA targeting a 5' Untranslated Region (5'UTR) and a second guide RNA targeting a 3' Untranslated Region (3'UTR); and (b) a guide RNA targeting an exon region of the SIJUL gene comprising SEQ ID NO: 57, wherein each of the first guide RNA and the second guide RNA is selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NO: 53 and 55. This is because Hwang uses VIGS to knockdown SlJUL expression tomato rather than a CRISPR system to knockout SlJUL expression in tomato, and also because the exact sequences (or the reverse complement) of SEQ ID NOs: 53, 55, and 57 do not appear in the prior art since the first 4-5 basepairs are lacking from the gene and the exact gRNA is not used in prior art.
In an alternative embodiment, Hwang teaches using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing to knockout JUL1 in Arabidopsis via an indel in the cDNA (i.e. the gRNA targeted an exon for indel mutation and knockout) (Fig. 8a, Example 8, ¶0166). Hwang teaches similar to JUL1 silencing, it was confirmed that the phloem highly expands in a JUL1-knockout group, and collectively, as shown in FIG. 9, the correlation between the improvement in phloem development by JUL deficiency and the increase in sink strength of a sink organ supports the concept that phloem treatment capacity is directly associated with sink activity (¶0166-0167). In analogous art, Jin further teaches gene knockout can be achieved by using dual sgRNAs to target the flanking regions of a gene to delete it entirely (p. 1 background, p. 11 section 2 and Figure 6).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the limitations as taught by Hwang into a single embodiment to arrive at Applicant’s claimed inventions because each limitation is explicitly taught as an alternative embodiment of the invention. It would therefore be obvious to combine the alternative embodiments of the methods taught by Hwang to arrive at the instant claims because Hwang teaches VIGS-mediated silencing of JULGI in tomato (i.e. SlJUL) increases phloem cells and sink strength (¶0136, 0165), and similarly teaches expressing CRISPR-mediated mutant JUL genes and encoded mutant JUL proteins produced similar results in the case of JUL gene silencing, and increased phloem cells in Arabidopsis plants compared to controls (¶0166-0167). It would therefore be prima facie obvious to use CRISPR to produce mutant JUL genes and their encoded mutant JUL proteins in tomato for the same purpose of knocking out SlJUL to increase the quantity of phloem cells and enhance sink strength as taught by Hwang (¶0139). One having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because the method Hwang teaches was functional and successful and the application to the alternative embodiments present no special technical difficulties. It would also been obvious to combine the teachings of Hwang with Jin to arrive at the instantly claimed invention (using SEQ ID NO: 53 and 55) with a reasonable expectation of success because Hwang suggests knocking out the SlJUL sequence (and the SlJUL sequence and its flanking regions are known in the art), and Jin teaches an alternative method to knockout a gene using CRISPR is to target the flanking regions of the coding sequence to delete the gene fragment altogether. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would be prima facie obvious to substitute one known method of knocking out a gene using CRISPR with another method (deletion of the gene) for the same purpose. Furthermore, selecting the particular gRNA to target any known exon sequence including the gRNA transcribed by SEQ ID NO: 57, or gRNAs that target known sequence to remove virtually the entire SlJUL gene including the gRNAs of SEQ ID NO: 53 and 55, would be a matter of experimental design. Additionally, the 4-5 basepairs at the end of the spacer sequence appear to be cloning scars produced by classical cloning methods of the spacer sequence into the gateway vector used for plant transformation (see spec., p. 16, lines 12-14). The addition, exclusion, and specific sequence of these cloning scars are also a matter of experimental design is not inventive in view of the prior art. For these reasons, the composition, method, and tomato plant are obvious in view of Hwang.
Claims 7-9 and 12 are also obvious as a function of inherency. Hwang teaches an invention related to a composition for increasing the sink strength of sink tissues, containing an inhibitor of the expression or activity of a JULGI protein, and a method of using the composition (abstract). Specifically, Hwang teaches a method of increasing the sink strength of a sink tissue in a plant, comprising treating a plant body with an inhibitor of the expression or activity of a JULGI protein or a protein (claim 1 of Hwang). Claims 7-9 and 12 require: the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition increases the expression of an SIAPL gene (claim 7); the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition increases the phloem transport velocity of a plant (claim 8); the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition increases the expression of one or more genes selected from the group consisting of SIAPL, SlSUT1, SISUT2, SISUT4, and SISWEETIa (claim 9); and the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition increases the total fresh weight and dry weight of plant roots (claim 12). The instant specification provides evidence inhibition if SIJUL expression results in increased SIAPL expression (p. 28, lines 20-23, p. 35, lines 12-15, Fig. 9) increased phloem transport velocity (p. 31, lines 23-25 through p. 32, line 1, p. 35, lines 12-15, Figs. 21A-21B), and increased fresh and dry weight of roots (p. 34, lines 1-5, Fig. 27). Because Hwang teaches reducing the activity or expression of a SIJUL protein using VIGs or using mutant SlJUL genes encoding mutant SlJUL proteins in plants including tomato, the composition of instant claim 1 is obvious in view of Hwang (see analysis above). The obvious composition would reasonable be interpreted to be structurally identical to the composition taught by Hwang, and therefore producing the obvious composition of Hwang would also reasonably be interpreted to capable of the same recited functions of increasing the expression of an SIAPL gene, the phloem transport velocity of a plant, the expression of one or more genes selected from the group consisting of SIAPL, SlSUT1, SISUT2, SISUT4, and SISWEETIa, and the total fresh weight and dry weight of plant roots.
Response to Arguments
Because the claims are no longer considered free of the prior art, Applicant’s arguments to the previous rejection dated 02/13/2026 (which were not previously addressed) are addressed below. Applicant’s arguments in the most recent response, dated 03/30/2026 are also addressed below.
Applicant argues beginning on p. 4 of remarks dated 02/13/2026 the
following arguments:
Claims 1, 4-12, ad 14-15 are rejected as being unpatentable over Hwang (US Patent Application Publication No. US-20210115458-A1, published on 04/22/2021).
Applicant concurrently herewith submits a Declaration of Ho Young Nam under 37 C.F.R. §1.132, ("Nam Declaration"), which provides comparative experimental evidence directly relevant to the presently amended claims. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the above rejection are respectfully requested in view of the claim amendments and the objective evidence of nonobviousness established by the Nam Declaration.
As amended, Claim 1 is now structurally and operationally limited to a tomato composition comprising at least one guide RNA targeting a tomato SIJUL gene, wherein the guide RNA is selected from only two defined targeting strategies: a dual-targeting pair comprising a first guide RNA targeting the 5'UTR and a second guide RNA targeting the 3'UTR, wherein each of the first and second guide RNAs is selected from SEQ ID NO: 53 and 55, and an alternative exon-targeting guide RNA comprising SEQ ID NO: 57. This amendment narrows the claims to a specific CRISPR guide architecture and specified guide sequences.
Hwang does not disclose, teach, or suggest the presently claimed guide RNA sequences let alone the presently claimed UTR-to-UTR dual-targeting strategy in tomato. Hwang's tomato work is presented in the context of TRV-based silencing, and Hwang's reported tomato data compare TRV-GFP and TRV-SIJUL conditions and report fruit traits in that VIGS context. Hwang does state generally that inhibition of JULGI expression or activity may be achieved using an RNAi vector, a VIGS vector, and/or a CRISPR/Cas9 vector, but that generic listing does not disclose the concrete structural limitations now recited in Claim 1, namely, a guide RNA pair selected from SEQ ID NOs: 53 and 55 that targets the 5'UTR and 3'UTR of tomato SIJUL, or a guide RNA comprising SEQ ID NO: 57 that targets an exon region of tomato SIJUL. Indeed, Hwang's gene-editing example is presented in Arabidopsis thaliana, where a single-nucleotide insertion is induced near the JUL1 gene to create an Arabidopsis JUL1 knockout, and Hwang does not provide any disclosure of the tomato Solyc08g067180 locus or any tomato-specific guide sequences corresponding to SEQ ID NOs: 53, 55, or 57, nor any disclosure of a dual-guide UTR-to-UTR deletion strategy that excises the coding region in tomato.
The Examiner's rationale relies on the premise that it would have been obvious to substitute one known inhibition approach for another for the same intended purpose, and to combine "alternative embodiments" within Hwang into a single embodiment. That rationale does not address the amended claim language, which is not directed to CRISPR generally, but instead recites particular guide sequences and a particular targeting configuration. The present claims require not merely the concept of gene editing, but a defined selection of guide sequences and targeting sites that are not disclosed in Hwang. A generic statement that CRISPR/Cas9 may be used does not provide a reasoned basis to select Applicants' particular guide sequences from among the large number of possible candidate guides for a given locus, and it does not supply any teaching or suggestion to adopt a dual-targeting UTR-to-UTR approach in tomato. Accordingly, the amended structural limitations of Claim 1 are not taught by Hwang, and the Examiner's "alternative embodiments" combination theory does not cure the absence of disclosure or suggestion of the claimed guide sequences and targeting architecture.
Even assuming arguendo that a prima facie case could be asserted based on generalities, the Nam Declaration provides compelling objective evidence that rebuts any such prima facie case. The Nam Declaration reports that the claimed dual-targeting strategy using guide RNAs corresponding to SEQ ID NOs: 53 and 55, which target two different locations in SIJUL (the 5'UTR and 3'UTR, respectively), induces a large deletion spanning from the 5'UTR target site to the 3'UTR target site, thereby removing
the SIJUL coding region and producing a functional null allele. The Declaration further explains that this UTR-to-UTR strategy avoids unpredictable small indels and reduces the risk of in-frame mutations that could retain partial protein function, and confirms that exon targeting using a guide RNA corresponding to SEQ ID NO: 57 likewise successfully generates edited alleles. The Declaration then provides a direct comparative analysis among wild-type tomato plants, TRV-SIJUL tomato plants generated by TRV-based VIGS silencing of SIJUL (a comparator aligned with Hwang's tomato approach), and CRISPR-edited sljul tomato plants generated using the claimed guide strategies. Based on transverse section histology, the Declaration reports that the CRISPR-edited sljul plants exhibit a markedly greater expansion of both external phloem and inner phloem compared to TRV-SIJUL VIGS plants, indicating that stable disruption of SIJUL produces a more robust phloem proliferation phenotype than TRV-based silencing of the same target.
This argument has been fully considered and is found not persuasive for
the following reason(s):
Although Hwang does not explicitly teach using the specific gRNAs to knockout the SlJUL gene, the gRNAs target known sequences in the known SlJUL gene taught by Hwang. Selecting these specific gRNAs is a matter of experimental design, and it would be obvious to use CRISPR to knockout SlJUL, as taught in an alternative embodiment by Hwang, by designing gRNAs to target known sequences in or flanking the gene. The specific sequences either produce an indel in an exon (SEQ ID NO: 57) or remove the exon via UTR-UTR targeting (SEQ ID NOs: 53 and 55, which are both common, routine methods in the field to knockout gene expression.
Applicant also argues the CRISPR-edited sljul plants exhibit a markedly greater expansion of both external phloem and inner phloem compared to TRV-SIJUL VIGS plants, indicating that stable disruption of SIJUL produces a more robust phloem proliferation phenotype than TRV-based silencing of the same target. However, this would reasonably be expected because VIGS is a knockdown method whereas the CRSIPR mutation or gene deletion are knockout methods, and knocking out the gene as opposed to knocking down the gene would be expected to have a stronger effect and more robust results.
Applicant argues beginning on p. 6 of remarks dated 02/13/2026 the
following arguments:
Critically, the Nam Declaration quantifies unexpectedly large differences in the magnitude of marker and transporter activation achieved by the claimed CRISPR guide strategies as compared to the TRV-VIGS approach exemplified by Hwang. For the phloem marker gene SIAPL (normalized to SIGAPDH), the Declaration reports relative expression of 1.0 for WT, 1.821 for TRV-SIJUL VIGS, and 7.744 for CRISPR-edited sljul. For sucrose transporter genes (normalized to SIGAPDH), the Declaration reports that SISUT1 is 1.0 for WT, 1.658 for TRV-SIJUL, and 3.829 for sljul; SISUT2 is 1.0 for WT, 1.622 for TRV-SIJUL, and 3.167 for sljul; and SISUT4 is 1.0 for WT, 1.777 for TRV-SIJUL, and 3.49 for sljul. The Declaration further reports an improvement in mean fruit diameter, with relative presentation of 1.0 for WT, 0.983 for TRV-SIJUL, and 1.41 for sljul, consistent with increased fruit size in the claimed CRISPR line versus both WT and the TRV-SIJUL VIGS comparator. The Declarant opines that a skilled artisan would not have reasonably expected that CRISPR editing using the specific guide sequences and strategies as claimed would yield the substantially larger magnitude of phloem marker activation and sucrose transporter activation observed, nor the associated improvements in fruit size, and further explains that the direction and especially the
magnitude of phenotypes upon complete loss-of-function editing of regulatory genes in tomato is highly unpredictable and beneficial outcomes are not assured.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that there is a clear deficiency in the Examiner's obviousness rejections and that the claimed invention is patentable over the cited references. Applicant accordingly respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of record and an indication of the allowability of the claimed invention.
Examiner’s Response:
This is not found persuasive. With regard to Applicant’s argument that Applicant has offered evidence of unexpected and unobvious results, pursuant to MPEP 716.02(b), the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Applicant alleged unexpected results with regard to the claimed soybean plant, however there was no basis for judging the practical significance of data with regard to maturity date, flowering date, flower color, or height of the plant.). In the instant case, Applicant alleges the unexpected result of substantially larger magnitude of phloem marker activation and sucrose transporter activation observed, and improvements in fruit size in the CRISPR edited plants as compared to the VIGS silenced plants. However, this does not appear unexpected and unobvious because the CRISPR edited plants knockout the SlJUL gene, whereas VIGS is a silencing method to knockdown the SlJUL gene. Because knockout would be expected to have eliminated SlJUL gene expression as compared to knockdown which reduces gene expression, and this knockout via CRISPR editing is expected to have a stronger effect of reducing/ eliminating SlJUL gene expression, the results that flow from the effect would also be expected to occur at a larger magnitude.
Further, even if Applicant can make such a showing, MPEP 716.02(c) provides that the evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention. MPEP 716.02(c) directs the examiner to MPEP 716.01(d), which establishes that although the record may establish evidence of secondary considerations which are indicia of nonobviousness, the record may also establish such a strong case of obviousness that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Newell Cos. v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 769, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 (1989); Richardson-Vicks, Inc., v. The Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476, 1484, 44 USPQ2d 1181, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (showing of unexpected results and commercial success of claimed ibuprofen and pseudoephedrine combination in single tablet form, while supported by substantial evidence, held not to overcome strong prima facie case of obviousness). The showing, when made, must outweigh the rationale in support of a finding of prima facie obviousness provided in the 103 rejection(s). Here, the prior art is strong and teaches nearly every limitation in alternative embodiments in a single reference (the Hwang reference), and an one additional reference is used to provide further support that CRISPR-mediated deletion of transcript regions is a known, alternative method to knocking out genes using CRISPR-induce indels. In view of the foregoing, Applicant’s evidence is not deemed to outweigh the basis for the rejection.
Finally, MPEP 716.02(d) provides that whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). In this case, the scope of the claims appears commensurate with the evidence.
Applicant remarks beginning on p. 5 of remarks dated 03/30/2026 the
following arguments:
The Examiner objected to the specification for containing embedded hyperlinks and browser-executable code. In accordance with the Examiner's instructions, Applicant has amended the specification to remove these elements.
Additionally, the Examiner noted a clerical error on page 11 where "FIG. 19B" was referenced twice, failing to reference "FIG. 19C". Applicant has amended the specification at line 22 to correctly recite "FIG. 19C" as requested.
In view of the foregoing, the above objection is now moot. Reconsideration is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s Response:
In view of Applicant’s amendments to the specification, the objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA N STOCKDALE whose telephone number is (703)756-5395. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 CT.
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, Amjad Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-7058. 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.
JESSICA N. STOCKDALE
Examiner
Art Unit 1663
/JESSICA NICOLE STOCKDALE/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/CHARLES LOGSDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662
Prosecution Insights