Supplemental Non-Final Office Action
This Office Action is supplemental to, and supersedes, the Action of 08/13/2026. This Action is sent to address the limitations of claims 98 (as set forth in paragraph number 9 below) and 99 (as set forth in paragraph number 12 below), and to properly indicate the rejection of claim 92 (as set forth in paragraph number 10 below, where the previous Action indicated the rejection of claim 91).
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the particular species that are hypomethylation and methylation sensitive restriction enzymes in the reply filed on 06/04/2026 is acknowledged.
In light of the Examiner’s search and analysis of the elected species, the election requirement as set forth in requirement of 04/22/2026 is withdrawn.
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 90-121 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 90-121 are unclear over recitation of the purpose of the claimed methods as “enriching cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from nucleic acid molecules from an individual”, as stated in the preamble of claim 90. There is no requirement in claim 90 for any DNA that is specifically “cell-free”, and so it is unclear if the “plurality of nucleic acid molecules obtained or derived from a subject” is intended or required to be some particular type (e.g.: cell-free or circulating) DNA (i.e.: the relevant recitation in step (b) require only nucleic acid, not that the nucleic acid is particularly DNA or is particularly cell-free). Additionally, while the claims recite steps of digesting and capturing, there is no requirement in the steps of the claim that any nucleic acid is enriched.
Claim 103 is unclear over recitation of the phrase “the subjecting comprises” because the claim depends from claim 90 which recites two steps of “subjecting”, and thus it is unclear which step or steps are intended to be modified or limited by the recitation of the singular “the subjecting” in the unclear phrase.
Claim 105 is unclear over recitation of the limitation “the capturing comprises hybridization or multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR)”, where the claim recites the elements of hybridization and multiplex PCR in the alternative. The alternative recitation of “multiplex PCR” makes the claim unclear because multiplex PCR is not recognized in the art as a step or technique of “capturing” nucleic acid molecules, as required by the claim.
Claim 117 is unclear over recitation of the phrase “the disease comprises” because the claim depends from claim 90 and there is no antecedent basis for any “disease”.
Claim 118 is unclear over recitation of the phrase “the measured counts or derivative thereof” because the claim depends from claim 90 and there is no antecedent basis for any “measured counts”. Similarly claim 119 is unclear over recitation of the limitation “the measure of the counts of the subset of nucleic acid molecules”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Failure to Limit
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 94 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 94 recites “the plurality of nucleic acid molecules comprises cell-free DNA”, but the recitation in the preamble of claim 90 already directs the method to “enriching cell-free deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from nucleic acid molecules from an individual”. Thus the requirements provided in claim 94 do not provide additional limitations to the methods of the independent claim. It is noted that the recitation of the preamble in light of the required methods steps was addressed previously in this Office Action under 35 USC 112(b) as unclear; in the interests of customer service, compact prosecution, and completeness of the records, the limitation as provided in claim 94 is addressed here under 35 USC 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Written Description / New Matter
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.
Claim 92 is 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. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 92 recites “further comprising the addition of target regions without MSRE or MDRE digestion sites”, but there is no teaching of suggestion in the application as originally filed that the methods of the invention include the “addition” of target regions to any of the samples of the methods. The specification teaches “pre-processing methods may include normalization of the counts with counts from reference genome regions without MSRE and/or MDRE digestion sites.” (e.g.: para 0014 of specification), but the normalization using reference genome data taught in the specification is not a requirement for the “addition” of such target regions (as recited in the rejected claim).
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.
Claim(s) 90, 91, 93-98, 100-103, 105-112 and 117-120 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (2018) (cited in the IDS of 05/15/2026) in view of Chapman et al (2020) (cited in the IDS of 05/15/2026) and Li et al (2015).
Relevant to claim 90, Li et al (2018) teaches the analysis of methylation characteristics of cell-free DNA with regard to the detection of cancer, and teaches analysis of cfDNA methylation patterns to address the challenge of detecting the trace amount tumor cfDNAs out of total cfDNAs in blood. Relevant to step (a) of claim 90 the reference teaches identifying the DNA methylation signatures of liver cancer by creating a dataset of nucleic acids from known cancer and non-cancer samples (i.e.: controls) (e.g.: p.2 – Overview: We derived the methylation markers of liver cancer based on DNA methylation data of liver tumors and their matched normal tissues as well as normal plasma cfDNA samples) (relevant to claims 94 and 95). The reference exemplifies the detection of a marker that is hypomethylated in liver tumor DNA, and hypermethylated in normal plasma cfDNA (e.g.: Figure 2 and Figure 3) (relevant to claims 98, 101, 117 and 118).
Relevant to claims 91, 93, 112, 118, 119 and 120, Li et al (2018) teaches quantification of cancer specific nucleic acid molecule by determining a number of particular sequencing reads (e.g.: Figure 1; Figure 2; p.4 - Predict tumor-derived cfDNA fraction), and further teaches that calculating the class (tumor or normal originating) of each read can predict tumor-derived cfDNA fraction (e.g.: p.4) in response to a treatment (e.g.: Figure 6).
Relevant to claims 102 and 103, Li et al (2018) bisulfite conversion of cfDNA to distinguish methylated and unmethylated cytosine positions (e.g.: p.5 - Methylation data collection, generation and processing).
Li et al (2018) teaches sequencing cfDNA and bioinformatic analysis of sequences to provide an ultra sensitive detection of a small amounts of tumor cfDNA in samples with larger amounts of non-tumor cfDNA.
Li et al (2018) does not teach digesting, in a sample from a subject, nucleic acid molecules that have a hyper- or hypo-methylation status in target sequences in a control sample (relevant to step (b) of claim 90), or capturing nucleic acid molecules that have a hyper- or hypo-methylation status in target sequences opposite of the status in a control sample (relevant to step (c) of claim 90). However, such steps for the enrichment of target nucleic acids from a sample were known in the prior art.
Chapman et al (2020) teaches methods using digestion by methylation sensitive restriction enzymes followed by PCR to selective amplify of differentially methylated regions. Relevant to the methods of the rejected claims, Chapman et al teaches the analysis of whole genome bisulfite sequencing data to identify differentially methylated regions (cDMRs) that are indicative of the cancer phenotype (e.g.: p. 4388 - Identification of cDMRs; Fig. 2; p.4397 - WGBS data analysis) (relevant to step (a) of claim 90). Chapman et al exemplifies the identification of target regions that are hypomethylated in the cancer phenotype and target regions that are hypermethylated in the cancer phenotype (e.g.: p. 4388 - Identification of cDMRs), and the subsequent detection and analysis of target sequences that are hypermethylated in the cancer phenotype with extremely low methylation levels (i.e.: hypomethylation) < 2.5% in normal tissues (e.g.: a control sample) with conserved hypermethylation in diverse tumors and abundant MSRE sites (e.g.: p.4388, left col) with the enzymes HhaI, HpaII, HpyCH4IV, AciI and BstUI (relevant to claims 96, 97, 100)
Li et al (2015) teaches a capture-based approach for bisulfite converted DNA that allows interrogation of predefined genomic locations and allows quantitative and qualitative assessments of methylation. Relevant to steps (c) and (d) of claim 90 and claim 105, Li et al teaches that sample nucleic acids are treated with bisulfite (e.g.: p.4 - Bisulfite conversion of DNA sample libraries) and captured via hybridization (e.g.: p.4 – Hybridization) using probes designed to capture either sequences derived from bisulfite treated nucleic acids that are methylated or unmethylated (e.g.: p.6 – Capture probe selection). Relevant to the rejection of claims 111 and 112, Li et al (2015) teaches aspect of library construction that include the ligation of adapters to target nucleic acids (e.g.: p.2 – Construction of Libraries).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the rejected claims to have incorporated the information created by the analysis of Li et al (2018), including the differential methylation of target loci in cfDNA that is indicative of cancer, into the analysis methods taught by Chapman et al (i.e.: MSRE-PCR) and Li et al (2018) (i.e.: a convert-then-capture system followed by sequencing) to create a method in which target regions that are identified as differentially methylated in cases versus controls are analyzed by a removal of non-informative nucleic acids by enzyme digestion (i.e.: negative selection) and the subsequent capture of target nucleic acids (i.e.: a positive selection). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the methods based on the expressed teachings of the cited prior art that: tumor derived cfDNA is a biomarker for cancer diagnosis but is present in a small amount of out of total cell-free DNAs in blood and (Li et al (2018)); target genomic have conserved hypermethylation across diverse tumor types, abundant MSRE sites and low methylation levels in normal allowing for the selective detection of tumor-derived DNA via MSRE-based negative selection of non-tumor DNA (Chapman et al (2015)); and that targeted capture of target nucleic acids allows for a sensitive and quantitative analysis of methylation in target nucleic acids (Li et al (2015)). With regard to claims 106, 107 and 108, Chapman et al teaches that CpGs in a DMR may be hypo- or hyper-methylated (e.g.: Fig. 2D) in the cancer phenotype, and Li et al (2015) teaches that probes may be designed based on the conversion (unmethylated) or non-conversion (methylated) of cytosines by bisulfite. The skilled artisan would recognize that capture of a target that is hypomethylated in a control and hypermethylated in cancer, and retained during a negative selection using an MSRE (as exemplified by Chapmen et al) would be performed by a probe that covers the methylation-sensitive restriction enzyme cutting site (i.e.: the sequence in the target that survives the negative selection) (relevant to claim 106). Conversely, the skilled artisan would recognize that capture of a target that is hypermethylated in a control and hypomethylated in cancer, and retained during a negative selection using an MDRE (methylation dependent restriction enzyme, relevant to claims 98 and 101) would be performed by a probe that covers the methylation-dependent restriction enzyme cutting site (i.e.: the sequence in the target that survives the negative selection) (relevant to claims 107 and 108).
Claim(s) 92 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al (2020) and Li et al (2015) as applied to claims 90, 91, 93-98, 100-103, 105-112 and 117-120 above, and further in view of Noehammer et al (2014).
Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015) renders obvious the methods of claims 90 and 91, from which instantly rejected claim 92 depends. Further relevant to the instant rejection, Chapman et al teaches normalization of samples with internal controls (e.g.: p.4397 – MSRE-PCR).
Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015) does not specifically provide for a control that is a target region without an MSRE, but such controls were known in the prior art and are taught by Noehammer et al (e.g.: p.6 “…MSRE specific controls PCR values may be corrected for input DNA amounts by subtraction from methylation specific controls, which may be imprinted loci or even more straightforward genomic DNA fragments without MSRE restriction sites”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the rejected claims to have incorporated the controls of Noehammer et al in the methods rendered obvious by Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate a control that is a target region without an MSRE site based on the expressed teachings of Noehammer et al that such a control is straightforward and can serve to correct for input sample amounts.
Claim(s) 99 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al (2020) and Li et al (2015) as applied to claims 90, 91, 93-98, 100-103, 105-112 and 117-120 above, and further in view of Oakes et al (2006).
Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015) renders obvious the methods of claims 90 and 98, from which instantly rejected claim 99 depends.
Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015) renders obvious the digestion of a sample with a MDRE, but does not specifically provide for a particular MDRE as recited in the rejected claim. However, MDRE based techniques were known in the prior art, and the use of enzymes for the specific digestion of methylated DNA to remove such nucleic acid form subsequent analytical steps, and the particular enzyme McrBC were known in the prior art and are taught by Oakes et al (e.g.: Figure 1; p.147 – Primer design).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the rejected claims to have used the enzyme MrcBC, as taught by Oakes et al, in the methods of digesting DNA that is hypermethylated as rendered obvious by Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the enzyme McrBC based on the expressed teachings of Li et al (2018) that it is desirable to analyze a small fraction of hypomethlayted DNA loci in cfDNA that are associated with cancer in a large background of hypermethylated DNA that is present in normal cfDNA, and the expressed teachings of Chapman et al that digestion of normal tissue derived DNA facilitates the selective analysis of tumor-derived DNA.
Claim(s) 104 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al (2020) and Li et al (2015) as applied to claims 90, 91, 93-98, 100-103, 105-112 and 117-120 above, and further in view of Cross et al (1994).
Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015) renders obvious the method of claim 90, from which instantly rejected claim 104 depends.
Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015) does not specifically provide for the capture of nucleic acids without condition that permit methylated bases to be distinguishable from unmethylated bases. But capturing methylated nucleic acid with such conditions (i.e.: without bisulfite conversion) was known in the prior art and is taught by Cross et al (e.g.: p.236 - Fractionation of DNA using an MBD column).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the rejected claims to have used the methylated DNA capture of Cross as a substitute for the methylated sequence specific capture probes of Li et al (2015) in the methods rendered obvious by Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the capture methods of Cross et al based on the expressed teachings of Cross et al that such a step can isolation of CpG containing nucleic acids from human genomic DNA, and thus in some embodiments of the claimed methods would be the simple substitution of one known element for another with predictable results.
Claim(s) 113-116 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al (2020) and Li et al (2015) as applied to claims 90, 91, 93-98, 100-103, 105-112 and 117-120 above, and further in view of Wan et al (2019).
Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015) renders obvious the method of claim 90, from which instantly rejected claims 113-116 depend. Further relevant to the rejection of claim 113-116, Chapman et al explains that analysis of methylation in nucleic acid samples can be used to create a predictive model to classify sample DNAs as either tumor or normal tissue, and teaches using the R package glmnet to develop a logistic regression model using a lasso penalty for feature selection.
Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015) does not explicitly provide for using read counts and a trained machine learning classifier to predict a disease, but such methods were known in the prior art and art taught by Wan et al.
Wan et al teaches the use of sequence reads in machine learning methods using two classification methods (logistic regression and support vector machine (SVM)) for training for the prediction of cancer or non-cancer in a sample (e.g.: Fig. 1; p.3 – Model training).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the rejected claims to have used the sequencing reads obtained by the negative and positive selection of tumor related cfDNA hypo- and/or hyper-methylated target nucleic acids rendered obvious by Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015), as input for classification of the cancer or non-cancer status of a source sample using the methods according to Wan et al. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to use such machine learning and training methods based on the expressed teachings of Wan et al that a machine learning approach using cfDNA achieved high sensitivity and specificity in a large, predominantly early-stage, colorectal cancer cohort. The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success based on the expressed teachings of Li et al (2018) that e cfDNA methylation can be used for sensitive non-invasive cancer diagnosis.
Claim(s) 121 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al (2020) and Li et al (2015) as applied to claims 90, 91, 93-98, 100-103, 105-112 and 117-120 above, and further in view of Pugh (2018).
Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015) renders obvious the method of claims 90 and 119, from which instantly rejected claim 120 depends. Further relevant to the rejection of claim 121, Li et al (2018) exemplifies the detection of target nucleic acids that display tumor-specific hypomethylation in cfDNA of subjects after surgical treatment.
Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015) does not explicitly provide for detection of cfDNA in the detection of minimal residual disease, but the use of cfDNA for detection of minimal residual disease in cancer pathology was known in the prior art and is suggested by Pugh et al (e.g.: p.39 - Genomic Approaches to Enable Detection of Minimal Residual Disease).
It would have been prima facie obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the rejected claims to have used the detection of tumor-specific target nucleic acids rendered obvious by Li et al (2018) in view of Chapman et al and Li et al (2015), for the detection of minimal residual disease as suggested by Pugh et al. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to the methods to detect minimal residual disease based on the expressed teachings of Pugh et al that methylated regions specific to cancer may be probed in cfDNA (e.g.: p.39 - Future Directions and Conclusions), and the teaching of Li et al (2018) that detection of cfDNA can detect tumor DNA at less than 1% (e.g.: p.4 - Predict tumor-derived cfDNA fraction; p.9).
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 90-121 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-44 of copending Application No. 19/151,276 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are directed to the same steps for enriching hypo- or hyper-methylated DNA including of digesting nucleic acids (e.g.: conflicting claim 1) and capturing digest nucleic acids (e.g.: conflicting claims 19 and 20).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN THOMAS KAPUSHOC whose telephone number is (571)272-3312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm.
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, Anne Gussow can be reached at 571-272-6047. 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.
Stephen Kapushoc
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1683
/STEPHEN T KAPUSHOC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683
Prosecution Insights