DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
1. Claims 1-8 and 21 are pending and under examination to the extent of the elected species of SEQ ID NOs:1, 3, 5, and 7.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 06/19/2026.
Restrictions/Elections
2. Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-7 and 21, drawn to a mutant, non-naturally-occurring Nicotiana plant leaf, part of the plant leaf, and/or stem having reduced expression or activity of methyl putrescine oxidase (MPO)-S and MPO-T, and a product comprised thereof, with traverse, in the reply filed on 06/19/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant further elects the species of SEQ ID NOs:1, 3, 5, and 7.
In the remarks dated 06/19/2026, Applicant argues that claims 8 and 12 have been amended such that they should be examined with Groups I and III, respectively, and that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the shared technical feature of reducing activity or expression of MPO to increase anatabine. Applicant’s argument is partially persuasive. The amendments to claim 8 are sufficient to justify examining claim 8 with the elected Group I. However, Applicant’s argument regarding claims 9-20 is not persuasive because the claims are anticipated by and/or lack novelty in view of the prior art (see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, below). Therefore, the claims lack unity.
Thus, the requirement is deemed proper and is made FINAL. However, method claims may be rejoined in accordance with In re Ochiai when allowability is indicated.
Priority
3. The instant Application is a 371 of International Application No. PCT/EP2022/086058 filed December 15, 2022. The Office acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s foreign priority document Application No. EP21215832.3 filed December 20, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on December 13, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered to the extent of the English translations provided. A signed copy is attached.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1-8 and 21 are objected to because of the following:
Ln. 1 of each of claims 1-8 contains a typographical error; “non-naturally occurring” should be amended to “non-naturally-occurring”.
Lns. 1-2 of claim 21 contain a typographical error; “non-naturally occurring” should be amended to “non-naturally-occurring”.
Dependent claims are included.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-8 and 21 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if the recitations of “MPO-S” (lns. 2-3) and “MPO-T” (ln. 3) are intended to refer to genes/nucleic acid sequences or to polypeptides/amino acid sequences. It is unclear how MPO-S can comprise either a nucleic acid sequence having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1 or an amino acid sequence having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:2. Similarly, it is unclear how MPO-T can comprise either a nucleic acid sequence having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:3 or an amino acid sequence having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:4. Does Applicant intend to recite MPO gene sequences or MPO polypeptide sequences?
Claim 2 is indefinite because the antecedent basis of “the MPO” in ln. 3 is unclear. Does Applicant intend to recite MPO-S or MPO-T?
Regarding claim 3, the term “suitably” in ln. 5 and 9 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following “suitably” are claim limitations or exemplary embodiments. Descriptions of examples and preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than in a single claim. See MPEP 2173.05(c) and MPEP 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the term “suitably” in ln. 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following “suitably” are claim limitations or exemplary embodiments.
Regarding claim 6, the term “suitably” in ln. 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following “suitably” are claim limitations or exemplary embodiments.
Regarding claim 7, the term “suitably” in lns. 3 and 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following “suitably” are claim limitations or exemplary embodiments.
Dependent claims are included.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
8. 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.
Written Description
9. Claims 1-8 and 21 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.
Issue No. 1: Applicant has not described a sufficiently representative number of MPO sequences having only 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:1/2 and 3/4 to reasonably convey to possession of the claimed invention.
Issue No. 2: Applicant has not described a sufficiently representative number of Nicotiana plant species having reduced expression of MPO sequences having only 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:1/2 and 3/4 to reasonably convey to possession of the claimed invention.
The claims all require MPO gene and/or MPO polypeptide sequences having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:1/2 and 3/4. Sequences having as little as 75% sequence identity with SEQ ID NOs:1-4 encompass sequences comprising insertions, deletions, and/or substitutions of up to 602 nucleotides (SEQ ID NO:1), 176 amino acids (SEQ ID NO:2), 626 nucleotides (SEQ ID NO:3), and 196 amino acids (SEQ ID NO:4). Accordingly, sequences having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1 encompass more than 4602 distinct sequences; sequences having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:2 encompass more than 20176 distinct sequences; sequences having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:3 encompass more than 4626 distinct sequences; and sequences having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:4 encompass more than 20196 distinct sequences.
The specification describes the transformation of SEQ ID NO:9 under the control of the constitutive MMV promoter into burley tobacco for RNAi-based suppression of the expression of both MPO-S and MPO-T (pp. 67-68, Example 5) and the selection of three second generation plant lines (-3, -4, and -15) in which the expression of both MPOs was suppressed. Applicant discloses that the Nicotiana tabacum MPO genes (NtMPO-S and NtMPO-T) are primarily expressed in the root tissue of both the Burley (TN90) and Virginia (K326) tobacco varieties (p. 68, Example 6). Applicant further discloses a ~1.6x increase in anatabine content (Figure 4) and a nearly complete loss of nicotine content (Figure 3) in the three MPO-RNAi lines relative to a wild-type control (p. 68, Example 8). Applicant further discloses the generation of one NtMPO-S mutant (“MPO-S-W395*”) and one NtMPO-T mutant (“MPO-T-W362*”, wherein the “*” denotes a stop codon), from EMS-mutagenized seeds.
While the claims are drawn to any Nicotiana plant leaf, part of the plant leaf, and/or stem encompassing any MPO-S and MPO-T sequence having at least 75% sequence identity to any of SEQ ID NOs:1/2 and 3/4, Applicant does not disclose Nicotiana plants comprising reduced expression of sequences having only 75% sequence identity to any of SEQ ID NOs:1-4. The specification only describes plants comprising reduced expression and/or activity of functional sequences comprising the full-lengths of SEQ ID NOs:1/2 and 3/4. Thus, the specification does not describe species over the full scope of the encompassed sequences. Accordingly, sequences having only 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:1-4 lack adequate written description. The state of the art is well-developed with regard to the structure and function of tobacco MPO enzymes in regard to alkaloid biosynthesis. Naconsie et al. (Plant and Cell Physiology. 2014; 55(2):436-444 (U)) teach the regulation of the tobacco MPO genes under the control of the NIC1 and NIC2 gene loci and the reduced expression of MPO1, but not MPO2/NtDAO1 in the low-nicotine tobacco loss-of-function mutant nic1nic2 (pp. 437-438, “Transcriptional Regulation”, first and second paragraphs; p. 438, Fig. 1). The art also teaches that alkaloid content and composition vary significantly among Nicotiana species (pp. 330-331, Table 1) and are impacted by the conditions under which said species are grown (pp. 332-333, Table 2). While the state of the art is well-developed with regard to the structure and function of MPO enzymes, the art also teaches that protein chemistry is one of the most unpredictable areas of biotechnology. For example, substitution of Tyr-38 of TGF-α with Phe or Trp did not abolish protein activity while replacement of Tyr-38 with other amino acids severely reduced or abolished protein activity (Lazar et al., Molecular and Cellular Biology, 1989; 9(2):860-864 (V); Abstract; p. 860, “Detection and biological activity of yeast-secreted proteins of mutant TGF-a.”). Additionally, Nonaka (Human Molecular Genetics, 2009; 18(18):3353-3364 (W)) teaches that deletion of the N-terminus of TDP-43 results in the formation of abnormal protein inclusions (Abstract). Together, these examples teach that even a single amino acid change can unpredictably alter the function of polypeptide variants. Furthermore, Naconsie indicates that several unknown amino acid residues of MPO polypeptides may contribute to the substrate specificity of said peptides (p. 437, right column, first full paragraph). Accordingly, even though the structure and function of MPO polypeptides are known in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably predict the functionality of an enzyme wherein up to 25% of the sequence of said enzyme is deleted or substituted with alternative amino acids without further disclosure of functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure.
MPEP § 2163 states that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. See, e.g., AbbVie Deutschland GMBH v. Janssen Biotech, 759 F.3d 1285, 111 USPQ2d 1780 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Thus, when there is substantial variation within genera, as here in which the recitations of sequences having as little as 75% sequence identity with SEQ ID NOs:1-4 encompass millions of sequence variants, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genera. Therefore, since only a few species are provided to represent these genera, the claims encompassing the same clearly fail the written description requirement. Accordingly, there is lack of adequate written description to inform a skilled artisan that Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 2-8 and 21 do not sufficiently limit the scope of the recitation encompassing sequences having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:1-4. Accordingly, claims 2-8 and 21 also lack adequate written description.
Claims 2-7 and 21 do not sufficiently limit the scope of the recitation encompassing all Nicotiana species. Accordingly, claims 2-7 and 21 also lack adequate written description.
Enablement
10. Issue No. 1: Claims 1-8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for reduced expression or activity of MPO-S and MPO-T sequences comprising SEQ ID NO:1/2 and SEQ ID NO:3/4, respectively, does not reasonably provide enablement for reducing the expression or activity of sequences having only 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NOs:1-4. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to produce the invention commensurate in scope with the claims.
Issue No. 2: Claims 1-7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling Nicotiana tabacum, does not reasonably provide enablement for all Nicotiana species. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to produce the invention commensurate in scope with the claims.
When determining whether a claimed invention complies with the enablement requirement, factors to consider include: “(1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims.” Id.
The claimed invention is not enabled for the following reasons.
The breadth of the claims is found in claim 1 directed to a mutant, non-naturally-occurring Nicotiana plant leaf, part of the plant leaf, and/or stem having reduced expression or activity of methyl putrescine oxidase (MPO)-S and MPO-T having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1/2 and SEQ ID NO:3/4, respectively.
The nature of the invention comprises increasing anatabine content in tobacco via reduced expression or activity of MPO enzymes.
The level of ordinary skill in the art is high.
The state of the art (Sisson et al., Contributions to Tobacco & Nicotine Research. 1990; 14(6):327-339 (X)) teaches that alkaloid content and composition vary significantly among Nicotiana species (pp. 330-331, Table 1) and are impacted by the conditions under which said species are grown (pp. 332-333, Table 2). The state of the art is well-developed with regard to the structure of tobacco MPO enzymes and the role of tobacco MPO enzymes in regard to alkaloid biosynthesis. However, the state of the art is poorly developed with regard to the identity of the amino acid residues responsible for substrate specificity within a specific MPO polypeptide.
Naconsie et al. (Plant and Cell Physiology. 2014; 55(2):436-444 (U)) teaches the regulation of the N. tabacum MPO genes (annotated as “MPO1” and “MPO2/NtDAO1”) under the control of the NIC1 and NIC2 gene loci and the reduced expression of MPO1, but not MPO2/NtDAO1, in the naturally-occurring low-nicotine tobacco loss-of-function mutant nic1nic2 (pp. 437-438, “Transcriptional Regulation”, first and second paragraphs; p. 438, Fig. 1). Despite sharing 88% sequence identity (pp. 436-437, “Introduction”, third paragraph; Naconsie 2014), the two N. tabacum MPO polypeptides have distinct substrate specificities, and therefore, distinct functions (p. 437, first full paragraph; p. 437, “Substrate Specificity”, fourth paragraph; Naconsie 2014). Naconsie 2014 further suggests that identification of amino acid residues that contribute to the substrate specificity of MPO polypeptides are not reasonably predictable without significant experimentation (p. 437, right column, first full paragraph). Mutation of conserved Ala512 to Gly did not affect the substrate specificity of MPO1, however, substitution of the corresponding residue in MPO2 resulted in significant change in the enzyme’s substrate preference (p. 437, “Substrate Specificity”, third paragraph; Naconsie 2014). Thus, the substrate specificities of and, therefore, products produced by a particular MPO polypeptide sequence having as little as 75% sequence identity with SEQ ID NOs:2 or 4 are not reasonably predictable for one of ordinary skill in the art without guidance from Applicant or the art without engaging in extensive experimentation. Additionally, the art teaches that protein chemistry is highly unpredictable. For example, substitution of Tyr-38 of TGF-α with Phe or Trp did not abolish protein activity while replacement of Tyr-38 with other amino acids severely reduced or abolished protein activity (Lazar et al., Molecular and Cellular Biology, 1989; 9(2):860-864 (V); Abstract; p. 860, “Detection and biological activity of yeast-secreted proteins of mutant TGF-a.”). Additionally, Nonaka (Human Molecular Genetics, 2009; 18(18):3353-3364 (W)) teaches that deletion of the N-terminus of TDP-43 results in the formation of abnormal protein inclusions (Abstract). Thus, these examples teach that even a single amino acid change can unpredictably alter the function of polypeptide variants. Accordingly, the substrate specificities of and products produced by a MPO polypeptide sequence having as little as 75% sequence identity with SEQ ID NOs:2 or 4 are not reasonably predictable for one of ordinary skill in the art without guidance from Applicant or the art without engaging in extensive experimentation. Furthermore, the functionality of such a polypeptide becomes even more unpredictable when expressed or repressed in untested Nicotiana plant species.
Accordingly, even though the one of ordinary skill in the art can introduce any number of mutations into any nucleic acid or polypeptide sequence, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably predict the functionality of an enzyme wherein up to 25% of the sequence of said enzyme is deleted or substituted with alternative amino acids without further guidance from either Applicant or the prior art regarding the relationship between the MPO polypeptide sequence and the substrate specificity of an MPO enzyme. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably predict the functionality of such an enzyme in undisclosed Nicotiana plant backgrounds wherein the alkaloid content of said plants varies significant among species and growth conditions and wherein the substrate specificity of the MPO enzymes varies among species. One of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably predict what impact, if any, lowering the expressing of undisclosed sequences within 75% sequence identity of any of SEQ ID NOs:1-4 will have on the anatabine content of undisclosed Nicotiana plants without further guidance from Applicant and/or the prior art.
While the claims are drawn to any Nicotiana plant leaf, part of the plant leaf, and/or stem encompassing any MPO-S and MPO-T sequence having at least 75% sequence identity to any of SEQ ID NOs:1-2 and 3-4, Applicant does not disclose Nicotiana plants comprising reduced expression of sequences having only 75% sequence identity to any of SEQ ID NOs:1-4. Applicant’s working examples only describe plants comprising reduced expression and/or activity of functional sequences comprising the full-lengths of SEQ ID NOs:1-2 and 3-4. Neither Applicant, nor the state of the art provide sufficient guidance as to how one could predict the activity and/or substrate specificity of any polypeptide sequence having only 75% sequence identity to any SEQ ID NOs:1-4 without engaging in extensive experimentation. Therefore, without further guidance from either Applicant or the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could not predict the activity of any MPO enzyme in any Nicotiana species besides those few disclosed by Applicant without engaging in extensive and undue experimentation.
Weighing all of the Wands factors based on the totality of the record as discussed above, the Office determines that it would require undue experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention as claimed. Accordingly, claim 1 is not enabled.
Claims 2-8 and 21 do not sufficiently limit the scope of the recitation encompassing sequences having at least 75% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:1-4. Accordingly, claims 2-8 and 21 are also not enabled.
Claims 2-7 and 21 do not sufficiently limit the scope of the recitation encompassing all Nicotiana species. Accordingly, claims 2-7 and 21 are also not enabled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-5, 8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto et al. (US-2016/0032299-A1, published 02/04/2016 (previously cited)).
Hashimoto discloses a transgenic Nicotiana plant leaf, part of the plant leaf, and/or stem comprising reduced expression of an endogenous putrescene methyl transferase, reduced levels of nicotine, and increased levels of anatabine (Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto teaches a mutant, non-naturally-occurring Nicotiana plant leaf, part of the plant leaf, and/or stem[0173-0176] having reduced expression or activity of a first MPO and a second MPO[0145], wherein the first MPO comprises a polypeptide sequence (Hashimoto SEQ ID NO:2) comprising a sequence having at least 90% sequence identity to instant SEQ ID NO:2; and wherein the second MPO comprises a polypeptide sequence (Hashimoto SEQ ID NO:4) having at least 89% sequence identity to instant SEQ ID NO:4; and wherein the expression or activity of the first and second MPO are reduced as compared to a control plant (Figures 6-8)[0067],[0141-0160], [0165], [0270-0274], [0277-0278].
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Hashimoto teaches wherein the plant leaf, part of the plant leaf, and/or stem comprises at least one genetic alteration in the polynucleotide sequences encoding the first and second MPO[0157-0159],[0173].
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Hashimoto teaches wherein the reduced expression or activity of the MPO confers an increase in the level of anatabine in the plant leaf or part thereof and/or stem as compared to a control plant (Figure 9)[0003],[0010],[0071].
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Hashimoto teaches wherein the level of anatabine in the plant leaf, part of the plant leaf and/or stem is about 2500µg/g or more and the level of nicotine in the plant leaf, part of the plant leaf, and/or stem is about 0.03% dry weight or less (Figure 9).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Hashimoto teaches wherein expression may be reduced by introducing a nucleic acid comprising a portion of an MPO sequence that causes targeted in situ mutagenesis of an endogenous gene, resulting in its inactivation[0157]. In situ mutagenesis resulting in the inactivation of a target gene via the introduction of a fragment of said gene inactivates the gene by introducing a premature stop codon and/or truncation into the gene. A truncation inherently requires and/or results in a premature stop codon. Therefore, Hashimoto anticipates a plant comprising a stop mutation that causes the encoded MPO proteins to terminate and/or end its translation earlier than expected.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Hashimoto teaches wherein the Nicotiana plant is an N. tabacum plant[0010-0011],[0067],[0253].
Regarding claim 21, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Hashimoto teaches a tobacco product or a smoking article comprising the plant leaf, part of the plant leaf, and/or stem (Abstract; Claim 54)[0005],[0018-0019].
Accordingly, the claimed invention is anticipated by the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
14. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (US-2016/0032299-A1, published 02/04/2016 (previously cited)) as applied to claims 1-5 and 21, above.
Regarding claim 6, Hashimoto anticipates a plant comprising a stop mutation that causes the encoded MPO proteins to terminate or end its translation earlier than expected[0157] (see rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)). The level of ordinary skill in the art is high. Though Hashimoto is silent to the specific recited stop codons at positions W395, W362, and/or W365, those specific mutations would not provide any surprising or unexpected effects in comparison to the loss-of-function mutations disclosed by Hashimoto. Accordingly, the claimed invention is obvious in view of the teachings of Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the teachings discussed above, Hashimoto teaches wherein the plant leaf or part thereof and/or stem is air cured or wherein the leaf or part thereof and/or stem is air dried[0098],[0213],[0239].
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce the claimed invention without any surprising or unexpected results.
Conclusion
15. No claim is allowed.
Examiner’s Contact Information
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEQUANTARIUS J SPEED whose telephone number is (703)756-4779. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 9AM-5PM ET.
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 on (571)-270-7058. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEQUANTARIUS JAVON SPEED/Junior Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights