DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 04 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 11 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of these claims recites the phrase “… single-stranded region on cleaved extended recording tag…” This appears to be a typographical error that should read “…region on the cleaved extended recording tag…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pawlosky et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20210171937, published 10 June 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Pawlosky teaches a method for protein and peptide sequencing (i.e., analyzing a macromolecule; abstract) comprising contacting the macromolecule with an aptamer (i.e., a binding agent; FIG 13), wherein the macromolecule is associated with a barcode foundation (i.e., the claimed recording tag; [0583]) and covalently connected to a glass substrate (i.e., a support; [0584]). Pawlosky teaches that the aptamers are associated with barcodes that are unique for each aptamer, comprising a double-stranded region (i.e., a coding tag; FIG 14A) and that the barcode is associated with a particular amino acid based on the binding of the aptamer to said amino acid (i.e., the coding tag comprises identifying information regarding the binding agent; [0058]). Pawlosky teaches that the first binding agent binds the peptide (i.e., the macromolecule) and that the process is repeated for multiple cycles to identify subsequent N-terminal amino acids (FIG 13 and [0059]), therefore the first binding agent used is the claimed “first binding agent.”
Pawlosky teaches that the 5' end of the first aptamer barcode (i.e., the first coding tag; FIG 13 and FIG 14A) is ligated to the barcode foundation strand (i.e., the recording tag) thereby generating an extended recording tag comprising the first double-stranded region (FIG 13, step 3). Pawlosky teaches that the double-stranded region of the extended recording tag is cleaved with a restriction enzyme (i.e., a nucleic acid cleaving reagent) to generate a cleaved extended recording tag that comprises the first barcode (FIG 13, step 4 and [0056]). Pawlosky teaches that these steps are repeated with second binding agent (FIG 13, step 6 and [0058]) and the resulting DNA product is sequenced using DNA sequencing technologies to identify the DNA barcodes that represent the protein/peptide sequence (i.e., the further extended recording tag is analyzed; [0235] and [0236]).
Regarding claim 2, Pawlosky teaches that up to 12 cycles of aptamer barcode ligation and restriction are performed and analyzed by sequencing (i.e., steps (d), (e) and (f) are repeated to generate higher-order extended recording tags; [0608]).
Regarding claim 3, Pawlosky teaches sequencing a peptide target ([0583]).
Regarding claim 6, Pawlosky teaches that the aptamer associated barcodes (i.e., the coding tags) comprise a single-stranded 3' overhang (FIG 14B) which hybridizes and is ligated to the single-stranded 3' end (i.e., overhang) of the extended barcode foundation (i.e., extended recording tag; FIG 13 and [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Pawlosky teaches that the aptamer barcodes (i.e., the first nucleic acid coding tag) are ligated to the barcode foundation (i.e., the recording tag) using a ligase (i.e., a nucleic acid joining reagent; [0586]).
Regarding claim 9, Pawlosky teaches extending the barcode foundation (i.e., the recording tag) with iterative rounds of ligation and restriction cleavage, Pawlosky does not teach the use of a nucleic acid polymerase (FIG 13; [0586]).
Regarding claim 11, Pawlosky teaches that each aptamer barcode (i.e., each of the first, second and further coding tags) comprises a single-stranded region that is complementary to a single-stranded region on the barcode foundation strand (i.e., the recording tag; FIG 13, FIG 14A, [0057] and [0586]).
Regarding claim 14, Pawlosky teaches that each aptamer (i.e., binding agent) comprises a barcode sequence hybridized to a bridge sequence (i.e., each binding agent is covalently attached to its respective coding tag; FIG 13 and FIG 14A).
Regarding claim 15, Pawlosky teaches a method for protein and peptide sequencing (i.e., analyzing a polypeptide; abstract) comprising contacting the macromolecule with an aptamer (i.e., a binding agent; FIG 13), wherein the macromolecule is associated with a barcode foundation (i.e., the claimed recording tag; [0583]) and covalently connected to a glass substrate (i.e., a support; [0584]). Pawlosky teaches that the aptamers are associated with barcodes that are unique for each aptamer, comprising a double-stranded region (i.e., a coding tag; FIG 14A) and that the barcode is associated with a particular amino acid based on the binding of the aptamer to said amino acid (i.e., the coding tag comprises identifying information regarding the binding agent; [0058]). Pawlosky teaches that the first binding agent binds the peptide (i.e., the macromolecule) and that the process is repeated for multiple cycles to identify subsequent N-terminal amino acids (FIG 13 and [0059]), therefore the first binding agent used is the claimed “first binding agent.” Pawlosky teaches that the aptamers bind specifically to N-terminal amino acids (NTAA; [0005]).
Pawlosky teaches that the 5' end of the first aptamer barcode (i.e., the first coding tag; FIG 13 and FIG 14A) is ligated to the barcode foundation strand (i.e., the recording tag) thereby generating an extended recording tag comprising the first double-stranded region (FIG 13, step 3). Pawlosky teaches that the double-stranded region of the extended recording tag is cleaved with a restriction enzyme (i.e., a nucleic acid cleaving reagent) to generate a cleaved extended recording tag that comprises the first barcode (FIG 13, step 4 and [0056]). Pawlosky teaches that after restriction to generate the cleaved recording tag, the terminal amino acid is degraded processively ([0586]). Pawlosky teaches that after degradation these steps are repeated with second binding agent (FIG 13, step 6, [0058] and [0587]) and the resulting DNA product is sequenced using DNA sequencing technologies to identify the DNA barcodes that represent the protein/peptide sequence (i.e., the further extended recording tag is analyzed; [0235] and [0236]).
Regarding claim 16, Pawlosky teaches that aptamers bind to the N-terminal amino acid (as discussed above, the claimed “first binding agent” is just the first aptamer used to bind the NTAA; FIG 13, [0005], [0586]). Pawlosky teaches that a second binding agent from another aptamer pool binds after degradation (i.e., binds the ‘new’ NTAA of the cleaved peptide; [0587]).
Regarding claim 18, Pawlosky teaches that each aptamer barcode (i.e., each of the first, second and further coding tags) comprises a single-stranded region that is complementary to a single-stranded region on the barcode foundation strand (i.e., the recording tag; FIG 13, FIG 14A, [0057] and [0586]).
Regarding claim 20, Pawlosky teaches extending the barcode foundation (i.e., the recording tag) with iterative rounds of ligation and restriction cleavage, Pawlosky does not teach the use of a nucleic acid polymerase (FIG 13; [0586]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 8, 12, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawlosky et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20210171937, published 10 June 2021).
Regarding claim 8, the method of claim 7 is discussed fully above and incorporated here. Pawlosky does not teach that the nucleic acid joining reagent (i.e., the ligase) and the nucleic acid cleaving reagent (i.e., the restriction enzyme) are provided simultaneously, however the MPEP teaches in section 2144.04(IV)C) that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Therefore claim 8 merely represents an obvious variant of claim 7.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the method of claims 11 and 18 are discussed fully above and incorporated here. Pawlosky does not teach that first and second single-stranded regions of the barcoded aptamers each comprise no more than three nucleotides. However, Pawlosky teaches single-stranded overhangs that are used to ligate oligonucleotide sequences together in a different context (i.e., LEGO pieces, 10-mers with 5' single base-pair overhangs; [0809] and [08112]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have simply substituted the generic overhang in the aptamer barcodes with the single-base overhang taught by Pawlosky with the “LEGO pieces” to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawlosky et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20210171937, published 10 June 2021) in view of Jacobson et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20200181604, published 11 June 2020).
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 1 is discussed fully above and incorporated here. Pawlosky does not teach that the nucleic acid cleaving reagent is a Type IIS restriction enzyme, nor do they teach that each nucleic acid coding tag comprises a consensus sequence and/or cleavage site for the Type IIS restriction enzyme.
However, Jacobson teaches Type IIS restriction enzymes, and their associated recognition sequences, as an alternate restriction endonucleases that have cleavage sites outside of their recognition sequences ([0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have simply substituted the EcoRI restriction enzyme site taught by Pawlosky ([0580]) with the Type IIS restriction enzyme and its associated recognition site as taught by Jacobson to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make this substitution because since Type IIS restriction enzymes cleave outside of their recognition sequence, Jacobson teaches that they provide the additional advantage of being able to remove unwanted sequences from nucleic acid products ([0082]). This may be useful for producing shorter barcode concatemers for downstream sequencing. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could be combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the cleavage of nucleic acids using restriction enzymes.
10. Claims 4, 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pawlosky et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20210171937, published 10 June 2021) in view of Chee et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20190145982, published 16 May 2019).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the method of claim 1 is discussed fully above and incorporated here. Pawlosky teaches contacting multiple macromolecules, each associated with a barcode foundation (i.e., a recording tag) with a first and second binding agent (‘multiple peptide pools are sequenced simultaneously’ [0584]) but Pawlosky does not provide an exact number or range of macromolecules that are multiplexed simultaneously.
However, Chee teaches a similar method of protein sequencing by DNA encoding (abstract) and Chee specifically teaches the multiplexing of 100 or more macromolecules (instant claim 4) and 1,000 or more macromolecules (instant claim 5; Chee [0598]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the peptide sequencing method taught by Pawlosky with the additional multiplexing taught by Chee to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because Pawlosky specifically teaches that their method is suitable for multiplexing ([0584]) due to the barcoded foundation strand linked to the peptide (i.e., the recording tag of the instant application and taught by Chee [0599]). In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the encoding of macromolecular sequences using nucleic acid tags.
Regarding claim 17, Chee teaches a first and second binding agent that bind to modified TAAs (reference claims 11 and 12).
Double Patenting
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 14-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12668793. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to the analysis of macromolecules.
The limitations of instant claims 1 and 15 are taught by claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 and 15 of the issued patent.
The issued claims do not teach a single claim that includes all of the limitations of claims 1+ and 15+. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the relevant claims from the issued patent so as to have arrived at the instant claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success, since all of the claims of the issued patent are directed towards methods for the analysis of macromolecules via peptide binding and DNA encoding.
The limitations of claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 14, 16 and 17 are given in claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 13 and 14 of the issued patent.
Claims 9, 11, 12 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12668793 in view of Pawlosky et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20210171937, published 10 June 2021).
The limitations of instant claims 9, 11, 12 and 18-20 are not taught in the claimed of the issued patent.
However, Pawlosky teaches these limitations as discussed fully above and incorporated here.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the issued claims with the limitations taught by Pawlosky to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications because Pawlosky’s teachings provide additional advantages such as covalently linking the binding agent tag to the recording tag without an additional polymerase extension step, thereby reducing the amount of time, complexity, and reagents required per binding cycle. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the analysis of macromolecules.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12668793 in view of Pawlosky et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20210171937, published 10 June 2021) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chee et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20190145982, published 16 May 2019).
The limitations of claims 4 and 5 are not taught in the claims of the issued patent, however Chee teaches these limitations as discussed fully above and incorporated here.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claims of the issued patent to include the limitations taught by Chee to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications in order to have multiplexed the analysis of peptide fragments to generate more date per experiment. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the capture of peptide fragments for sequence analysis.
13. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 12 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12123878 in view of Pawlosky et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20210171937, published 10 June 2021).
Claims 1 and 16 of the issued patent teaches the limitations of instant claims 1 and 15, except for the limitations wherein the coding tag comprises a double-stranded region.
However, Pawlosky teaches these limitations as discussed fully above and incorporated here.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the issued claims with the limitations taught by Pawlosky to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications because Pawlosky’s teachings provide additional advantages such as covalently linking the binding agent tag to the recording tag without an additional polymerase extension step, thereby reducing the amount of time, complexity, and reagents required per binding cycle. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the analysis of macromolecules.
The limitations of instant claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, 12 and 14-20 are found in claims 1-3 and 7 of the issued patent in view of Pawlosky.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12123878 in view of Pawlosky et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20210171937, published 10 June 2021) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chee et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20190145982, published 16 May 2019).
The limitations of claim 5 are not taught in the claims of the issued patent, however Chee teaches these limitations as discussed fully above and incorporated here.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claims of the issued patent to include the limitations taught by Chee to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications in order to have multiplexed the analysis of peptide fragments to generate more date per experiment. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the capture of peptide fragments for sequence analysis.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 12123878 in view of Pawlosky et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20210171937, published 10 June 2021) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jacobson et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20200181604, published 11 June 2020).
The limitations of claim 10 are not taught in the claims of the issued patent, however Jacobson teaches these limitations as discussed fully above and incorporated here.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claims of the issued patent to include the limitations taught by Jacobson to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications in order to have more control over the sequence of the restriction enzyme cut site and the length of the extended recording tag. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the capture of peptide fragments for sequence analysis.
14. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 12 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11782062 in view of Pawlosky et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20210171937, published 10 June 2021).
Claim 1 of the issued patent teaches the limitations of instant claims 1 and 15, except for the limitations wherein the coding tag comprises a double-stranded region and wherein the coding tag is covalently joined to the recording tag.
However, Pawlosky teaches these limitations as discussed fully above and incorporated here.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the issued claims with the limitations taught by Pawlosky to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications because Pawlosky’s teachings provide additional advantages such as covalently linking the binding agent tag to the recording tag without an additional polymerase extension step, thereby reducing the amount of time, complexity, and reagents required per binding cycle. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the analysis of macromolecules.
The limitations of instant claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, 12 and 14-20 are found in claims 1-3 and 7 of the issued patent in view of Pawlosky.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11782062 in view of Pawlosky et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20210171937, published 10 June 2021) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chee et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20190145982, published 16 May 2019).
The limitations of claim 5 are not taught in the claims of the issued patent, however Chee teaches these limitations as discussed fully above and incorporated here.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claims of the issued patent to include the limitations taught by Chee to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications in order to have multiplexed the analysis of peptide fragments to generate more date per experiment. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the capture of peptide fragments for sequence analysis.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11782062 in view of Pawlosky et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20210171937, published 10 June 2021) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jacobson et al (United States Patent Application No. US 20200181604, published 11 June 2020).
The limitations of claim 10 are not taught in the claims of the issued patent, however Jacobson teaches these limitations as discussed fully above and incorporated here.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claims of the issued patent to include the limitations taught by Jacobson to arrive at the instantly claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make these modifications in order to have more control over the sequence of the restriction enzyme cut site and the length of the extended recording tag. In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the known techniques in the cited references could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques in the cited references predictably result in the capture of peptide fragments for sequence analysis.
Conclusion
15. Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
16. No claims are allowed.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN ELLIS YOUNG whose telephone number is (703)756-5397. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 0800 - 1630.
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, Heather Calamita can be reached at (571) 272-2876. 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.
/BRIAN ELLIS YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 1684
/JULIET C SWITZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights