Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after November 3, 2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
The claim listing filed is pending November 3, 2023. Claims 1-15 are pending and under examination.
Priority
The present application was filed November 3, 2023 and claims priority to application 63/422,852 filed on 11/04/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement has not been filed.
Drawings
No drawings were included in the present application.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-8 and 14-15, are directed to a composition/product (as an ocean fertilizer for the indirect sequestration of carbon dioxide in the ocean).
Claims 9-13, are directed to dependent, non-limiting, intended use claims that specify conditions or locations of application because these claims do not alter the structure, composition, or inherent properties of the claimed ocean fertilizer itself (and do not constitute affirmative method steps); including geographic latitude (claim 9), ocean circulation regions (claim 10), seasonal timing (claim 11), diurnal timing (claim 12), and quantity applied (claim 13). Claims 9-13 discloses the specific location where the composition will be applied; Claim 9 discloses “applied to the ocean at a location in the range of 40-70° North latitude and 40-70° South latitude”, Claim 10 discloses “applied to an end of the ocean thermohaline at a region of the ocean where a shallow, warm, and low saline current cools sufficiently to transition to a deep, cool, and high saline current’, Claim 11 discloses “applied during the summer”, Claim 12 discloses “applied at night” and Claim 13 discloses “an amount of applied ferric EDTA is less than 5000 kg per 150 km2 of ocean”. The term “applied to”, “applied during”, “applied at”, and “amount of” are interpreted as permissive, intended use language that describes conditions under which the claimed composition/product may be used, rather than limitations that mandate or define how the claimed product must be used.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention does not limit the invention to the recited application conditions, and remains directed to a composition/product (ocean fertilizer for the indirect sequestration of carbon dioxide in the ocean), not a method of using the product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 13 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 13 recites the limitation “an amount of applied ferric EDTA is less than 5000 kg per 150 km2 of ocean” without a prior recitation of “ferric EDTA” in the independent Claim 1, directed to “ a compound containing iron, nor in Claims 9 and 10, from which Claim 13 depends. The claimed ferric EDTA of instant Claim 13 is not included in, nor does it form part of the composition defined in Claim 1. The claimed “compound containing iron” of Claim 1 could be any compound containing iron because Claim 1 does not specifically claim “ferric EDTA”, nor does Claims 10 and 9 claim ferric EDTA. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
To overcome this rejection, the Applicant may amend the claims to provide antecedent basis for the recited material (ferric EDTA) to be consistent with the scope of the dependent claims from which Claim 13 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 8 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 8 recites the limitation “ocean fertilizer of claim 2 wherein the nitrate oxidizing bacteria is Nitrospina gracilis”; whereas Claim 2, from which Claim 8 depends, recites “comprising a nitrite oxidizing bacteria” and does not include “nitrate oxidizing bacteria”. It is unclear whether Claim 8 is directed to a “nitrate oxidizing bacteria” or the “nitrite oxidizing bacteria” of the parent Claim 2.
To overcome this rejection, the Applicant may amend Claim 8 to clearly recite either “nitrate oxidizing bacteria” or “nitrite oxidizing bacteria”, and ensure consistency with parent Claim 2, or amend Claim 2 accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-2 and 6-13 are directed to a product of nature-e.g. step 1 (MPEP 2106.03)). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. do not recite additional elements/steps that integrate the exception into a practical application and/or do not recite additional elements that amount to significant more than the exception of the claimed naturally-occurring ingredients-e.g. step 2A2 (MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2B (MPEP 2106.5)) - i.e., as drafted, the cited claims read upon a product of nature for the following reasons:
The claimed composition comprises elements that exist in ocean environments, including: iron-containing species, nitrogen-containing, phosphorus-containing species, magnesium salts, ammonia-oxidizing and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria. Each of these elements are naturally present in ocean systems and participate in known biochemical cycles.
The claimed composition is best understood as a combination of substances that are naturally-occurring in the ocean environment. The closest naturally-occurring counterpart to the claimed composition is the ocean itself or the ocean nutrient matrix itself, which includes dissolved iron species, nitrogen species, phosphorus species, magnesium salts, and microbial populations that collectively support indirect sequestration of carbon dioxide in the ocean.
Applicant's claims 1-2 and 6-13 are drawn to a composition/product (as an ocean fertilizer for the indirect sequestration of carbon dioxide in the ocean) comprising a compound containing iron recited in Claim 1 (iron is “major sources of iron in the ocean include river waters, melting glaciers, icebergs and sea ice, and hydrothermal activity – hot springs in volcanically active parts of the deep sea that spew iron” [Bourne, 2023; pg.2, para.3, see Form 892]); a compound containing nitrogen recited in Claim 1, (“the majority of nitrogen found in the oceans comes from the oceans themselves instead of human pollution blown off shore” [Yale School of the Environment, 2016; page 1, para. 1, see Form 892]; nitrogen also “stimulates the growth of phytoplankton; which increases the oceans’ ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thus mitigating carbon emissions to some extent” [Yale School of the Environment, 2016; page 1, para. 1, see Form 892]); “when microbes (and other organisms) die, they decompose, releasing ammonium and tiny particles containing particulate organic nitrogen (PON), as well as dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) into the surrounding seawater. Some microbes convert ammonium to nitrite and then nitrite to nitrate. This two-step process is called “nitrification.” The result of this process is that nitrate is released into the ocean” [BioLincs, 2020; Pg. 1, para. 4 (5-6), see Form 892]); a compound containing phosphorus recited in Claim 1, (“productive zones of the ocean are rich in iron, phosphorus, nitrogen and trace minerals” [Markels 2002; US 6,408,792 B1, col. 1, line 67 – col. 2, line 1, see Form 892]) and “Iron lignins can form precipitates with monoammonium phosphate (MAP) in sea water at concentrations of each, iron and phosphorous, greater than about two parts per million” [Markels 2002; US 6,408,792 B1, col. 5, lines 20-24, see Form 892]); magnesium salt recited in Claims 1 and 6 (‘the presence of magnesium salts in ocean water has incited the imagination of many inventors to devise means of recovering these salts” [Chesny, 1936; pg.383, para. 1, see Form 892]; “the production of magnesium compounds (Epsom salt, magnesium chloride, metallic magnesium) from well brines by the Dow Chemical Company, at Midland, Mich., ranks as an example of ingenuity and technological perfection in the utilization of natural saline deposits” [Chesny, 1936; pg.383, para. 2, see Form 892]); an ammonia oxidizing bacteria recited in Claims 1 and 7, Nitrosomonas species (“Nitrosomonas europaea” [col. 1, line 40, 55]) and nitrite oxidizing bacteria recited in Claim 2 and 8, Nitrospina species (“Nitrospina gracilis” [col. 1, line 65-67]); [Hovanec 2001; US 6,365,206 B1, col. 5, lines 44-52; ]).
Applicant's claims 9-13 are dependent claims directed to non-limiting intended use limitations that describe where, when, or in what amount the claimed composition/product may be applied (e.g., “applied to”, “applied during”, “applied at”, and “amount of”), and are interpreted as an intended use claims, which describes conditions under which the claimed composition/product may be used, and does not constitute affirmative method steps, and therefore does not limit the scope of the claimed method. Claims 9-12 do not narrow the parent claim (Claim 1) beyond the structural and compositional limitations expressly recited in the parent claim (Claim 1). Claims 9-12 are rejected along with the parent claim (Claim 1) of which they depend.
Claim 13 (dependent on Claim 1 though Claims 10 and 9) recites “an amount of applied ferric EDTA is less than 5000 kg per 150 km2 of ocean”, however, the claimed ferric EDTA of the instant Claim 13 is not included in, nor does it form part of the composition defined in Claim 1. The claimed “compound containing iron” of Claim 1 could be any compound containing iron because Claim 1 does not specifically claim ferric EDTA, nor does Claims 10 and 9 claim ferric EDTA. Additionally, Claim 13 is interpreted as an intended use claim, which describes conditions under which the claimed composition/product may be used. Claims 13 is rejected along with the parent claim (Claim 1) of which it depends.
The claimed ocean fertilizer composition/product is not markedly different from its naturally-occurring counterparts (the ocean itself or the ocean nutrient matrix itself). The instant specification does not provide evidence that elements of the claimed ocean fertilizer is markedly different in terms of having a change in structure, function or properties when compared to its natural counterpart. (MPEP 2106.04 (a-c)).
The instant specification discloses “an intended goal of the ocean fertilizer is to increase the growth of phytoplankton, which fixes carbon dioxide in the ocean and may ultimately precipitate to the ocean floor directly, or the phytoplankton may be in turn consumed by zooplankton such as krill, which in turn may ultimately precipitate to the ocean floor” (Paragraph 0008). The instant specification discloses “representative examples of targets for fertilization include phytoplankton” (Paragraph 0008). Therefore, the intended purpose of the instant invention is to increase marine food production, which leads to the chemical equilibrium of the ocean. The ocean naturally has the claimed elements already; which provides marine food production, and leads to the chemical equilibrium of the ocean. There is no additional evidence provided by the Applicant to suggest that adding the same naturally-occurring elements are sufficient to amount to more than the judicial exception (i.e., the natural function of the ocean).
Therefore, the claimed elements behave in an expected way known in the art (i.e., providing marine food production, and leading to chemical equilibrium of the ocean). The instant claims do not recite any additional elements in terms of structural and/or functional differences (properties and/or characteristics). Additionally, the instant claims do not recite additional or novel elements, produce an unexpected synergistic effect, alter the structure or function of the elements, or result in properties markedly different from their naturally-occurring counterparts (the ocean itself) or compared to the naturally-occurring counterpart(s) [see, e.g., Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303(1980)]. Please note that combining natural products does not remove the claims from reading upon a judicial selection (Funk Brothers Seed Col. V. Kolo lnoclulant Col. - 333 U.S.127 (1948)). Please also note that modifying the concentration of the product/composition is not sufficient to remove the claimed composition from a judicial exception (see, e.g., Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S._, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 106 USPQ2d 1972 (2013)).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Markels 2002 (US 6,408,792 B1; hereafter Markels) in further view of Hovanec 2001 (US 6,265,206 B1; hereafter Hovanec), Yin et.al., 2012 (China Patent CN101759478B; hereafter Yin, see Form 892).
Markels teaches ocean fertilization by adding ocean fertilizing elements to ocean water, wherein “the amount of iron, phosphorous, and other fertilizing elements added to the ocean will depend on the requirements to increase the production of seafood” (col. 5, lines 39-41); “releasing an appropriate amount these nutrients over time and in a form that remains available to the phytoplankton” (Col. 2, lines 31-32); “the productive zones of the ocean are rich in iron, phosphorus, nitrogen and trace minerals, while the rest of the ocean is missing one or more of these elements; and these fertilizing minerals are required in order to obtain the maximum production of seafood from a given area in the ocean (Col. 1, lines 67- Clo. 2, lines 1-5); “ the initial method of ocean fertilization should be designed to bring the relevant portion of the ocean surface to the nutrient composition of the ocean surface in the Peruvian upwelling” (col. 5, lines 41-44). Markels teaches “testing the water at the surface of the ocean in order to determine the nutrients that are missing, applying to the surface of the ocean, a first fertilizer that comprises an iron chelate” (Abstract). Markels teaches the “fertilizer system should provide the other (non-nitrate and non-iron) nutrients that are missing from the ocean water” (col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 1) and “these other nutrients should also preferably be added to the ocean water in the form of slow release pellets” (col. 3, line 4-5). Accordingly, Markels teaches “applying a microorganism that fixes nitrogen such as phytoplankton” (Abstract), and “applying additional fertilizers” (Abstract). Markels teaches “each fertilizer releases the nutrients over time in the photic zone and in a form that does not precipitate before use by the phytoplankton (Abstract). Markels teaches “applying the phosphate and/or the iron fertilizer separately from the other nutrient fertilizer, such as from opposite sides of a large boat, or from companion boats” (col. 3, lines 10-13). Markels teaches “iron can be protected from reaction with the ocean water by adding it to the ocean in the form of a chelate. The chelate may include ethylene-diamine tetraaceticacid (EDTA), lignins and many others. Iron lignins can form precipitates with monoammonium phosphate (MAP) in sea water at concentrations of each, iron and phosphorous, greater than about two parts per million” (col. 5, line 16-24). Markels teaches “the fertilizer will preferably be in a form that will dissolve in the surface water over a period of several days or perhaps as long as two weeks. Therefore, a preferred method of ocean fertilization will include the mixture of the fertilizer with a binder such as a high molecular weight starch, a wax or a plastic matrix such as cellulose acetate so as to produce a fertilizer pellet that releases the fertilizing elements slowly in ocean water. This will keep the concentrations of the fertilizing elements low so they will not react with each other or with the ocean water, forming precipitates and leaving the photic zone” (col. 5, lines 5-15). Markels teaches the fertilizer pellets are compounded to achieve a density of less than seawater so that they float, releasing their fertilizing elements at or near the ocean surface (col. 3, line 14-16).
However, Markels does not disclose magnesium salt (magnesium chloride), ammonium phosphate, ammonium nitrate, nitrite-oxidizing bacteria strain (NOB) Nitrospina gracilis, and ammonia-oxidizing bacteria strain (AOB) Nitrosomonas europaea added to the disclosed ocean fertilization system, as ocean fertilizing elements.
Hovanec teaches “an isolated bacterial strain capable of oxidizing nitrite to nitrate and a method of use thereof for preventing or alleviating the accumulation of nitrite in an aqueous medium” (Abstract). Hovanec teaches “nitrite is formed in aquarium systems from the oxidation of ammonia, the principal nitrogenous waste of teleosts, by autotrophic ammonia-oxidizing (AOB)” [col. 1, line 25-29]). Hovanec teaches “the bacteria responsible for the oxidation of ammonia and nitrite in aquaria were considered to be Nitrosomonas europaea” (col. 1, line 38-40). Hovanec teaches nitrite-oxidizing bacteria strain (NOB) Nitrospina gracilis (col. 1, line 65-67) and ammonia-oxidizing bacteria strain (AOB) Nitrosomonas europaea (col. 1, line 40, 55) in water-obtaining media. Hovanec teaches using nitrite oxidizing bacteria species and ammonia oxidizing bacteria (col. 5, lines 46-51); “the bacterial strain may also be combined with other species of bacteria, nutrients, and/or other elements to provide a composition for maintaining or purifying water-containing media. It may be desirable, for example to combine the bacteria of the present invention with bacteria capable of removing other pollutants or undesirable compounds from water-containing media. Examples of such bacteria include ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (chemolithoautotrophic bacteria which oxidize ammonia to nitrite), heterotrophic bacteria (which mineralize organic material into ammonia), and other bacteria which will be known to those of skill in the art. Ammonia-oxidizing bacteria, for example, are known from the beta subdivision of the Proteobacteria, for example species of the genera Nitrosomonas and Nitrosospira” (col.5, line 37-51). Hovanec also discloses the presence of sea salts in bodies of water (col.13, line 25). Hovanec teaches the bacteria (disclosed in Hovanec’s invention) are “well suited for use in freshwater aquaria, seawater aquaria, and wastewater to alleviate the accumulation of nitrite” (col. 3, lines 47-49), and the bacteria “can also be used in a bioremediation process to reduce the level of pollution cause by nitrite” (col. 3, lines 49-51).
Yin teaches compound fertilizer granules use to increase nutrients in plants in order to increase photosynthesis (i.e., improve fruit and vegetable quality) and plant growth; “a compound fertilizer (i.e., compound manure) and use containing quick-acting phosphorus and slow property phosphorus simultaneously contain the molten phosphorus of water-soluble phosphorus and Chinese holly simultaneously, can be by the crop rapid absorption, and can make base fertilizer; Contain nitric nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen simultaneously, can improve the crop and fruit quality, make cash crop such as vegetables, fruit best in quality; contain the required various middle trace element of crop, comprehensive yield increase effect is arranged” (Pg. 6, Description, Background Technology, Paragraph 3). Yin teaches the preparation and use of a compound fertilizer granules containing uniform nutrients and suitable for mechanical fertilization (Abstract). Yin teaches the “compound fertilizer comprising fusing ammonium nitrate, heating monoammonium phosphate , potassium chloride, and filler; followed by mixing the fused ammonium nitrate, heated monoammonium phosphate, and filler; and granulating and cooling the mixed material” (Abstract). Yin further teaches the compound fertilizer (compound manure) contains raw material comprising ammonium nitrate (nitric nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen), monoammonium phosphate (ammonium nitrogen, water-soluble phosphorus, citric acid soluble phosphorus), Repone K (magnesium chloride simultaneously), additive (trace elements such as calcic, iron, Sulphur), and borax (boracic additive called filler)” [Pg. 6, Description, Background Technology, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 1, Markel teaches a method of fertilizing the ocean waters by applying an ocean fertilizer system to the surface of the ocean in order to stimulate phytoplankton growth through nutrient delivery; thereby increasing biological productivity (e.g., photosynthesis) and seafood production in the ocean promotes chemical equilibrium of ocean waters and sequestration of carbon dioxide. Markels further teaches the ocean fertilizer system contains nutrients including iron, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Honvanec further teaches adding ammonia-oxidizing bacteria to aqueous environments in order to balance chemical equilibrium (i.e., to oxidize nitrite to nitrate in a bioremediation process), including saltwater systems; which would lead to increased marine food production. Yin further teaches adding compound fertilizer granules for fertilization that supply nutrients needed for photosynthesis and growth; including a magnesium salt (i.e., magnesium chloride).
Regarding Claim 2, 7, and 8, Markel teaches a method of fertilizing the ocean waters by applying an ocean fertilizer system (previously discussed). Claim 2 recites, “comprising a nitrite oxidizing bacteria”; Claim 7 recites, “wherein the ammonia oxidizing bacteria is Nitrosomonas europaea; and Claim 8 recites, “wherein the nitrate oxidizing bacteria is Nitrospina gracilis”. Hovanec teaches adding ammonia oxidizing bacteria (e.g., Nitrosomonas europaea) and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (e.g.,Nitrospina gracilis) to aqueous environments in order to balance chemical equilibrium (i.e., to oxidize nitrite to nitrate in a bioremediation process), including saltwater systems; which would lead to increased marine food production.
Regarding Claim 3, Markel teaches a method of fertilizing the ocean waters by applying an ocean fertilizer system (previously discussed). Claim 3 recites, “wherein the compound containing iron is ferric EDTA”. Markels teaches “iron can be protected from reaction with the ocean water by adding it to the ocean in the form of a chelate (i.e., ethylene-diamine tetraaceticacid (EDTA)).
Regarding Claim 4, 5, and 6, Markel teaches a method of fertilizing the ocean waters by applying an ocean fertilizer system (previously discussed). Claim 4 recites, “wherein the compound containing nitrogen is one of ammonium nitrate and an ammonium phosphate; Claim 5 recites, “wherein the compound containing phosphorus is an ammonium phosphate”; and Claim 6, recites “wherein the magnesium salt is magnesium chloride”. Yin further teaches adding compound fertilizer granules for fertilization that supply nutrients for increased growth and photosynthesis; including magnesium salt (i.e., magnesium chloride), a compound containing nitrogen (i.e., ammonium nitrate), and a compound containing phosphorus (i.e., ammonium phosphate, as monoammonium phosphate).
Regarding Claims 9-13, are directed to dependent, non-limiting, intended use claims that specify conditions or locations of application because these claims do not alter the structure, composition, or inherent properties of the claimed ocean fertilizer itself (and do not constitute affirmative method steps). Claims 9-13 do not narrow the parent claim (Claim 1) beyond the structural and compositional limitations expressly recited in the parent claim (Claim 1). Claims 9-13 are rejected along with the parent claim (Claim 1) of which they depend.
Regarding Claims 14-15, Markel teaches a method of fertilizing the ocean waters by applying an ocean fertilizer system to stimulate phytoplankton growth through nutrient delivery; thereby increasing biological productivity (e.g., photosynthesis) and seafood production in the ocean, promotes chemical equilibrium and sequestration of carbon dioxide (previously discussed). Markel teaches an ocean fertilizer system containing an iron compound (i.e., ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (ferritic EDTA)), a compound containing nitrogen, a compound containing phosphorus, and a magnesium salt (previously discussed). Honvanec teaches a nitrite oxidizing bacteria (previously discussed), and Yin teaches an ammonium phosphate (previously discussed).
A personal of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the compound fertilizer granules of Yin; and the ammonia-oxidizing and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria of Hovanec within the ocean fertilization system of Markels with a reasonable expectation of success because all of the elements combined work together for the intended function to enhance nutrients (e.g., stimulate photosynthesis )
Although Yin teaches the fertilizer granules in the context of soil fertilization to increase photosynthesis results in plants (i.e., best vegetable and fruit quality), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the nutrients supplied by the fertilizer of Yin function as a source of essential nutrients for photosynthetic organisms (i.e., plants) is the same nutrients needed for photosynthetic organisms in the ocean (i.e., phytoplankton). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonably expectation of success would expect that adding a fertilizer compound containing essential nutrients for photosynthesis into an ocean fertilizer system of Markels containing other nutrients needed for photosynthesis and growth would support the same nutrient delivery needs and photosynthetic activity of aquatic plants; and other photosynthetic organisms, including phytoplankton.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elements recited by Yin (i.e., compound fertilizer granules) and Hovanec (i.e., ammonia-oxidizing bacteria Nitrosomonas europaea, and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria Nitrospina gracilis), within the ocean fertilization system of Markels to make the claimed composition/product as an ocean fertilizer for the indirect sequestration of carbon dioxide in the ocean; with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (As described MPEP 2143, Section A. Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to ENOSAKHARE ERHUNMWUNSEE whose telephone number is (571-272-1965). The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, MELENIE GORDON be reached on (571) 272-8037. 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. Visithttps://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center andhttps://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.
/ENOSAKHARE ERHUNMWUNSEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1651
/MELENIE L GORDON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1651