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
Claims 1, 8, 10-15 and 18-19, are pending. Claims 2-7, 9, 16-17 and 20-21, are cancelled. Claims 18-19, are withdrawn. Claims 1, 8 and 10-15, are examined 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All previous rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.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.
Response to Amendments
Status of Rejections from action:
The rejection for Claims 1, 8 and 10-15, under 112(a) written description is added in view of amendment.
The rejection for Claims 1, 8 and 10-15, under 112(a) enablement is added in view of amendment.
The rejection for Claims 1, 6, 8, and 10-15, under 102 is withdrawn in view of amendment.
The rejection for Claims 1, 8 and 10-15, under 103 is added in view of amendment.
The rejection for Claims 7 and 9, under 103 is withdrawn in view of amendment.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 6, paragraph [0027], the recitation of “TAL-SPC” is misspelled. Applicant is advised to amend appropriately.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) (Indefinite)
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.
5. In claims 1, 8 and 10-15, 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.
In claim 1, the recitation “Streptomyces coelicolor Plasmid (SCP1.201) deaminase, a SCPa deaminase, a SCPb deaminase and a SCPc deaminase” is unclear and the Applicant just provides examples of suitable deaminases, but does not adequately define the term as it is not an art recognize term. It is unclear what sequence or structure constitutes as the SCPa, a SCPb and a SCPc deaminases. In paragraph [0052] Applicant describes 3 species that do not set the explanation the genus of SCPa, SCPb and SCPc as they are broader than single accession, respectively. Additionally, those accession are not listed as “SCPa”, “SCPb” or “SCPc” and it is not a known term, which the term seems to be made up by Applicant.
As for SCP1.201, Huang et al., (“Discovery of deaminase functions by structure-based protein clustering.” Cell vol. 186,15 (2023): 3182-3195.e14. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.05.041 (U)) classifies SCP1.201 deaminase as a clade that contains both ssDNA and dsDNA cytidine deaminases (p.3181 and figure 1) and having diverse functions (p.3185 left column) from different species of bacteria and not solely Streptomyces coelicolor. Therefore, the metes and bounds are unclear.
Claims 8 and 10-15, are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim and for failing to remedy the issues of indefiniteness.
Applicant is advised to amend the claims appropriately.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)(Written Description)(New)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 10-15, 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.
The written description requirement may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by disclosing relevant and identifying characteristics such as structural or other physical and/or chemical properties, by disclosing functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed. See Eli Lilly,119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
Applicant’s disclosure is as follows.
Applicant only describes using a construct comprising a chloroplast targeting peptide, TALE array protein, DddA-derived cytosine base editors (DdCBEs): DddA (WP 080324253.1) obtained from B. cenocepacia, SCPa (WP_091452319.1) obtained from A. iranica, SCPb (WP 228772027.1) obtained from A. iranica and SCPc (WP 021798742.1) obtained from P. acidifaciens (See paragraphs [0078]-[0079]) and 1 uracil glycosylase inhibitor (UGI) (see pages 23-24 and fig. 1) targeting the chloroplast. Additionally, the specification describes generating plants with said constructs (see page 24 paragraphs [0080]-[0081]).
Applicants claims encompass the genus of Streptomyces coelicolor Plasmid (SCP1.201), SCPa, SCPb and SCPc deaminases – the specification only describes examples of deaminases DddA (WP 080324253.1) obtained from Burkholderia cenocepacia, SCPa (WP_091452319.1) obtained from Actinokineospora iranica, SCPb (WP 228772027.1) obtained from Actinokineospora iranica and SCPc (WP 021798742.1) obtained from Propionibacterium acidifaciens.
The claimed invention lacks adequate written description for the following reasons. Claims 1, 8 and 10-15, are directed to a recombinant fusion protein comprising a targeting peptide, TALE array protein, Streptomyces coelicolor Plasmid (SCP1.201), SCPa, SCPb or SCPc deaminases and at least one uracil glycosylase inhibitor (UGI).
The claims encompasses any species of SCP1.201, SCPa, SCPb and SCPc deaminases. However, the Applicant only provides two examples of using a DddA-derived cytosine base editors (DdCBEs) and TALENs/DddA deaminase domain (TALCDA), which are unclear what species of deaminase/NCBI accession are used in paragraphs [0078]–[0079]. Additionally, the only other example of an SCP deaminase appears in a research plan diagram (fig. 7) rather than being adequately described. Moreover, the Applicant fails to specify the exact SCP deaminase used, rendering it impossible to identify.
The Applicant claims the entire genus of SCP1.201, SCPa, SCPb and SCPc deaminases. However, they have failed to adequately describe the SCP1.201 deaminase and provided only one “suitable” DNA deaminases for each class (p.13-14 paragraph [0052]).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The specification does not describe the features or structures for SCP 1.201 deaminase to allow one skilled in the art to predictably identify the structures and confer functional activity. For example, Huang et al., (“Discovery of deaminase functions by structure-based protein clustering” Cell vol. 186,15 (2023): 3182-3195.e14. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.05.041 (U)), describes SCP1.201 deaminase as a clade that contains both ssDNA and dsDNA cytidine deaminases (p.3181 and figure 1) and having diverse functions (p.3185 left column). Additionally, Huang et al. identify over 489 SCP1.201 deaminases, suggesting that without proper description of structure or identifying characteristics one skilled in the art would not predictably arrive to the claimed invention.
(1) Applicant has not adequately described the structure of the SCP1.201, SCPa, SCPb and SCPc deaminases needed for the claimed invention. (2) Applicant does not provide a representative number of species or identifying characteristics for each claimed deaminase.
Because of the lack of a description and representative number of structures/sequences, the absence of the sequence information, and being only identifiable via gene name, one skilled in the art would not know the structures that would arrive to the recombinant fusion protein. Moreover, the lack of sufficient identifying characteristics and undisclosed sequence structure the Applicant fails to show possession of the invention as claimed.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)(Enablement)(New)
Claims 1, 8 and 10-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because arguably the specification, while being enabling for making and using a recombinant fusion protein comprising a chloroplast targeting peptide, TALE array protein, DddA (WP 080324253.1) obtained from B. cenocepacia, SCPa (WP_091452319.1) obtained from A. iranica, SCPb (WP 228772027.1) obtained from A. iranica and SCPc (WP 021798742.1) obtained from P. acidifaciens (see paragraphs [0078]-[0079]) and 1 UGI, does not reasonably provide enablement for the entire genus of SCP1.201, SCPa, SCPb and SCPc deaminases. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
“The first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires, inter alia, that the specification of a patent enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains to make and use the claimed invention. Although the statute does not say so, enablement requires that the specification teach those in the art to make and use the invention without ‘undue experimentation.’ In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
That some experimentation may be required is not fatal; the issue is whether the amount of experimentation required is ‘undue.’” In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 495 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis in original); see also In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“[T]o be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation.’”) “Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations.” Wands, supra.
Some experimentation, even a considerable amount, is not “undue” if, e.g., it is merely routine, or if the specification provides a reasonable amount of guidance as to the direction in which the experimentation should proceed. Factors to consider include , but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Id. Applicant’s disclosure is as set forth above. The claimed invention is not enabled for the following reasons. To comply with 35 USC 112(a) enablement, one skilled in the art must be able to make and use the claimed invention.
(A) The breadth of the claims
The breadth of the claims encompasses a recombinant fusion protein that targets either a plant chloroplast or mitochondria comprising a TALE array protein, a deaminase selected from the genus of SCP1.201, SCPa, SCPb and SCPc, and at least one UGI located in the N-terminus. However, the specification has only taught using a construct comprising a chloroplast targeting peptide, TALE array protein, DddA-derived cytosine base editors (DdCBEs): DddA (WP 080324253.1) obtained from B. cenocepacia, SCPa (WP_091452319.1) obtained from A. iranica, SCPb (WP 228772027.1) obtained from A. iranica and SCPc (WP 021798742.1) obtained from P. acidifaciens (see paragraphs [0078]-[0079]), and 1 UGI (see pages 23-24 and fig. 1) targeting the chloroplast.
(B) The nature of the invention.
The nature of the claimed invention is directed to a recombinant fusion protein that targets either a plant chloroplast or mitochondria using a TALE array protein, a SCP deaminase, and a UGI on the N-terminus.
(C) The state of the prior art
The state of the prior art does teach on SCP1.201 deaminases used in fusion proteins having a large genus. As for SCPa, SCPb and SCPc deaminases as they are broader than single accession, respectively. Additionally, those accession are not listed as “SCPa”, “SCPb” or “SCPc” and it is not a known term, which the term seems to be made up by Applicant.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill
The level of one of ordinary skill in the art is high as far as using deaminases in fusion proteins but not the genus of deaminases or the structure required to confer functional activity.
(E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; and (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The claimed invention lacks adequate enabling guidance for the following reasons. Claims 1, 8 and 10-15, are directed to a recombinant fusion protein comprising a targeting peptide, TALE array protein, SCP1.201, SCPa, SCPb and SCPc deaminases and at least one uracil glycosylase inhibitor (UGI) at the N-terminus.
The claims encompasses any species of the SCP1.201, SCPa, SCPb and SCPc deaminases. However, the Applicant only provides two examples of using a DddA-derived cytosine base editors (DdCBEs) and TALENs/DddA deaminase domain (TALCDA), which are unclear what species of deaminase/NCBI accession are used in paragraphs [0078]–[0079]. Additionally, the only other example of an SCP deaminase appears in a research plan diagram (fig. 7) rather than a functional working example. Moreover, the Applicant fails to specify the exact SCP deaminase used, rendering it impossible to identify.
The Applicants claims the entire genus of SCP1.201, SCPa, SCPb and SCPc deaminases. However, they have failed to adequately define the SCP1.201 deaminase and provided only one “suitable” DNA deaminases for each class (p.13-14 paragraph [0052]).
PNG
media_image1.png
250
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The specification does not provide enabling guidance on the features or structures for SCP 1.201, SCPa, SCPb and SCPc deaminases to allow one skilled in the art to predictably identify the structures and make a recombinant fusion protein.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not provided guidance on how one skilled in the art can identify and make the recombinant fusion protein with SCP 1.201 without clear guidance. For example, Huang et al., (“Discovery of deaminase functions by structure-based protein clustering.” Cell vol. 186,15 (2023): 3182-3195.e14. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.05.041 (U)) teaches SCP1.201 deaminase as a clade that contains both ssDNA and dsDNA cytidine deaminases (p.3181 and figure 1) and having diverse functions (p.3185 left column). Additionally, Huang et al. identified over 489 SCP1.201 deaminases (p.3185 left column), suggesting that without proper description of structure or identifying characteristics one skilled in the art would not predictably identify which structure to use and requiring an undue amount of experimentation to arrive to the claimed invention.
(1) Applicant has not taught the structure of the SCP1.201, SCPa, SCPb and SCPc deaminases needed for the claimed invention (2) Applicant does not provide enough working examples or sequences to make and use the Applicant’s claimed invention.
The specification fails to TEACH, or fails to provide GUIDANCE for making the recombinant fusion protein to target and modify the chloroplast or mitochondria. The lack or guidance and the lack of working examples means one skilled in the cannot make and use a SCP1.201 deaminase.
Given the breadth of the claims, the lack of sufficient guidance, the absence of working examples regarding the structure of SCP1.201, SCPa, SCPb and SCPc deaminases which confer functional activity, the state of the prior art, and unpredictability in the art, one skilled in the art cannot make and use the claimed invention as commensurate in scope with the claims without excessive burden and undue experimentation.
For at least this reason, the Specification does not teach a person with skill in the art how to make and/or use the subject matter within the full scope of these Claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103(New)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 10-15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., (Chloroplast and mitochondrial DNA editing in plants, 20 January 2021, PREPRINT (Version 1) available at Research Square (previously cited)) In light of Mok et al. (A bacterial cytidine deaminase toxin enables CRISPR-free mitochondrial base editing. 2020. Nature 583, 631–637 (previously cited)) and in view of Iyer et al. (Evolution of the deaminase fold and multiple origins of eukaryotic editing and mutagenic nucleic acid deaminases from bacterial toxin systems. 2011. Nucleic acids research 39.22: 9473-9497. (V)).
Claim interpretation
Applicant has not adequately defined SCP1.201 deaminase besides what is on page 13 of the specification. Applicant only provides example of the SCP1.201 deaminase which include DddA (Burkholderia cenocepacia), SCPa (Actinokineospora iranica), SCPb(Actinokineospora iranica) and SCPc (Propionibacteriumacidifaciens), which are all derived from various bacteria species. Therefore, Applicants SCP1.201 deaminase is derived from Streptomyces coelicolor.
In regard to claims 1 and 8, Kim et al. teach a recombinant fusion peptide comprising the following:
Kim et al. teach a chloroplast transit peptide (CTP) (see page 2 middle paragraph), specifically “to the chloroplast 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene encoding the RNA component of the 30S ribosomal subunit” (see page 2 middle paragraph);
Kim et al. teach on a TAL effector N- or C-terminal domains, (see page 2 middle paragraph); and
Kim et al. teach on a split-DddAtox (see page 2 middle paragraph) which is a “CRISPR-free DddA-derived cytosine base editors (DdCBEs)” (see page 2 top paragraph). The DddA belongs to SCP1.201-like subfamily of bacterial deaminases. Suggesting that both Ddda and SCP1.201 deaminase have similar function.
Kim et al. teach on using uracil glycosylase inhibitor (UGI) on the C-terminus (see figure 2).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Kim et al. do not teach on using a UGI at the N-terminal.
In regard to claims 1 and 8, Mok et al. teach using cytidine deaminase enables CRISPR-free mitochondrial base editing resulting in “high target specificity and product purity” (see Abstract). Furthermore, Mok et al. disclose that “appending two copies of UGI (2×-UGI)14,28 to the N terminus increased the editing efficiency at C9 by approximately 8-fold (to 22%–27%) and reduced indels to less than 2.3 ± 0.31% (mean ± s.d.)” (see page 634 under “Nuclear base editing by TALE–DddAtox”) showing that using two UGI’s increase editing efficiency. Additionally, Mok et al. focused on the “predicted deaminase belonging to the SCP1.201-like family15, henceforth referred to as DddA, encoded by Burkholderia cenocepacia” (see page 632 right column top paragraph).
In regard to claims 1 and 8, neither Kim et al. or Mok et al. teach SCP1.201 deaminase encoded by Streptomyces coelicolor.
In regard to claims 1 and 8, Iyer et al. teaches on SCP1.201 deaminase which is encoded by Streptomyces coelicolor (gi:21234196) (see page 9485 and figure 3-4). Iyer teaches that “Streptomyces SCP1.201 each show internal variability in the same position with both HxE and CXE motifs in the former and a DxE or HXE motifs” (see page 9485 right column). Suggesting that this variability allows for more flexibility on target sites. Lastly, Iyer et al. teach how “Streptomyces SCP1.201 appear to form a higher order group within the C-terminal hairpin division unified by an insert between strand-2 and helix-2 (Figure 2). The latter two clades are further unified by features such as a conserved polar residue (either lysine or glutamine) two residues downstream to the catalytic glutamate in helix-2” (see page 9485 left column). Iyer et al. suggest that the conserved polar regions adjacent to catalytic glutamate residues, which is well known in the art to play a crucial role in binding and catalysis. Overall, Iyer et al. teach on the benefits of using Streptomyces coelicolor SCP1.201 deaminase.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Kim et al. to employ a CRISPR-free deaminase editing system in chloroplast and using a UGI in the C-terminus (see p. 2), in view of Mok et al. use UGI in the N-terminus to improve efficiency and purity (see p. 634), because one skilled in the art would readily combine teachings to optimize “high target specificity and product purity” (see Abstract). Additionally, Iyer et al. teach on how SCP1.201 deaminase encoded by Streptomyces coelicolor having more flexibility on target sites and conserved polar regions which are known to help with binding and catalysis (see page 9485 left column).
One would have a reasonable expectation of success in this approach because Kim et al. teach DddA-derived cytosine base editor (DdCBE) plasmids and used the resulting DdCBEs to promote point mutagenesis in mitochondria and chloroplasts efficiently (see p. 2 Abstract), which would be a simple routine in the art to combine and substitute elements such as UGI in the N-terminus and Streptomyces coelicolor plasmid SCP1.201 deaminase, since they improve efficiency and provide a wider target range due to its flexible motifs, respectively. Consequently, based on the teachings of Kim et al., one would reasonably expect producing a recombinant fusion protein.
Given that Kim et al. teach to employ a CRISPR-free deaminase editing system in chloroplast and using a UGI in the C-terminus (see p. 2), along with using UGI’s in the N-terminus as taught by Mok et al. and with the teaching of Streptomyces coelicolor plasmid SCP1.201 deaminase as taught by Iyer et al., it would have been obvious to combine knowing that one skilled the art can readily substitute elements to produce a recombinant fusion protein that target chloroplast while being CRISPR-free as taught by Kim et al.
In regards to claims 10 and 11, Kim et al. teaches the DNA sequence of the plasmid encoding the recombinant fusion protein (see pages 4-5 Method section and Supplementary section). The recombinant fusion protein is encoded by a plasmid which includes nucleic acid sequences for “a chloroplast transit peptide (CTP) or a mitochondrial targeting sequence (MTS), the TAL effector N- or C-terminal domains, split-DddAtox halves (G1333N, G1333C, G1397N and G1397C) and UGI, which are codon-optimized for expression in dicot plants” (see page 2 top paragraph).
In regards to claims 12-13, Kim et al. teaches the “Construction of plasmids for expression in plant protoplasts”, specifically express the cp-DdCBE pair (Left-G1397-N + Right-G1397-C) in lettuce protoplasts and rapeseed protoplasts (see page 2 last two paragraphs and pages 5-6 Method section and Supplementary section). Specifically, Kim et al. teach expressing the “fusion proteins composed of a chloroplast transit peptide (CTP) or a mitochondrial targeting sequence (MTS)” (see p. 3 first sentence) in lettuce protoplasts and rapeseed protoplasts.
In regards to claims 14-15, Kim et al. teaches a method to edit a plant chloroplast DNA (see page 2 top paragraph). Additionally, discloses the recombinant fusion protein which includes sequences for “a chloroplast transit peptide (CTP) or a mitochondrial targeting sequence (MTS), the TAL effector N- or C-terminal domains, split-DddAtox halves (G1333N, G1333C, G1397N and G1397C) and UGI, which are codon-optimized for expression in dicot plants” (see page 2 top paragraph). Furthermore, discloses the results of the “best-performing cp-DdCBE pair (Left-G1397-N + Right-G1397-C) induced C∙G-to-T∙A conversions in the 15-bp spacer region between the two TALE array-binding sites at frequencies of 30.2% in lettuce protoplasts and 8.6% in rapeseed protoplasts” (see page 2 second to last paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 10-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663