DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. The instant application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/065235 filed June 3, 2022.
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) by application no. EP21177731.3 filed in the European Patent Office on June 4, 2021, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Status of Claims
4. Claims 1-16 are pending and under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for treating GPR17 mediated disorders, treating a disorder or syndrome selected from a myelination disorder or a disorder or syndrome associated with brain tissue damage, does not reasonably provide enablement for preventing GPR17 mediated disorders or preventing a myelination disorder or a disorder or syndrome associated with brain tissue damage. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is undue. These factors include, but are not limited to: (a) breadth of the claims; (b) nature of the invention; (c) state of the prior art; (d) level of one of ordinary skill in the art; (e) level of predictability in the art; (f) amount of direction provided by the inventor; (g) existence of working examples; and (h) quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. (See Ex parte Forman 230 USPQ 546 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The above factors, regarding the present invention, are summarized as follows:
(a) Breadth of the claims - The breadth of the claims is drawn to methods for treating and preventing a myelination disorder or a disorder or syndrome associated with brain tissue damage and treating and preventing GPR17 mediated disorders.
(b) Nature of the invention - The nature of the invention is therefore drawn to the pharmaceutical art.
(c,e) State of the prior art and predictability in the art - The state of the prior art is that the pharmacological art involves screening in vitro and in vivo to determine which compounds exhibit the desired pharmacological activities (i.e. what compounds can treat or prevent which specific disease by what mechanism). There is no absolute predictability even in view of the seemingly high level of skill in the art. The existence of these obstacles establishes that the contemporary knowledge in the art would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from accepting any therapeutic or preventative regimen on its face.
Regarding the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease- prophylaxis and/or prevention actually means to anticipate or counter in advanced, to keep from happening, etc. and there is no disclosure as to how one skilled in the art can reasonably establish the basis and the type of subject to which the instant compounds and compositions can be administered in order to have the "preventive" effect. How would one show a correlation that the diseases of the instant claims are prevented by the compounds of the invention, or that the subject would not have contracted the disease without administration of the instantly claimed compounds/compositions? How is the initial onset Alzheimer’s prevented?
It is the state of the art that there is no known cure for Alzheimer’s disease and that there are only four medications available in the United States available to temporarily slow the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease. The current drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, Aricept, Exelon, Reminyl and Cognex, treat early stages of Alzheimer’s disease by delaying the breakdown of acetylcholine. Memantine, blocks excess amounts of glutamate treats late stage Alzheimer’s disease. (URL:http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/09/24/alzheimers.drug.ap/index.html.
Furthermore, Layzer, Cecil Textbook of Medicine (article enclosed), states that “some degenerative diseases are difficult to classify because they involve multiple anatomic locations” (see page 2050). Alzheimer’s disease has traditionally been very difficult or impossible to prevent or treat effectively with chemotherapeutic agents. See e.g., the Cecil Textbook of Medicine, 20th edition (1996), Vol. 2, wherein it is stated that “[t]here is no cure for Alzheimer’s disease, and no drug tried so far can alter the progress of the disease” (pg. 1994).
The existence of these obstacles establishes that the contemporary knowledge in the art would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from accepting any curative or preventative regimen on its face.
(d) Level of one of ordinary skill in the art - The artisans using applicant’s method would be a collaborative team of synthetic chemists and/or health practitioners, possessing commensurate degree level and/or skill in the art, as well as several years of professional experience.
The level of skill in the art is high; however, due to the unpredictability in the pharmaceutical art, it is noted that each embodiment of the invention is required to be individually assessed for physiological activity by in vitro or in vivo screening to determine which compounds exhibit the desired pharmacological activity and which diseases would benefit from this activity.
(f-g) Amount of direction provided by the inventor and existence of working examples - The only direction or guidance present in the instant specification is the listing of diseases applicant considers as treatable by the claimed. There are absolutely no working examples present for the prevention any of the aforementioned claimed conditions.
Test assays and procedures are provided in the specification and the disclosure does not provide how the in vitro and in vivo data correlates to the prevention of the full scope of conditions.
Pharmacological activity in general is a very unpredictable area. Note that in cases involving physiological activity such as the instant case, “the scope of enablement obviously varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved.” See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).
Applicant has not provided any competent evidence or disclosed tests that are highly predictive for the pharmaceutical use for preventing or curing Alzheimer’s disease comprising administration of the claimed pharmaceutical compositions.
(h) Quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure - The quantity of experimentation needed is undue experimentation. One of skill in the art would need to determine which of the claimed compounds/compositions of the instant invention would provide treatment, prevention, and cure of the claimed diseases.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would be faced with an undue amount of experimentation to use the pharmaceutical compositions for the full scope of the claimed intended uses.
A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. {In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)}.
The specification fails to provide sufficient support of the broad use of the claimed methods of treatment and prevention, as a result necessitating one of skill to perform an exhaustive search for which diseases can be treated or prevented by what compounds of the invention in order to practice the claimed invention. While being enabling for treating GPR17 mediated disorders, treating a disorder or syndrome selected from a myelination disorder or a disorder or syndrome associated with brain tissue damage, does not reasonably provide enablement for preventing GPR17 mediated disorders or preventing a myelination disorder or a disorder or syndrome associated with brain tissue damage.
Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S (CA FC) 42 USPQ2d 1001, states that “a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for search, but compensation for its successful conclusion” and “patent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable”.
Therefore, in view of the Wands factors and In re Fisher (CCPA 1970) discussed above, to practice the claimed invention herein, a person of skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation to test which diseases can be treated by the compounds encompassed in the instant claims, with no assurance of success.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-11 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.
A. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “R1 is selected from the group comprising C6-10 aryl, 5-10 membered heteroaryl…” and the claim also recites “preferably R1 is selected from the group comprising C6-10 aryl, 5-10membered heteroaryl…;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 2 recites the broad recitation “R2 is selected from the group comprising hydrogen, halo, cyano..” and the claim also recites “preferably R2 is selected from the group comprising hydrogen, halo, cyano….”
Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “X1 is -Y1b-Y1a-Y1c- wherein Y1a is a single bond, double bond…” and the claim also recites “preferably X1 is selected from the group comprising -C(R1a)2-, -CR1a=CR1a-, -C=C-, -CO-, -O-…;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “Ria is independently selected from the group comprising hydrogen, oxo, thioxo…” and the claim also recites “preferably Ria is independently selected from the group comprising hydrogen, halo, hydroxy…;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “A1 is selected from the group comprising C6-10 aryl, 5-10 membered heteroaryl …” and the claim also recites “preferably A1 is selected from the group comprising C6-10 aryl, 5-10membered heteroaryl…;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “Rib is independently selected hydrogen, C1 alkyl…” and the claim also recites “preferably Rib is independently selected from hydrogen…;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “R2 is selected from the group comprising C6-10 aryl, 5-10 membered heteroaryl..” and the claim also recites “preferably R2 is selected from the group comprising C6-10 aryl, 5-10 membered heteroaryl….” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “R1 is selected from the group comprising hydrogen, halo, cyano…” and the claim also recites “preferably R1 is selected from the group comprising hydrogen, halo, cyano…”
Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “X2 is -Y2b-Y2a-Y2c- wherein Y2a is a single bond, double bond…” and the claim also recites “preferably X2 is selected from the group comprising -C(R2a)2-, -CR2a=CR2a-, -C=C-, -CO-, -O-…;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “R2 is independently selected from the group comprising hydrogen, oxo, thioxo…” and the claim also recites “preferably R2 is independently selected from the group comprising hydrogen, halo, hydroxy…;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “A2 is selected from the group comprising C6-10 aryl, 5-10 membered heteroaryl …” and the claim also recites “preferably A2 is selected from the group comprising C6-10 aryl, 5-10membered heteroaryl…;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 5 recites the broad recitation “R2b is independently selected hydrogen, C1-4 alkyl…” and the claim also recites “preferably R2b is independently selected from hydrogen, C1-4 alkyl…;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 6 recites the broad recitation “R3 is independently selected from the group comprising hydrogen, halo, cyano…” and the claim also recites “preferably R3 is independently selected from the group comprising hydrogen, halo, cyano …;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “R4 is selected from the group comprising C6-10 aryl, 5-10 membered heteroaryl …” and the claim also recites “preferably R4 is selected from the group comprising C6-10 aryl, 5-10membered heteroaryl…preferably wherein each of said C6-10 aryl and 5-10 membered heteroaryl is substituted with two or more Z4;” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 15 recites the broad recitation “disorder selected from the group of MS …” and the claim also recites “including all its various subforms including clinically isolated syndrome; optic neuropathies including acute optic neuritis…;” “autoimmune diseases including anti-MAG peripheral neuropathy…; including but not restricted to Sjogren’s syndrome…; neurodegenerative disease including ALS…peripheral myelination diseases including acute and chronic peripheral demyelinating neuropathies…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 16 recites the broad recitation “wherein the syndrome or disorder is selected from MS …” and the claim also recites “including its various subforms… neurodegenerative diseases…including ALS…peripheral myelination diseases including leukodystrophies…” The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
B. Regarding claims 15 and 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
C. Claim 10 is rejected as follows: the claim is indefinite because they makes express reference to the specification. The claims recite ‘compounds listed in Table A’ which are not present in the claims. According to MPEP 2173.05(s) “Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).”
D. Claims 1-16 are rejected as the claim language is indefinite. All variables are defined as “selected from the group comprising” rather than the more proper “selected from the group consisting of” language. See MPEP 2111.03.I:
I. COMPRISING
The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[L]ike the term ‘comprising,’ the terms ‘containing’ and ‘mixture’ are open-ended."). Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Manufacturing, L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368, 66 USPQ2d 1631, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The transition ‘comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps."); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("Comprising" is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 229 USPQ 805 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 803 (CCPA 1981); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) ("comprising" leaves "the claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts"). In Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371-73, 74 USPQ2d 1586, 1589-91 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that a claim to "a safety razor blade unit comprising a guard, a cap, and a group of first, second, and third blades" encompasses razors with more than three blades because the transitional phrase "comprising" in the preamble and the phrase "group of" are presumptively open-ended. "The word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended." Id. In contrast, the court noted the phrase "group consisting of" is a closed term, which is often used in claim drafting to signal a "Markush group" that is by its nature closed. Id. The court also emphasized that reference to "first," "second," and "third" blades in the claim was not used to show a serial or numerical limitation but instead was used to distinguish or identify the various members of the group. Id.
In Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, 945 F.3d 1368, 1379, 2020 USPQ2d 3197 (Fed. Cir. 2020), in an infringement suit, the court interpreted a claim for a pharmaceutical composition having a "comprising" transition phrase and following limitations, including limitations requiring "at least one" binder and "at least one" disintegrant, each "consisting of" items listed in a Markush group. The court found that the Markush grouping recited particular binders or disintegrants, but while the components of the Markush grouping are closed as to the components therein, the claim transition "comprising" allowed for additional component(s) that were functionally similar to the members of the Markush grouping. Thus, the plain language of the claim requires "at least one" of the Markush members and does not further limit the claim to only binders and disintegrants listed in the Markush grouping. See also MPEP § 2117 for further discussion of a Markush group.
Forms of the term “comprise” are considered open-ended language and therefore include additional subject matter that is not described in the instant specification and is not particularly pointed out or distinctly claimed. The identity of the additional atoms or groups is unknown and how to determine the identity of the additional atoms or groups is not pointed out or distinctly claimed.
Furthermore the term “compound” contradicts the open language "comprises." A "compound" is defined as a substance whose molecules consist of unlike elements and whose constituents cannot be separated by physical means. Grant & Hackh's Chemical Dictionary (5th Ed. 1987) at page 148. By contrast, a composition is defined as elements or compounds forming a material or produced from it by analysis. Id. In other words, a compound is a molecule with more than one element, and a composition is a mixture of two or more compounds or molecules.
The transitional term "comprising" is synonymous with "including", "containing", and "characterized by". "Comprising" is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Comprising” is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.); Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 229 USPQ 805 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 803 (CCPA 1981); Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948) (“comprising” leaves “the claim open for the inclusion of unspecified ingredients even in major amounts”).
Thus, a contradiction arises within the definition of these compounds because a "compound" with these variables requires a definite chemical formula, and the open-ended term "comprises" does not exclude unrecited elements. In other words, "comprising", used in conjunction with "compound" fails to articulate exactly what subject matter is excluded from the claimed scope of compounds, thereby rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
Additionally, even if the comprising language was appropriate, it is unclear from the structure where a point of attachment would be to add any additional structural components. There is no open valence on the structure presented in the claims and therefore, it is unclear what additional components would be included and where they would be attached, rendering the scope of the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
As written, all variables ‘comprise’ anything outside the scope of the presently delineated variables. All instances of ‘comprising’ language should be amended to ‘selected from the group consisting of’ to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CAS Registry Number: RN 1111992-44-9. [Database Registry Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio, Accession No. RN 1111992-44-9, Entered STN 26 Feb 2009].
PNG
media_image1.png
316
529
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RN 1111992-44-9 anticipates the instant claims wherein R1 is substituted heteroaryl, R2 is H, R4 is substituted aryl, R3 is H. While variable R2 is different in the anticipatory species than the Markush group of the claims, the open ‘comprising’ language of the claims allows for the variable definitions to be open-ended. See MPEP 2111.03.I: All instances of ‘comprising’ language should be amended to ‘selected from the group consisting of’ to overcome this rejection. In claim 10, for example, which claims that the compound is a compound according to claim 1 selected from the group comprising the compounds listed in Table A. The open ‘comprising’ language of the claims allows for the variable definitions to be open-ended. See MPEP 2111.03.I: All instances of ‘comprising’ language should be amended to ‘selected from the group consisting of’ to overcome this rejection.
Registry number 1111992-44-9 is available as prior art as of 26 Feb 2009, the day it was indexed into the CAS database.
Regarding the compositions of claim 11, comprising the anticipatory compounds and an excipient, the Registry entry for Registry no. 1111992-44-9 discloses a mass solubility of 0.015 g/L, in unbuffered water at pH 6.47. This teaching of water anticipates the claimed composition, wherein the compounds are present with an excipient (i.e., water).
Regarding the limitations of claims 13-16 “for use in…” – it is noted that this limitation merely recites properties of the anticipated compounds. “Products of an identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F. 2d 705, 709, 15 USPQd 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Since the prior art teaches a product of identical chemical composition to that claimed, and the application discloses that all of the claimed compositions have the claimed properties, these limitations are also anticipated. Since the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F. 2d 705, 709, 15 USPQd 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Since the prior art teaches a product of identical chemical compound to that claimed, and the application discloses that all of the claimed compounds have the claimed properties and no additional components are claimed, these limitations are also anticipated. The claimed compounds teach drug and no additional components. Therefore, the claims are anticipated by the aforementioned compound capable of being used with the claimed intended uses, as described herein.
MPEP 2111.02(II) provides the following instruction for interpreting the preamble of a claim: “During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.” If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Since the compounds taught by the prior art do not have any structural difference from the claimed preparation and the prior art compound are capable of the intended uses, those limitations are also anticipated, as discussed herein.
See MPEP 2128: ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS AS PRIOR ART Status as a "Printed Publication" An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227, 210 USPQ 790, 795 (CCPA 1981) Since this date represents the date that each compound entered the CAS database on STN, this represents the date that each compound was made accessible to the public.
The aforementioned compounds anticipate the instantly claimed compounds: It is further noted that for the purposes of determining if a reference is a “printed publication” for the purposes of 102(b), MPEP 2128 states the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
181
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where “prior art disclosures…on an on-line database are considered to be publicly available as of the date the item was publicly posted.” Since each of the database entries above lists the date that each compound was entered into the on-line database, the compounds were made publicly available as of that date in each citation, and the claims are anticipated.
Conclusion
10. No claims are allowed.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha Shterengarts whose telephone number is (571)270-5316. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday 9-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Milligan can be reached on 571-270-7674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMANTHA L SHTERENGARTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623