DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to foreign applications KR10-2023-0098472, filed July 27th, 2023 under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The priority date of July 27th, 2023 is acknowledged. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 12th, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. A copy of the reference striked out has not been attached. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on July 26th, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 3-4, 6-7, and 9 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. While the applicant does have support in the treatment of viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV), infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), and infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV) reduced in practice, they do not have support treatment and prevention of all fish viral diseases.
Claim 1 recites “An antiviral composition for fish viral diseases.” However, the specification does not support that the inventors possess the complete recited genus and that the complete genus is able to treat all fish viral diseases.
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, reduction to drawings, 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 inventor was in possession of the claimed genus [MPEP 2163 ii)].
The inventors provide direction by demonstrating the antiviral activity of SEQ ID NO: 1 using VHSV, IHNV, and IPNV [Fig 1 and 0052-0061], and how Octominin to be the most effective against INHV. The inventor continued investigating the mechanism against IHNV using a plague-forming reduction assay [Fig 2 and 0063-0074]. The inventors also assessed immunological gene expression level changes [Fig 3 and 0075-0081] and confirmed these levels after Octominin treatment 4 hours before IHNV challenge [Fig 4 and 0082-0085]. However, even though virus replication was reduced in a time-dependent manner six hours after the IHNV challenge, the IHNV copy number was not zero [Fig 5 and 0087-0089]. This means that while instant SEQ ID NO: 1 can treat IHNV and represented species VHSV and IPNV, it cannot prevent the manifestation of a viral infection. Furthermore, the viruses against which SEQ ID NO: 1 is reduced to practice, are not representative of the entire genus of fish viral diseases claimed. Nor, would one of ordinary skill in the art be able to attest to the complete genus’s ability to be treated by SEQ ID NO: 1, especially with applicant’s data demonstrating the variability of SEQ ID NO: 1 effectiveness among the viruses reduced to practice [0052-0061]. The applicant also does not disclose relevant, functional characteristics shared between all the viral fish diseases necessary, or unnecessary for SEQ ID NO: 1’s mechanism. Thus, while the applicant has support for the treatment of IHNV, VHSV, and IPNV, they do not have support for the complete genus of preventing and treating fish viral diseases and preventing IHNV, VHSV, and IPNV.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 9 do not limit the genus of fish viral disease pathologies and are therefore rejected under the written description requirement for their scope not being adequately supported by the disclosure.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for treating viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV), infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), and infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV), does not reasonably provide enablement for treating and preventing all fish viral diseases and preventing viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV), infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), and infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV). The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 1’s breadth encompasses an invention for treating and preventing all fish viral diseases. The invention is a peptide with antiviral properties. The state of the prior art does not support the idea that it is possible to prevent fish viral diseases with a peptide.
(Kibenge, F. S., Godoy, M. G., Fast, M., Workenhe, S., & Kibenge, M. J. (2012). Countermeasures against viral diseases of farmed fish. Antiviral research, 95(3), 257–281.)
Kibenge et al. teach that strategies such as selective breeding and vaccines are used to prevent and control viral diseases in aquaculture [pg 258 pgh 2]. Innate antiviral responses determine the immunity farmed fish have against viral diseases [pg 268 pgh 3]. Functional feeds with broad-based groups such as pro- and pre-biotics, immunostimulants and nucleotides are common as preventative and intervention strategies against aquatic pathogens [pg 268 pgh 5]. However, the disclosure does not support that instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is a weakened version of virus (vaccine), a pre- or pro-biotic, or an immunostimulant. The level of one of ordinary skill in the art allows them to understand that SEQ ID NO: 1 is not preventative against fish viral diseases. Furthermore, it is not predictable that a small peptide is able to prevent viral infection.
The inventors provide direction by demonstrating the antiviral activity of SEQ ID NO: 1 using VHSV, IHNV, and IPNV [Fig 1 and 0052-0061], and how Octominin to be the most effective against INHV. The inventor continued investigating the mechanism against IHNV using a plague-forming reduction assay [Fig 2 and 0063-0074]. The inventors also assessed immunological gene expression level changes [Fig 3 and 0075-0081] and confirmed these levels after Octominin treatment 4 hours before IHNV challenge [Fig 4 and 0082-0085]. However, even though virus replication was reduced in a time-dependent manner six hours after the IHNV challenge, the IHNV copy number was not zero [Fig 5 and 0087-0089]. This means that while instant SEQ ID NO: 1 can treat IHNV and represented species VHSV and IPNV, it cannot prevent the manifestation of a viral infection, thus demonstrating that instant SEQ ID NO: 1 cannot prevent a fish viral disease. Furthermore, the viruses against which SEQ ID NO: 1 is reduced to practice, are not representative of the entire genus of fish viral diseases claimed. The applicant would be required to test instant SEQ ID NO: 1 against a larger number of fish viral diseases, constituting undue experimentation. Thus, while enabled for treating IHNV, VHSV, and IPNV, the applicant is not enabled for the complete genus of preventing and treating fish viral diseases and preventing IHNV, VHSV, and IPNV.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 9 do not limit the genus of fish viral disease pathologies and are therefore rejected under the enablement requirement for their scope not being adequately supported by the disclosure and state of the prior art.
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 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 1, 4, and 6 uses the transitional phrase “having.” “Transitional phrases such as "having" must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.” See, e.g., Lampi Corp. v. American Power Products Inc., 228 F.3d 1365, 1376, 56 USPQ2d 1445, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 2000) [MPEP 2111.03]. However, the specification does not clarify how to interpret “having.” Thus, claim 4 is indefinite because its scope is unclear.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5 and 7-9 do not further limit what the claimed composition is made of and are therefore also indefinite.
For prior art search purposes, “having” is interpreted as being open-ended and is analogous with “comprising.”
Claims 8-9 recite the limitation "The method of claim 7 wherein the fish viral diseases" in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 7 has no method and no fish viral diseases.
Claims 8-9 are also indefinite because they depend on the method of claim 7, an apparatus claim. “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” [MPEP 2173.05 (p)].
To overcome the previous two rejections, applicant may amend to recite “the method of claim 6” which has sufficient antecedent basis and would then only fit under one statutory class of invention.
For compact prosecution, it is assumed that applicant intended to have claims 8-9 depending on claim 6, which would have proper antecedent basis, for prior art search purposes.
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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed composition is a product of nature without any markedly different characteristics from any naturally occurring counterparts:
Laws of nature and natural phenomena, as identified by the courts, include
naturally occurring principles/relations and nature-based products that are
naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics
compared to what occurs in nature. The courts have often described these
exceptions using other terms, including "physical phenomena," "scientific
principles", "natural laws," and "products of nature." [MPEP 2106.04(c)]
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites an “antiviral composition for fish viral diseases comprising a peptide having an amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 as an active ingredient., which is a product of nature. See analysis below.
Step 1: Does the claim fall into a statutory category of invention?
Yes, the claim is directed to a composition of matter, which falls into a category of invention.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claim is directed to a product of nature because SEQ ID NO: 1 can be derived from Chrysophsin-2, a protein from the Pagrus major (Red seabream) [UniProt Accession Number P83546 · CHY2_PAGMA]. Instant SEQ ID NO: 1 corresponds to residues 3 through 25 of Chrysophsin-2.
The markedly different characteristic analysis is part of Step 2A: Prong One. The
markedly different characteristic analysis compares the nature-based product limitation
to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, the first step in the analysis is
to select the appropriate counterpart(s) to the nature-based product.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or
natural phenomenon?
In the present case, the answer is yes because when a nature-based product is derived from a naturally occurring thing, then the naturally occurring thing is the
counterpart. Section 2106.04 (b) recites:
When a law of nature or natural phenomenon is claimed as a physical product, the courts have often referred to the exception as a "product of nature". For example, the isolated DNA of Myriad and the primers of Ambry Genetics were described as products of nature by the courts. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 580, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1975 (2013); University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 758-59, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As explained in those decisions, products of nature are considered to be an exception because they tie up the use of naturally occurring things, but they have been labeled as both laws of nature and natural phenomena. See Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. at 590- 91, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 (claims to isolated DNA held ineligible because they claim “naturally occurring phenomena" and are "squarely within the law of nature exception")
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application?
Because the markedly different characteristics analysis is based on comparing the
characteristics of the claimed nature-based product and its counterpart, the second step in the analysis is used to identify appropriate characteristics to compare. Appropriate
characteristics must be possessed by the claimed product, because it is the claim that
must define the invention to be patented.
In the present case, each component found in nature is unmodified by a defining quantity like its antiviral activity. An antiviral composition comprising SEQ ID NO: 1 as an active ingredient is not necessarily antiviral due to SEQ ID NO: 1. There is no markedly different characteristic about a peptide having an amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 that differentiates it from the natural product, Chrysophsin-2.
Regarding claims 2-3, an antiviral composition comprising SEQ ID NO: 1 as an active ingredient is not necessarily antiviral due to SEQ ID NO: 1. Thus no markedly different characteristic about a peptide having an amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 that sets it apart from Chrysophsin-2, a protein found in nature.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7-9, a composition for a feed additive having antiviral activity against fish viral diseases comprising SEQ ID NO: 1 does not necessarily have antiviral activity due to SEQ ID NO: 1. Thus no markedly different characteristic about a peptide having an amino acid sequence as set forth in SEQ ID NO: 1 that sets it apart from Chrysophsin-2, a protein found in nature.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanjeewa et al. (Sanjeewa, K. K. A., Nagahawatta, D. P., Yang, H.-W., Oh, J. Y., Jayawardena, T. U., Jeon, Y.-J., De Zoysa, M., Whang, I., & Ryu, B. (2020). Octominin Inhibits LPS-Induced Chemokine and Pro-inflammatory Cytokine Secretion from RAW 264.7 Macrophages via Blocking TLRs/NF-κB Signal Transduction. Biomolecules, 10(4), 511).
Sanjeewa et al. designed and synthesized a peptide of 23 amino acids (1-GWLIRGAIHAGKAIHGLIHRRRH-23) from a defense protein 3 cDNA sequence of O. minor. [Introduction pgh 1 line 24]. The sequence of the peptide consists of instant SEQ ID NO: 1, which was designated as Octominin, and able to act as antimicrobial peptide.
While Sanjeewa et al. does not teach that their composition comprising instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is antiviral for fish viral diseases, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, Sanjeewa et al.’s composition is capable of performing as an antiviral composition for fish viral diseases and therefore anticipates claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the fish viral diseases are diseases caused by at least one virus infection selected from the group consisting of viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV), infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), and infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV),” is a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure can perform the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, Sanjeewa et al.’s composition can perform as an antiviral composition for VHSV, IHNV, and IPNV and therefore anticipates claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the fish is at least one selected from the group consisting of halibut, rockfish, red sea bream, rock bream, sea bass, gray mullet, bass, Gizzard shad, flounder, puffer fish, mackerel, greenling, tuna, croaker, yellowtail, horse mackerel, salmon, rainbow trout, carp, leather carp, eel, catfish, loach, and crucian carp” is a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure can perform the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, Sanjeewa et al.’s composition can perform as an antiviral composition for the fish viral diseases claimed and therefore anticipates claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Sanjeewa et al. designed and synthesized a peptide of 23 amino acids (1-GWLIRGAIHAGKAIHGLIHRRRH-23) from a defense protein 3 cDNA sequence of O. minor. [Introduction pgh 1 line 24]. The sequence of the peptide consists of instant SEQ ID NO: 1, which was designated as Octominin, and able to act as antimicrobial peptide.
While Sanjeewa et al. does not teach that their composition comprising instant SEQ ID NO: 1 is a fish feed additive, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, Sanjeewa et al.’s composition is capable of performing as fish feed additive and therefore anticipates claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein the fish viral diseases are diseases caused by at least one virus infection selected from the group consisting of viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV), infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV), and infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV),” is a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure can perform the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, Sanjeewa et al.’s composition can perform as fish feed additive having antiviral activity against VHSV, IHNV, and IPNV and therefore anticipates claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the fish is at least one selected from the group consisting of halibut, rockfish, red sea bream, rock bream, sea bass, gray mullet, bass, Gizzard shad, flounder, puffer fish, mackerel, greenling, tuna, croaker, yellowtail, horse mackerel, salmon, rainbow trout, carp, leather carp, eel, catfish, loach, and crucian carp” is a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure can perform the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, Sanjeewa et al.’s composition can perform as a fish feed additive against the fish viral diseases claimed and therefore anticipates claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanjeewa et al, as applied to claims 1-5 and 7 above, in further view of Wang et al. (Wang, W. L., Liu, W., Gong, H. Y., Hong, J. R., Lin, C. C., & Wu, J. L. (2011). Activation of cytokine expression occurs through the TNFα/NF-κB-mediated pathway in birnavirus-infected cells. Fish & shellfish immunology, 31(1), 10–21).
Sanjeewa et al. investigated the anti-inflammatory effects of Octominin in RAW 264.7 macrophages in vitro and found that it inhibits lipopolysaccharides (LPS)-stimulated transcriptional activation of NF-κB [Abstract line 4]. Octominin consists of the same sequence as instant SEQ ID NO: 1 [Introduction pgh 1].
The activation of NF-κB transcription factors then triggers the gene transcription related to the inflammatory mediators such as nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), cyclooxygenase (COX2), cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α), and chemokines (CCL3, CCL4, CCL5, and CXCL10). It has been reported that pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α, IL-1α, IL-1β, and IL-6 produced during the inflammatory responses contribute to the pathogenesis of diseases such as degeneration of the intervertebral discs, epilepsy, osteoarthritis, initiation and progression of cancer, depression, and upregulate chemokine secretion from macrophages [Introduction pgh 4 line 1].
Sanjeewa et al. did not teach how NF-κB activation is involved in the pathogenesis of infectious pancreatic necrosis virus (IPNV).
Wang et al. infected zebrafish embryonic cells with IPNV to analyze the immune response [Abstract line 3]. They identified the proinflammatory cytokine, TNFα as having the greatest downstream influence among the altered genes. When they treated virus-infected cells with an siRNA targeting TNFα, NF-κB expression was inhibited; and when they further interrupted the TNFα/NF-κB-mediated pathway, the expression levels of cytokines and metalloproteinases were inhibited in IPNV-infected cells. This data suggests that, during IPNV infection, the expression of cytokines and metalloproteinases might be initiated through the TNFα/NF-κB-mediated pathway. The modulation of TNFα/NF-κB-related mechanisms may provide a therapeutic strategy for inhibiting viral infection in teleost fish.
Thus, the combination of Sanjeewa and Wang et al.’s teaching motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to attempt to use instant SEQ ID NO: 1 to treat IPNV because Sanjeewa et al. teach that instant SEQ ID NO: 1 inhibits the NF-κB activation, which also triggers the cytokine TNF-α and is involved in the pathogenesis of many diseases, and Wang et al. teach that inhibiting the TNFα/NF-κB pathway inhibits the expression levels of cytokines and metalloproteinases and cytokines during IPNV, providing a potential therapeutic strategy.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings of Sanjeewa and Wang et al. motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use instant SEQ ID NO: 1 to treat IPNV.
Regarding claim 9, Wang et al. state that IPNV causes acute infection in Atlantic salmon [Introduction pgh 1 line 1].
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102. Claims 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SACHI JAUHARI whose telephone number is (571)272-3769. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-4.
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, Lianko Garyu can be reached at (571) 270-7367. 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.
/SACHI JAUHARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1654
/LIANKO G GARYU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1654
Prosecution Insights