DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 16-18 are elected and examined herein.
Claims 10 and 13-15 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 16-18 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Application No. 18/569,441 filed on 12/12/2023 is a 371 of PCT Application No. PCT/EP2022/066971 filed on 06/22/2022, and also claims foreign priority to European Patent Application No. 21180996.7 filed on 06/22/2021.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, encompassing claims 1-9, 11-12 and 16-18 and Applicant’s election of species marker M61 and gene ZmNLR24892 in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification and Drawings
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The brief description of the drawings identifies the main figure number (Figure 1) but not the portions (1A, 1B, etc.) for figures 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 10.
Page 175 of spec lines 8-10 refer to figures 1A and 1B as showing mapping peaks, but these figures contain aligned nucleic acid sequences, not mapping peaks.
Additionally, figures should be referenced as, e.g., “Fig. 1A” not “Figure 1A” in the specification and drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (See e.g., spec pg. 55). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/17/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the actual reference provided by "anonymous "maizeGDB Genome Center"" does not match reference described on the IDS form. The reference provided which was obtained 05/25/2023 (not 05/26/2020) and the provided reference only provides data regarding Chr1:34400..530000. The reference provided has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The actual reference and IDS reference appear to have been re-submitted, dated 11/14/2025, to correct the date error.
Improper Markush Grouping
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 11 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of the different genes including Zm00001d049121, Zm00001d049113, Zm00001d049145, Zm00001d049148, Zm00001d049159, and ZmNLR24892, and their respective markers (M1-M57 and M60-M68) that correspond to the different genes above, is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons:
An ABSS sequence search of elected ZmNLR24892 gene (SEQ ID NO: 38, See file wrappers 20250905_111512_us-18-569-441-38.rnpbm) returned results as low as 19.7% identity to SEQ ID NO: 38. From the instant application, only sequences of the ZmNLR24892 gene and the markers that are associated with ZmNLR24892 appeared in the search results. All other non-elected species as they appear in the claims have less than 19.7% identity to SEQ ID NO: 38. That is, none of the other genes (and the markers associated with the other genes) are structurally similar to elected ZmNLR24892.
Hence, the included species of the claimed invention, i.e. the other genes and their corresponding markers, do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common function that flows from the substantial structural feature.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 16-18 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.
Claims 2-5, 7, and 11 recite “marker alleles M60 to M68 or M1 to M68”, then proceed to list markers M60 to M68 and M1 to M57. The claim does not establish what markers M58 or M59 are, and therefore it is unclear what the claim is referencing with regard to M58 and M59, and if the claim encompasses them or if the claim only encompasses markers M1 to M57 and M60 to M68.
Claims 8, 9, 12, and 17-18 are rejected as a function of their dependency.
Claim 1 recites "on reference genome B73 AGPv04." The definition for "B73 reference genome AGPv4" is improperly incorporated by reference, and thus, the claims are rendered indefinite. The definition for "B73 reference genome AGPv4" (See specification pg. 55, lines 5-7) is provided via website. An incorporation by reference by hyperlink or other form of browser executable code is not permitted. Since the definition for "B73 reference genome AGPv4" is essential for determining the metes and bounds of the claims, the claims are rendered indefinite. See also MPEP § 608.01(p) subsection I(c). Furthermore, however, there is not one, fixed disclosure of B73 AGPv04. Review of the history of the genome at the website references on p. 55, finds that many different versions of the AGPv4 genome have existed (see figure below), and it is unclear which version’s numbering the instant claims are employing. The metes and bounds of the QTL are therefore unclear.
PNG
media_image1.png
777
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 6 and 9 recite the term “increased resistance”. The term "increased resistance" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "increased resistance" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Without including a control maize plant grown under the same conditions, it would be unclear how to determine if NCLB and/or Helminthosporium turcicum resistance has been increased in the recited maize plant.
Written Description
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 1-2, 5-6, 9, and 11-12 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 claims at issue are methods for identifying and selecting maize plants, in some claims plants that display increased resistance to a pathogen. Claim 9 recites that the plant or plant part has increased resistance to Exserohilum turcicum.
The claims are of varying breadth, with claim 1 encompassing for screening for "the presence" of a QTL allele on chromosome 4 in a maize plant or plant part, wherein said QTL allele is flanked by marker alleles A and B. The claim does not require that the "screening" detect marker A or B, nor even necessarily genomic content between A and B. Furthermore, the precise location of markers A and B in the maize genome are unknown since there were multiple versions of B73 AGPv04 genome and no version is specifically mentioned in the claims or the specification. Dependent claim 2 recites features of the QTL allele, but does not require assaying any one of those recited SNP.
The disclosure teaches that the QTL allele recited in the instant claims is associated with resistance to the pathogen Exserohilum turcicum. Claim 6 specifically recites that the plant or plant part is identified as having increased resistance to a pathogen if said QTL or one or more of said marker alleles are present. No rejected claim specifically recites that particular genotypic content is in fact associated with E. turcicum resistance.
Since the allele is being used to determine the presence of a QTL associated with increased resistance to blight caused by E. turcicum, it also follows that the allele must be associated with increased or decreased mechanical strength.
Thus, there are a variety of properties any allele that is detected that would be used in a method within the scope of the claims must possess:
(i) The marker has to be a naturally occurring variant in a maize plant
(ii) The marker must be "within" or otherwise indicative of the content (i.e. in linkage with) of a chromosomal interval comprising and flanked by marker alleles A and B
(iii) The allele must be able to "identify" the plant, and in some embodiments identify the plant as being resistant to a pathogen
(iv) The allele must be indicative of a QTL if it is to function in the method for "screening for the presence of a QTL allele."
The nature of the invention is that a reliable association between the allele of the marker whose presence or absence is being detected and these features is required in order for the claimed methods to be meaningfully practiced.
The claims are sufficiently broad so as to encompass detecting an SNP or other polymorphic marker that is "linked" to any of the alleles disclosed in the specification. The term linkage refers to the preferential segregation of a particular polymorphic form with another polymorphic form at a different chromosomal location more frequently than expected by chance. Therefore, the claims encompass detecting a potentially large genus of nucleic acids. The polymorphisms that are in linkage with any of the markers specifically disclosed herein have not been identified. Furthermore, although 68 SNPs (or 66 SNPs, see 112(b)) within the QTL have been identified, the region identified is 2,363,181 nucleotides. The 68 SNP identified are between two specific strains of maize, and do not represent every possible SNP within the over two million base pair region of the maize genome.
Furthermore, the claims are inclusive of detecting a QTL or SNP that are associated with any possible pathogen, and that come from a plant of any parental origin.
The specification teaches analysis to determine regions of the maize genome that are quantitative trait loci for resistance to E. turcicum in plants with maize line H102 as parent. The specification discloses a QTL on chromosome 4 and sets forth genes within the QTL (Table 2) SNP within the QTL that "might be used" for the development of molecular makers for the detection of NCLB resistant corn plants (Table 4). However, there is no analysis showing that any one of these SNP alone is sufficient to predict the presence of resistance to "pathogens" in general (as set forth in claim 6) or E. turcicum in particular.
Example 1 supports the finding that a portion of chromosome 4 is associated with resistance to E. turcicum, but provides no further written description of particular alleles within the identified region that are useful for practicing the claimed methods.
The specification invites one skilled in the art to identify markers that would function for meaningfully selecting plants that exhibit a "QTL" and in particular that are likely to have increased resistance to northern corn leaf blight caused by E. turcicum.
Of all of the possible polymorphic positions in the region bound by and including Marker allele A and Marker allele B, the specification discloses only a very limited set of actual polymorphisms that could be used in the practice of the claimed invention, and even then, fails to show that any marker alone is sufficient to identify resistance in a plant or plant part.
The specification does not provide any guidance as to the physical structure of the region that may be between the two markers (i.e. the sequence is not given) other than to disclose that the region is approximately 2,363,181 nucleotides. The claims broadly encompass determining the presence or absence of any polymorphic marker in linkage with the QTL, provided it is within the physical region given in the claim. The claim does not define the structure of the linked polymorphisms or make any particular physical identification of alleles to be used within the claimed methods.
While the state of the art and level of skill in the art with regard to detection of a previously identified polymorphism in a known gene sequence is high, the level of unpredictability in associating any particular polymorphism with a phenotype is even higher. Whether or not a particular allele is associated with a phenotype must be determined empirically.
There are expected to be numerous markers that meet the functional requirements set forth in the claims. However, the specification does not teach a predictable means for distinguishing between markers that meet these functional requirements and are associated with resistance to E. turcicum and markers that are on chromosome 4 that are not associated. Practice of the claimed invention using a marker in linkage any of the particularly disclosed markers requires knowledge that the linked marker exists, knowledge that the marker is associated with the phenotype, and which allele is indicative of risk for the phenotype. While it may have been known at the time of the invention how to identify markers in linkage disequilibrium with one another it was also known in the art that not every marker at any level of linkage disequilibrium with one another will be associated with the same phenotype.
Wall (Nature Reviews Genetics (2003) volume 4, pages 587-597) teaches that linkage disequilibrium (LD) refers to the fact that particular alleles at nearby sites can co-occur on the same haplotype more often than is expected by chance (page 587, 1st column, 1st paragraph). Wall teaches that patterns of LD are known to be noisy and unpredictable as pairs of sites tens of kilo bases apart might be in complete LD, whereas nearby sites from the same region can be in weak LD (page 587, 2nd column, last paragraph). Wall teaches that population history, population size, and population structure lead to differences in LD (page 588, 1st column, top). Wall teaches, "Measuring LD across a region is not straightforward" (box 1, last paragraph, page 588). Wall teaches it is difficult to compare results from different LD studies directly because of the variation in study design and methods of analyzing the data (page 591, 2nd column, 1st full paragraph). Wall teaches there are clear differences in LD between African's and non-Africans (page 593, 1st column). Thus Wall teaches that LD is not predictable.
It is expected that there are thousands of SNP and other polymorphisms or alterations throughout the region bound by Marker Allele A and Marker Allele B, but applicant has provided no guidance as to which of these will be associated with resistance to E. turcicum, and which allele of those that are associated will be predictive, other than by identifying the alleles of the particular polymorphisms identified in the specification. Practice of the claimed invention using a particular polymorphic marker requires knowledge that the marker exists, that it is associated with the phenotype, and which allele is indicative of risk for the phenotype. Thus, to practice the claimed invention commensurate in scope with the currently written claims every possible position of the region will have to be tested and analyzed to determine if there is an association between the genomic location and the phenotype. Such analysis will have to include replicated, case-controlled studies, as at the time the invention was made, it was known that SNP association studies typically are not easily replicated.
Having carefully considered the scope of the claims, the guidance in the specification, the disclosed working examples and the unpredictability in the technology area, it is concluded that it would require undue experimentation to practice the claimed invention commensurate in scope with the claims.
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 1-9, 11-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process and/or a natural phenomenon without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “identifying a maize plant or plant part” which encompasses a mental process judicial exception. Claim 5 additionally recites “selecting a plant or plant part” which is a mental process judicial exception. Furthermore, claim 6 recites that the plant or plant part "is identified" as having increased resistance to a pathogen if said QTL or one or more of said marker alleles are present. This sets forth a relationship between genomic content and a phenotype, which is a naturally occurring correlation that has been recognized by the courts as a law of nature. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only step in addition to the judicial exceptions is screening for the presence of a QTL allele, which is presolution data gathering that does not apply or use the judicial exception in any way. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only step in addition to the judicial exceptions is screening for the presence of a QTL allele in a chromosomal interval. This extra-solution data gathering step encompasses any possible method for determining if a QTL allele is present in a maize plant or plant part, including many well-known molecular biology techniques like sequencing or hybridization analysis with allele-specific probes. See specification p. 58, lines 17-25.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (Wang, J., Xu, Z., Yang, J., Lu, X., Zhou, Z., Zhang, C., ... & Weng, J. (2018). qNCLB7. 02, a novel QTL for resistance to northern corn leaf blight in maize. Molecular Breeding, 38(5), 54.).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses identifying plants as being resistant or susceptible for northern corn leaf blight caused by E. turcicum (called S. turcica therein) and then screening the plants to identify the alleles present at polymorphisms with an average physical distance of about 0.51Mb per SNP (p. 4, bottom first column). This is considered as a method for "screening" for a QTL allele located on a chromosomal interval flanked by marker alleles A and B as set forth in claim 1 because, if a SNP was tested every 0.51Mb this would be about 4 or 5 tested SNP within the region of the disclosed QTL, and therefore they screened for the presence of the QTL, even though it was not identified.
Regarding claim 2, the claim sets forth that the QTL that is screened for comprises M61 (consonant with the election) but it does not require assaying for M61, and even more does not require detecting M61. Therefore, Wang discloses the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Wang does not disclose that one or more QTL allele is present in the section of chromosome 4 recited in the claim, and so the conditional "if" is not required to be practiced.
Regarding claim 16, the screening for the RLK1 gene or allele is optional (see claim 1), therefore the limitations of claim 16 which specify the RLK1 genes are also anticipated by Wang because they are not required.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GenBank Accession No. CM000780.4 (Zea mays cultivar B73 chromosome 4, whole genome shotgun sequence, GenBank Accession No. CM000780.4, published online 02/06/2017).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these claims encompasses screening for the presence (or absence) of the QTL, including by sequencing portions of the QTL region bounded by marker A and marker B.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4, the GenBank record discloses the sequence of chromosome 4 from Zea mays, thus evidencing that the chromosome had been sequenced. The step of sequencing is reasonably interpreted as a step of “screening” because the sequence has been analyzed (i.e. screened). The portion of the genome where the markers M1 to M68 are sequenced for is between marker A and marker B at positions 16107190 and 18470371. By sequencing this portion of the genome, the reference discloses screening for the QTL between markers A and B, and discloses screening for the elected M61 allele recited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the sequencing discloses a cytosine at positions 16107190 and 18470371 (see genome data viewer), therefore identifying markers A and B. Because of the “and/or” wording, all that is required by claim 3 is wherein screening for the presence of said QTL allele comprises identifying at least one of markers A or B.
Regarding claim 6, GenBank Accession No. CM000780.4 does not disclose that one or more QTL allele is present in the section of chromosome 4 recited in the claim, and so the conditional "if" is not required to be practiced.
Closest Prior Art
Claims 5, 7-9, 11-12, and 17-18 appear free of the prior art.
Regarding claims 5, 7-9, 11-12, and 17-18, the closest prior art is Wang (Wang, J., Xu, Z., Yang, J., Lu, X., Zhou, Z., Zhang, C., ... & Weng, J. (2018). qNCLB7. 02, a novel QTL for resistance to northern corn leaf blight in maize. Molecular Breeding, 38(5), 54.). Wang teaches screening for QTLs mapping of NCLB resistance and teaches detecting QTLs on chromosome 4 of maize (title, table 3, entire document). However, Wang does not appear to disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious a QTL located between claimed markers A and B that comprises elected marker M61. Because this marker is interpreted to be required by claims 5, 7-9, 11-12, and 17-18, the claims appear free of the prior art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, and 7-15 of copending Application No. 17783997 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims anticipate the instant claims including many of the markers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA N STOCKDALE whose telephone number is (703)756-5395. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amjad Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-7058. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JESSICA N. STOCKDALE
Examiner
Art Unit 1663
/JESSICA NICOLE STOCKDALE/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/CHARLES LOGSDON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662