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 .
Claim Status
1. Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed on July 03, 2026 has been entered. Claims 35-40 and 42-54 are pending. Claims 39 and 52 are withdrawn. Claims 35-38, 40, 42-51 and 53-54 are examined to the extent of the elected sequences, SEQ ID NO:28 encoding SEQ ID NO:16, in the instant application.
All previous rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
2. This application is claiming the benefit of Provisional Application No.
63/178171, filed April 22, 2021. However, SEQ ID NO:28 encoding SEQ ID NO:16 was first disclosed in PCT/IL2022/050404, filed April 19, 2022.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
The specification discloses that SEQ ID NO:1 was obtained from Aspergillus (last sentence, p. 14 and first sentence, p. 15). The Sequence Listing identifies the source of SEQ ID NO:1 as “metagenome purified from environmental niche”. Provisional Application No. 63/178171 discloses SEQ ID NO:1 (same sequence) as from Trichoderma harzianum. It is unclear which is the correct source for SEQ ID NO:1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following:
In claim 1, “sequence” should be inserted after “full length”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
5. Claims 35-38, 40, 42-51 and 53-54 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.
In claim 35, positions corresponding to positions 11-13 and 1-122 of an undisclosed RanGAP1 ortholog protein cannot be determined. Applicant states that the claims do not require a person of ordinary skill to guess the location of the WPP motif and/or domain as they are expressly identified by residue position in SEQ ID NO:11 and by aligned residues in corresponding plant RanGAP1 orthologs. Applicant’s traversals are unpersuasive because the locations of the WPP motif and/or domain are not expressly identified in orthologs of SEQ ID NO:11. It is unclear that all RanGAP1 orthologs have a WPP motif and/or domain. See SEQ ID NO:107 for Zea mays, for example. Moreover, the claims are not limited to plant RanGAP1 proteins.
In claim 35, a WPP domain or motif suggests there is more than one WPP domain/motif in a RanGAP1 protein. If there is only one, it is suggested “a” be amended to “the”. Otherwise, it is unclear where other WPP domains and motifs are located in SEQ ID NO:11.
In claim 36(a), the recitation of “one or more positions corresponding to Arg190 and/or Asn219” is unclear. It is unclear how multiple positions correspond to Arg190 or Asn210, which is one position.
In claim 36(a), an LRR domain suggests there is more than one LRR domain in a RanGAP1 protein. If there is only one, it is suggested “a” be amended to “the”. Otherwise, it is unclear where other LRR domains are located in SEQ ID NO:11.
In claim 36(a), it is unclear where the LRR domain is located in SEQ ID NO:11.
In claim 36(a), positions corresponding to positions Arg190 and Asn219 of an undisclosed RanGAP1 ortholog protein cannot be determined.
In claim 36(b), it is unclear where the C-terminus begins and ends, as the claim indicates that Leu295 and Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11 are within the C-terminus region.
In claim 36(b), the C-terminus, Leu295 and Glu308 of an undisclosed RanGAP1 ortholog protein cannot be determined.
In claim 36(b), it is unclear whether “truncation” refers to a truncation within the C-terminus region or within the modified RanGAP1 protein.
In claim 36(b), because of the “further comprises” language, it is unclear whether the plant of claim 36 has both (i) a mutation, truncation or deletion of a WPP domain and/or motif and (ii) a truncation that retains a C-terminal portion beginning at a residue corresponding to Leu295 or Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11; or claim 36(b) replaces the mutation, truncation or deletion of a WPP domain and/or motif limitation in claim 35.
In claims 44 and 53, it is unclear which region of SEQ ID NO:1 is the Serum Response Factor-Transcription Factor (SRF-TF) domain.
Claim 45 recites “the modified RanGAP1 protein is as defined in claim 35”. However, claim 35 is directed to a plant.
In claim 54, because SEQ ID NO:16 does not have a WPP domain or WPP motif, it is unclear whether Applicant intends to encompass a sequence that is longer than SEQ ID NO:16 to include a mutated WPP domain and/or WPP motif.
Dependent claims are included.
Correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) Written Description
6. Claims 35-38, 40, 42-51 and 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s disclosure is as follows.
Soybean, Arabidopsis, and tobacco were transformed with an SRF-TF-domain-containing protein (SEQ ID NO: 1), which resulted in the stay-green phenotype and increased seed, shoot, and fruit (see examples 1-4). Soybean, Arabidopsis, and tobacco were transformed with RanGAP1 proteins having SEQ ID NO: 2 and 3 (see examples 2, 5, and 9), which resulted in increased seed, biomass, and shoot. SEQ ID NO:1 (SRF-TF-domain-containing protein), SEQ ID NO:2 (RanGAP1) and SEQ ID NO:3 (RanGAP1) are obtained from Trichoderma harzianum, as identified in Applicant’s Provisional Application No. 63/178171. RanGAP1 proteins from fungi and plants have a common LRR domain, but only plants have the additional WPP domain (example 10, figure 12). RanGAP1 native protein from potato (SEQ ID NO:11) was modified to produce variants having SEQ ID NO:12-17 (substitutions and/or deletions of the WPP motif/domain, or substitutions and/or deletions of the WPP motif/domain in addition to substitutions and/or deletions in the LRR domain), some of which resulted in increased shoot weight or average total weight compared to the native protein SEQ ID NO: 11 (example 10). Furthermore, Applicant discloses that some RanGAP1 proteins from plants (soy, rice, potato, Arabidopsis) that do not contain the WPP motif resulted in increased total weight in Arabidopsis (see pages 48-49, figure 16, example 11). However, some variants expressing the same sequence show lower “Best Performing Events” scores than wildtype SEQ ID NO:11.
The claimed invention lacks adequate written description for the following reasons.
Wildtype RanGAP1 orthologs are not adequately described. The claims encompass all RanGAP1 proteins from any source. The specification discloses the structures of some RanGAP1 proteins. The claims recite SEQ ID NO:11 from potato as the representative RanGAP1 protein. Applicant states that not all RanGAP1 proteins have the WPP motif or domain. It is unclear what common structure and function RanGAP1 proteins share. For example, claims 42 and 47 recite that the wild type RanGAP1 protein is from Z. mays, Eucalyptus sp. or Pinus sp. However, Z. mays does not appear to have a WPP motif or domain (SEQ ID NO:107), and no RanGAP1 protein structure is disclosed for Eucalyptus and Pinus. This is precisely the situation in University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1997), which teaches that the disclosure of the sequence encoding a rat insulin protein does not provide adequate written description for a sequence encoding a human insulin protein. SEQ ID NO:11 is not representative of wildtype RanGAP1 proteins and does not allow one skilled in the art to predict the structures of other RanGAP1 proteins. Accordingly, wildtype RanGAP1 orthologs are not adequately described.
A modified RanGAP1 protein having 94% sequence identity to the elected SEQ ID NO:16 that exhibits increased biomass lacks adequate written description for the following reasons. While one skilled in the art can generate a population of sequences having 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:16, it is unpredictable which sequence(s) within said population increases biomass when expressed in a plant. Figure 14 shows that SEQ ID Nos. 12-15 have a mutation, truncation or deletion in an WPP domain and/or motif. SEQ ID Nos. 12-15 have 99.6% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:11. However, Figure 15 shows that plants expressing SEQ ID Nos. 12-15 do not perform better than wildtype SEQ ID NO:11. It is unpredictable whether a mutation of one amino acid of a WPP motif would increase biomass. It is unpredictable whether a conservative amino acid substitution in the WPP domain, outside of the WPP motif, would increase biomass. SEQ ID NO:16, which has a 294-amino-acid deletion at the N-terminus, compared to SEQ ID NO:11, and which encompasses a deletion of the entire WPP domain as well as part of the LRR domain (Figure 14), is not representative of a mutation, truncation or deletion of a WPP domain and/or motif, for increasing biomass. Accordingly, a plant comprising a modified RanGAP1 protein having 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:16 and a mutation, truncation or deletion of a WPP domain and/or motif for conferring the increased biomass phenotype when expressed in a plant lacks adequate written description. Because the 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:16 lacks adequate written description, sequences having 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:28, which encodes SEQ ID NO:16, also lack written description for the same reasons.
Claim 36(a) lacks adequate written description because Figure 14 shows that SEQ ID Nos. 13 and 15 have mutations in the LRR domain at positions Arg190 and Asn219 of SEQ ID NO:11. However, Figure 15 shows that SEQ ID Nos. 13 and 15 do not perform better than the wildtype SEQ ID NO:11. Thus, it is clear that a mutation at Arg190 or Asn219 of SEQ ID NO:11 is insufficient to produce the increased biomass phenotype. It is unpredictable what additional mutations are required to produce the claimed phenotype. A deletion of 294 amino acids of SEQ ID NO:11 (SEQ ID NO:16) is not representative of a mutation at a position corresponding to Arg190 or Asn219 of SEQ ID NO:11 to produce the increased biomass phenotype. Accordingly, claim 36(a) lacks adequate written description.
Claim 36(b) lacks adequate written description because it is unpredictable what portion of the C-terminal portion beginning at a residue corresponding to Leu295 or Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11 must be retained for the increased biomass phenotype. Figure 14 shows that the entire C-terminal portion beginning at a residue corresponding to Leu295 or Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11 is retained. It is unpredictable whether retaining positions corresponding to two amino acids (295-296 or 308-309) of SEQ ID NO:11 alone would produce the claimed phenotype. Accordingly, retaining a C-terminal portion beginning at a residue corresponding to Leu295 or Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11 as commensurate in scope with the claims lacks adequate written description.
95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1 lacks adequate written description because the claims encompass SRF-TF-domain-containing proteins from sources other than Aspergillus, whereby their structure and identity are not disclosed, so long as they share at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1. The SRF-TF domain of SEQ ID NO:1 is undisclosed. The claims encompass mutants and allelic variants of SEQ ID NO:1 and thus imply that structural variants exist in nature, yet no structural variant has been disclosed. The implication is that there is a gene and a protein other than that disclosed which exists in nature, but the structure thereof is not known. The disclosure of SEQ ID NO:1 isolated from Aspergillus is not representative of other SRF-TF-domain-containing proteins from other sources. Thus, there are insufficient relevant identifying characteristics to allow one skilled in the art to predictably determine such mutants and allelic variants of other sequences, or even other SRF-TF-domain-containing proteins, from another Aspergillus or a source other than Aspergillus, absent further guidance. Moreover, while one skilled in the art can generate a population of sequences having at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1, it is unpredictable which sequence(s) within the population are SRF-TF-domain-containing proteins. Applicant failed to disclose a representative number of species within the scope of the genus or of a recitation of structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus.
Claim 54 lacks adequate written description because SEQ ID NO:16 is the end product rather than the starting material. SEQ ID NO:16 does not have a mutated WPP motif or WPP domain. It is not known what structure the wildtype RanGAP1 protein has prior to mutating its WPP domain and/or motif. It is not known where the WPP motif or the WPP domain is in an undisclosed wildtype RanGAP1 protein. If Applicant intends to encompass a sequence that is longer than SEQ ID NO:16 to include a mutated WPP domain and/or WPP motif, it is unpredictable what structure the longer sequence would have, as there is no common N-terminus structure disclosed for RanGAP1 proteins.
Accordingly, there is lack of adequate description to inform a skilled artisan that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See Written Description guidelines published in Federal Register/ Vol.66, No. 4/ Friday, January 5, 2001/ Notices; p. 1099-1111.
Applicant’s Traversals
Applicant traverses primarily the following: (1) The specification discloses SEQ ID Nos. 12-17, 39-42, 49-52, 59-63 and 71-75 which demonstrate the various types of modifications contemplated by the claims. (2) Disruption or absence of the plant-specific WPP domain is correlated with the observed growth phenotype, which establishes a clear structure-function relationship.
Reply to Applicant’s Traversals
Applicant’s traversals have been considered but are deemed unpersuasive for the following reasons. With regard to traversal (1), the claims are not limited to these SEQ ID Nos. (not at 100% sequence identity) and as stated above, not all modifications result in the increased biomass phenotypes (see SEQ ID Nos. 12-15 in Figure 15). Even though some variant type numbers for SEQ ID Nos. 12-15 have better “Best Performing Events” scores than SEQ ID NO:11, other variant type numbers for SEQ ID Nos. 12-15 that have lower scores cannot be ignored.
With regard to traversal (2), SEQ ID Nos. 14 and 15 do not have a WPP domain (Figure 14), and they have lower “Best Performing Events” scores than wildtype SEQ ID NO:11 (Figure 15). Moreover, there is no disclosed or recognized structure for the increased biomass phenotype. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) Enablement
7. Claims 35-38, 40, 42-51 and 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Enablement factors to consider include (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Applicant’s disclosure is as set forth in the written description rejection above. Applicant has not fully enabled the claimed invention for the following reasons.
The nature of the claimed invention is a plant comprising a modified RanGAP1 protein having a mutated, truncated or deleted WPP domain and/or motif and exhibiting an increased biomass phenotype
A plant comprising a modified RanGAP1 protein having 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:16 having a mutated, truncated or deleted WPP domain and/or motif and exhibiting an increased biomass phenotype is not fully enabled because the claims are not commensurate in scope with the enabled embodiments. The breadth of the claims encompasses a single mutation to a WPP motif or a single mutation to any amino acid in the WPP domain (positions 1-122 of SEQ ID NO:11). As stated above, SEQ ID Nos. 12-15 in the working examples have all the limitations set forth for the modified RanGAP1 protein, however, they failed to produce the claimed increased biomass phenotype compared to wildtype SEQ ID NO:11. The state of the prior art does not teach a WPP motif/domain mutation in a RanGAP1 protein for producing increased biomass when expressed in a plant. No guidance is provided as to which sequences within the 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:16 having a mutated, truncated or deleted WPP domain and/or motif for producing the claimed phenotype. The 94% sequence identity encompasses additional mutations to SEQ ID NO:16, however, no mutations to SEQ ID NO:16, other than a 13-amino-acid deletion at the N-terminus of SEQ ID NO:16, has been shown to produce the increased biomass phenotype (Figure 15). Additionally, no protein to date, mutated or otherwise, has been shown to increase all aspects of plant biomass as commensurate in scope with the claims. A plant that stays green longer does not necessarily mean that all aspects of plant growth will increase (continuous flower production, for example) and that the plant has an infinite lifespan. Given these difficulties, notwithstanding a relatively high level of ordinary skill of those in the art, the amount of experimentation required to practice the claimed invention as commensurate in scope with the claims would likely be extensive and undue.
Claim 36(a) is not fully enabled because while one skilled in the art can make a mutation in an LRR domain at one or more positions corresponding to Arg190 and/or Asn219 of SEQ ID NO:11, it is not known what objective is to be obtained from said mutation. The “increased biomass” phenotype is recited in claim 35, but no phenotype is recited for the mutation in an LRR domain of claim 36(a). It is unclear whether the mutation in the LRR domain produces a second phenotype or results in a greater “increased biomass” than the mutation in the WPP motif/domain of claim 35. Neither the state of the prior art nor Applicant’s working examples provide guidance as to the objective to be achieved for the mutation in an LRR domain. In fact, SEQ ID Nos. 13 and 15 have the Arg190 andAsn219 mutations but these sequences failed to produce the increased biomass phenotype compared to wildtype SEQ ID NO:11 (Figure 15). Accordingly, Applicant has not fully enabled a mutation in an LRR domain at one or more positions corresponding to Arg190 and/or Asn219 of SEQ ID NO:11 as commensurate in scope with the claims without undue experimentation.
Similarly, claim 36(b) is not fully enabled because it is not known what objective is to be obtained for the additional truncation that retains a C-terminal portion beginning at a residue corresponding to Leu295 or Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11. See preceding paragraph. The scope of the claim encompasses retaining an additional amino acid adjacent to a residue corresponding to Leu295 or to Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11. Applicant’s working example discloses the entire C terminus from residue corresponding to Leu295 or Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11 is retained (Figure 14). Absent a function recitation, one skilled in the art cannot determine what truncation in a modified RanGAP1 protein that retains a C-terminal portion beginning at a residue corresponding to Leu295 or Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11 as commensurate in scope with the claims without undue experimentation.
An SRF-TF-domain-containing protein having at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1 is not fully enabled because the 95% encompasses amino acid insertions, deletions, substitutions and any combination thereof anywhere in SEQ ID NO:1 while retaining the undisclosed function of an SRF-TF-domain-containing protein. The claims do not indicate where the SRF-TF domain is. Applicant provides no guidance as to what region(s) of SEQ ID NO:1 must be retained and what region(s) can be mutated without rendering the protein nonfunctional. Applicant has no working example of an SRF-TF-domain-containing protein having 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1. Accordingly, an SRF-TF-domain-containing protein having at least 95% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1 is not fully enabled as commensurate in scope with the claims without undue experimentation.
Claim 54 is not fully enabled because no function is recited for the claimed vector comprising a nucleic acid encoding a modified RanGAP1 protein having 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:16. Applicant discloses that SEQ ID NO:16 has a “Best Performing Events” score that is higher than that of SEQ ID NO:11 (Figure 15), but there is no disclosure as to what the phenotype is for a sequence having 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:16. Applicant has no working examples of sequences having 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:16, other than a deletion of 13 amino acids at the N-terminus of SEQ ID NO:16 (SEQ ID NO:17). One skilled in the art cannot predict how other mutations, e.g., insertions, deletions, substitutions, and combinations thereof, in SEQ ID NO:16 would affect its phenotype. The prior art does not teach that any sequence having at least 94% sequence identity to protein would have the same functional activity or produce the same phenotype as the protein. Absent a disclosure of function for sequences having at least 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:16, one skilled in the art cannot make and use the claimed invention as commensurate in scope with the claims without undue experimentation.
Weighing all the Wands factors based on the totality of the record as discussed above, the Office determines that it would require undue experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention as claimed.
Applicant’s Traversals
Applicant traverses primarily the following: (1) The specification discloses modified RanGAP1 protein with specific mutations, truncations, or deletions in the WPP motif, including explicitly identified sequences. (2) The application discloses conserved LRR and acidic domains of RanGAP1 proteins, identifies plant-specific WPP domain, and teaches that disruption or removal of this domain correlates with increase plant growth and biomass. (3) SEQ ID NO:11 identifies the WPP motif at residues 11-13 and SEQ ID NO:14 provides a disclosed example in which the N-terminal WPP domain corresponding to residues 1-122 of SEQ ID NO:11 has been removed. (4) SEQ ID Nos. 16 and 17 provided examples corresponding to N-terminal truncations to Leu295 and Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11, respectively. (5) Examples 10-11 demonstrate that plants transformed with modified RanGAP1 proteins having SEQ ID Nos. 12-17 exhibited increased shoot weight compared to wildtype. (6) The WPP domain is identifiable using standard bioinformatics tools and actual sequences comparison. (7) The LRR domains are recognizable structural features that one skilled in the art could identify using standard sequence analysis tools. (8) The specification provides specific guidance on the types of modifications to be made, including substitution of Trp11, deletion of the WPP motif or domain, and truncation of the LRR domain at positions N-terminal to Leu295 or Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11.
Reply to Applicant’s Traversals
Applicant’s traversals have been considered but are deemed unpersuasive for the following reasons. Applicant is arguing limitations not present in the claims. With regard to traversal (1), the claims are not limited to any particular sequence, other than 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:16. SEQ ID Nos. 12-15, which have 99.6% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:16 and the mutated WPP motif and/or domain, do not have the claimed increased biomass when compared to wildtype SEQ ID NO:11.
With regard to traversal (2), contrary to Applicant’s assertion that the LRR and acidic domains are conserved, the claims recite mutations corresponding to Arg190 and/or Asn219 of SEQ ID NO:11, in addition to the mutations encompassed by 94% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:16. None of the claims recites disruption or removal of the WPP domain.
With regard to traversal (3), the claims encompass RanGAP1 orthologs and thus are not limited to SEQ ID NO:11 and the positions of its WPP motif/domain. The claims are not directed to SEQ ID NO:14, which has residues 1-122 of SEQ ID NO:11 removed. Moreover, SEQ ID NO:14 does not show increased biomass compared to wildtype SEQ ID NO:11.
With regard to traversal (4), the claims are not limited to N-terminal truncations to Leu295 and Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11 as argued. The claim language is “retains a C-terminal portion beginning at a residue corresponding to Leu295 or Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11”, which encompasses retaining an amino acid adjacent to Leu295 or an amino acid adjacent to Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:1.
With regard to traversal (5), contrary to Applicant’s assertion, SEQ ID Nos. 12-15 do not exhibit increased shoot weight compared to wildtype SEQ ID NO:11.
With regard to traversal (6), the RanGAP1 protein of Z. mays does not appear to have a WPP motif, and there is no disclosure as to where its WPP domain is. Because the structures of RanGAP1 ortholog proteins are not known or disclosed, e.g. Eucalyptus and Pinus, their WPP motif/domain cannot be determined using standard bioinformatics tools and sequence comparison.
With regard to traversal (7), this traversal implies there is more than one LRR domain in a RanGAP1 protein. However, the specification does not disclose other LRR domains. It is not known whether all LRR domains have the same structure, and where they are located in a RanGAP1 protein. Thus, LRR domains in RanGAP1 ortholog proteins cannot be identified using standard sequence analysis tools.
With regard to traversal (8), the claims do not require substitution of Trp11, deletion of the WPP motif or domain, and truncation of the LRR domain at positions N-terminal to Leu295 or Glu308 of SEQ ID NO:11.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
8. No claim is allowed.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN JOSE ORDAZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1967. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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 A Abraham can be reached on (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.
/C.J.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/PHUONG T BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights