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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to application CN202311547240.9, filed in PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA on November 20, 2023. However, the present application does not yet satisfy the formal requirements to establish entitlement to the benefit of the earlier foreign filing date. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claims 1-9 are examined herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, the acronym TaCAT is used before being defined or spelled out instead of “Triticum aestivum Catalase (TaCAT)”
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Recites "comprise" instead of "comprises"
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lacks a conjugative term between the list of method steps
Appropriate correction of the above informalities is required. Any response to this office action that fails to meet all of these requirements will be considered non-responsive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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. All dependent claims are included in these rejections unless they contain a limitation that overcomes the deficiencies of the parent claim from which they depend. The rationale for this determination is explained below.
Within the claims, the abstract, and the specification, Applicant describes SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, and 3, as the TaCAT gene, the cDNA of the TaCAT gene, and CDS of the TaCAT gene, respectively. However, in the sequence listing file they are respectively listed as “other DNA”, “genomic DNA” and “genomic DNA” (see Sequence listing file). Similarly, Applicant describes SEQ ID NOs: 5-8 as primers for detecting an allelotype of wheat (i.e., from the genomic DNA meaning they are part of the genomic sequence). However, in the sequence listing file they are respectively listed as “other DNA” from Triticum aestivum, “other DNA” from synthetic construct, “other DNA” from synthetic construct and “other DNA” from synthetic construct(see Sequence listing file).
Thus, it is unclear what type of sequences these are and where these sequences are sourced from. Is applicant providing multiple genetic variants? Were the sequences derived from some already existing synthetic construct? What exactly are the origins of the claimed sequences?
In the interest of compact prosecution, SEQ ID NO: 1 and SEQ ID NO: 2 are being interpreted to be the naturally occurring genomic DNA for the TaCAT gene and the cDNA of the TaCAT gene, respectively.
Claims 1-3 are additionally rejected for the recitation of the phrase “using the TaCat gene”, which is unclear. What is this ‘usage’ referring to? Spraying the nucleic acid sequence onto the plant, expressing the protein and dusting it over the plant stomata, replacing the gene with another sequence through homology directed repair, deriving double stranded RNA from the gene sequence or will it serve as a marker for another gene or phenotype?
Claims 2-3 are additionally rejected because it is unclear what “adjusting” recited in the last lines of the individual claims means. Is Applicant increasing or decreasing resistance, changing its duration, durability, intensity, or tissue specificity, or perhaps making resistance inducible? . Further, the claims lack a comparative basis for the phrase “adjusting”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation of having the goal or intended result of obtaining a transgenic plant with increased resistance to Fusarium crown rot compared to a wild type of the same plant.
Claims 4-9 are also additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. The rationale for this determination is explained below.
The recitation of “allelotype of Fusarium crown rot of wheat” is unclear as to what which organism’s allelotype is to be detected and renders the claims indefinite.
The specification and the method steps of claim 6 indicate that the genomic DNA of wheat is the template for the PCR-based detection of an allelotype. However, the recitation “allelotype of Fusarium crown rot of wheat” only uses “of wheat as a modifier for “Fusarium crown rot” such that the allelotype is of Fusarium crown rot, where that Fusarium crown rot is “of wheat” plants or affects wheat. This is unclear.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the recitation “allelotype of Fusarium crown rot of wheat” is being given the following broadest reasonable interpretation: allelotype associated with resistance or susceptibility to Fusarium Crown Rot (FCR) in wheat.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 6, is additionally rejected. The rationale for this determination is explained below.
The claim recites performing PCR amplification with primers as shown in SEQ ID NOs: 5-6, and detecting the allelotype [associated with resistance or susceptibility to FCR in wheat] based on the amplification product as shown in SEQ ID NO: 1 “wherein a resistant and susceptible material has an insertion or deletion (InDel) of 215 base pairs (bp) starting from a 654th position after a start codon adenine-thymine-guanine (ATG) in the gene sequence as shown in SEQ ID NO: 1. [where] … a genotype corresponding to an insertion type amplification product is named as TaCAT-6Aa, and a genotype corresponding to a deletion type amplification product is named as TaCAT-6Ab.” SEQ ID NO: 1 is not the amplification product of PCR with primers as shown in SEQ ID NOs: 5-6. The primer sequences are encompassed by SEQ ID NO: 1. Further, it is unclear whether the primer-flanked region of SEQ ID NO: 1 is the insertion type or deletion type amplification product or simply a neutral reference.
Applicant is advised to clarify the role of SEQ ID NO: 1 by including SEQ ID NO: 1 in the description of Fig 3A.
Claim 8, which depends from claim 6, is additionally rejected. The rationale for this determination is explained below.
The claim recites a method for detecting the allelotype associated with resistance or susceptibility to FCR in wheat using primers as shown in SEQ ID NOs: 7 and 8 to amplify a sequence from the genomic DNA of the to-be-detected wheat wherein a genotype with the amplification product of 1054 bp is TaCAT-6Aa, and a genotype with the amplification product of 839 bp is TaCAT-6Ab. However, primers as shown in SEQ ID NOs: 7 and 8 amplify neither a 1054 bp nor an 839 bp product from SEQ ID NO: 1 and 2. The amplification product sizes do not match. Thus, it is unclear what applicant is using as template; DNA, RNA, cDNA, or another genome or sequence altogether other than SEQ ID NOs: 1 or 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112d
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.
Claims 2-3 are 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.
Parent claim 1 recites a method comprising "breeding a wheat variety", a specific plant species. Dependent claims 2-3 recites "a target plant" and "a transgenic plant", which encompasses other plants that fall outside of the scope recited in claim 1 (i.e., wheat). Thus, claims 2-3 fail to further limit the subject matter and to include all the limitations of claim 1. 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.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation that the recited "a target plant" and "a transgenic plant" are wheat plants.
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 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon including products of nature, or an abstract idea) without significantly more and because "use" claims are not proper process claims. All dependent claims are included in these rejections unless they contain a limitation that overcomes the deficiencies of the parent claim from which they depend. The rationale for this determination is explained below.
The claims 1-3 are given the broadest reasonable interpretation of being drawn to an application method of a TaCAT gene, its complementary DNA, coding sequence and encoded protein comprising breeding a disease resistant wheat variety by “using” the TaCAT gene, its complementary DNA, coding sequence and encoded protein further comprising: transforming the sequence of the naturally occurring gene into a target wheat plant with the intended goal of obtaining a transgenic wheat plant; OR expressing the protein encoded by the naturally occurring gene in a target wheat variety with the intended goal of obtaining a transgenic wheat plant.
Breeding is the sexual propagation of plants or animals, a naturally occurring process ( see Merriam Webster online dictionary definition for “breeding”).
Regarding claim 1, the TaCAT gene as shown in SEQ ID NO: 1, is naturally occurring in wheat. Breeding is essentially a biological process. The claimed method of “using” the naturally occurring gene to breed resistant wheat varieties is indistinguishable from the natural phenomenon of breeding and genetic inheritance that plants, including wheat, are subject to.
Regarding claim 2 which depend from claim 1, given that the TaCAT gene is naturally occurring in wheat, introducing (i.e., transforming) the naturally occurring gene into a wheat variety does not create a "markedly different" result from what occurs in nature.
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, given that the TaCAT gene is naturally occurring in wheat, the protein coded by the TaCAT gene as shown in SEQ ID NO: 4 is also naturally occurring in wheat such that expressing the naturally occurring protein in wheat does not create a "markedly different" result from what occurs in nature.
Both claims 2 and 3 recite the intended goal of obtaining a transgenic wheat plant (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112d above). However, the methods claimed therein produce a wheat plant that is indistinguishable from that which is naturally occurring.
The unspecified “using” of the naturally occurring gene as recited in claim 1 (without specific active method steps) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed invention is directed to naturally-occurring process(es), cells, and organisms, with a naturally occurring gene. The claimed gene, and proteins have the inherent property that are recited in the claims( claim 1, “resistant to Fusarium crown rot”). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed invention is directed to naturally-occurring gene and processes. A claim that focuses on use of a natural principle must also include additional elements or steps to show that the inventor has practically applied, or added something significant to, the natural principle itself. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289,101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012), at 1966. To show integration, the additional elements or steps must relate to the natural principle in a significant way to impose a meaningful limit on the claim scope.
Regarding claim 4, drawn to a product comprising primers with the nucleotide sequences as shown in SEQ ID NOs: 5-8 and a reagent or a kit comprising the primer combination, SEQ ID NOs: 5-8 are encompassed by the naturally occurring sequence as shown in SEQ ID NO: 1. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to a naturally-occurring nucleic acids or fragments thereof, whether isolated or not, that is not patent-eligible. Additionally, part two of the claimed invention. “(2) a reagent or a kit comprising the primer combination,” (e.g., aqueous solution) does not add further limitations that amount to materially more than the naturally occurring sequences as shown in SEQ ID NOs: 5-8.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and is a method step comprising detecting the allelotype associated with resistance or susceptibility to FCR in wheat. The method is directed to a natural law such as the existence of specific naturally occurring genetic sequences. Simply observing or detecting a natural phenomenon (i.e., using standard PCR) does not add an inventive concept to the claim because it is merely well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry, which are not by themselves sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patent eligible invention (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v Cepheid, (Slip Op. 2017-1690, October 9, 2018)). See, also, the below excerpts from MPEP § 2106.05(d):
The courts have recognized the following laboratory techniques as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Using polymerase chain reaction to amplify and detect DNA, Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1377, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546;
Amplifying and sequencing nucleic acid sequences, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 764, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and
Claim 9 also depends from claim 4 and is a method step drawn to breeding (i.e., a naturally occurring process) by using product of claim 4 (i.e., naturally occurring sequences).
Claim 6, drawn to a method comprising extracting DNA, performing PCR, and detecting the allelotype associated with resistance or susceptibility to Fusarium Crown Rot (FCR) in wheat (i.e., specific naturally occurring genetic sequences), is also directed to a natural law such as the existence of specific naturally occurring genetic sequences with the addition of laboratory techniques that are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the life science arts when they are claimed in a merely generic manner.
Thus, the claimed inventions are not patent-eligible pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Ass'n. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (formerly v. USPTO), 653 F.3d 1329, 99 USPQ2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. granted, judgment vacated and remanded to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 11-725, 80 U.S.L.W. 3380, 2012 BL 72224 (U.S. Mar. 26, 2012), reversed, ---- S.Ct. ----, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1974-75 (2013). The claimed invention(s) do(es) not rise to a level that is markedly different in structure and function from what exists in nature. See “The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, issued January 7, 2019, available from the USPTO website at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abad (U.S. Patent Publication No. US9115368B2, assigned to Monsanto Technology LLC, titled ‘Genes and uses for plant improvement’, published 8/25/2015) in view of Sun (Sun, T., et al. “The Role of Sugarcane Catalase Gene ScCAT2 in the Defense Response to Pathogen Challenge and Adversity Stress.” Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 2686. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19092686, published 9/9/2018) and NCBI Genbank accession XP_044407354.1 (‘catalase isozyme 2-like [Triticum aestivum],’ published 10/25/2021).
With the goal of breeding “transgenic plants with improved traits such as … pest resistance”(col 1, lines 35-48), Abad teaches:
Identifying homologs (Example 2, col 90-176) where SEQ ID NO: 5796 is identified as a homolog of Arabidopsis thaliana catalase 3 (SEQ ID NO: 439, NP 564120.1 ) which conferred improved agronomic traits. Abad’s SEQ ID NO: 5796, an amino acid sequence of a Triticum aestivum, shares 99.8% sequence identity and 2 conserved residues with the protein coded by the TaCAT gene as shown in SEQ ID NO: 4.
Transforming plants with DNA that confers improved traits to plants where each gene of interest is “amplified from a genomic or cDNA library using primers specific to sequences upstream and downstream of the coding region” ( Example 1, col 67-90).
That “the various aspects of this invention are especially useful for transgenic seed and transgenic plants having improved traits in… wheat” (col 2, lines 16-21).
Abad does not explicitly teach that SEQ ID NO: 5796 confers resistance to Fusarium crown rot.
Sun teaches:
A method of assembling a full-length sugarcane catalase gene (ScCAT2), cloning the ScCAT2 cDNA from “by real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR),” (Results, page 2) and determining the amino acid sequence of the ScCAT2 encoded protein (see Figure 1, page 3)
that the sequence of catalase gene ScCAT2 is GenBank Accession No. KF528830 (abstract) and that ScCAT2 plays a positive role in immune responses during plant–pathogen interactions including with a Fusarium fungal pathogen.
a finite number of catalase genes including specifically one from wheat suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to look in wheat for a gene that like ScCAT2, might resistant to Fusarium fungal pathogens that affect wheat.
Sun does not explicitly teach TaCAT gene as shown in SEQ ID NO: 1.
However, applying Abad’s method of identifying homologs to the protein coded by ScCAT2 as shown in GenBank Accession No. AHZ13843.1, identifies the protein shown in GenBank Accession No. XP_044407354.1, a Triticum aestivum catalase isozyme 2 (i.e., TaCAT2), as a homolog. XP_044407354.1:
shares 99.6% sequence identity and 2 conserved residues with the protein coded by the TaCAT gene as shown in SEQ ID NO: 4.
is encoded by the Triticum aestivum catalase 2 gene XM_044551419.1 which shares 100% sequence identity with the TaCAT gene as shown in SEQ ID NO: 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to combine and modify the teachings of Abad, with that of Sun and XP_044407354.1 to identify homologs of ScCAT2 in other plants like Abad’s SEQ ID NO: 5795 and XP_044407354.1 (i.e., TaCAT2) from wheat and then to transform Fusarium crown rot susceptible wheat plants with DNA amplified from a genomic or cDNA library using primers specific to sequences upstream and downstream of the coding region of the homologous proteins”(Abad, Example 1, col 67-90).
One would have been motivated to this in order to confer the improved trait of increased resistance to a Fusarium fungal pathogen to an important crop, wheat.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Abad teaches the transforming plants with DNA that confers improved traits to plants (i.e., transforming a catalase gene as into a target plant to obtain a transgenic plant).
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Abad teaches “expressing a protein associated with a trait in a … plant” (col 2, lines 22-27)(i.e., expressing the protein in a target plant) .
Regarding claims 4-5, Abad teaches primers specific to sequences upstream and downstream of the coding region of a gene or fragments less than the full DNA sequence, and using said “primers for detection of the polynucleotides of the invention or for cloning DNA” (col 13-14)(i.e., primer combinations applied to detecting the gene or sequences of interest) the with a reasonable expectation of success and no surprising results. Using created primers to detect desired sequences is routine in the art.
Regarding claim 9, which depends from claim 4, Abad teaches breeding (i.e., breeding wheat varieties by using primer combinations)(col 2, lines 16-21).
Regarding claim 6, Sun teaches extraction of nucleic acids including genomic DNA(materials and methods, page 2, para 4) while Abad teaches primers for amplification of sequences from genomic DNA (col 67, lines 47-49) and for detection of the sequences (cols 13-14).
Subject Matter Free of prior Art
Regarding claims 7-8, which depend from claim 6, Abad teaches primers specific to sequences upstream and downstream of the coding region of a gene or fragments less than the full DNA sequence, and using said “primers for detection of the polynucleotides of the invention or for cloning DNA” (col 13-14)(i.e., primer combinations applied to detecting the gene or sequences of interest) the with a reasonable expectation of success and no surprising results. Using created primers to detect desired sequences is routine in the art. Sun also teaches of allelic variants and high heterozygosity in polyploid plants derived from interspecific hybridization (page 12-13, para 1 page 14, para 3)
However, regarding claim 7, neither Abad, Sun, nor XP_044407354.1, teach PCR amplification wherein a 215 base pair insertion or deletion at a 654th position after a start codon in the gene sequences as shown in SEQ ID NO: 1 differentiates between the genotypes of a less FCR resistant plant and more FCR resistant plant of to a product differences in bp lengths between the allelotype associated with resistance and susceptibility to Fusarium Crown Rot (FCR) in wheat.
Similarly, regarding claim 8, neither Abad, Sun, nor XP_044407354.1, teach PCR amplification wherein amplification product differences in bp lengths differentiate between the allelotype associated with resistance and susceptibility to FCR in wheat.
References Cited but not Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (Zhang, Y, et al. Catalase (CAT) Gene Family in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): Evolution, Expression Pattern and Function Analysis. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Jan 4;23(1):542. doi: 10.3390/ijms23010542. PMID: 35008967; PMCID: PMC8745605., published 1/4/2022) teaches a limited number of catalase genes in wheat (discussion, para 2).
Conclusion
Claims 1-9 are rejected.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVETTE B TAMUKONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1040. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5 EST.
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, Bratislav Stankovic can be reached at (571) 270-0305. 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.
/YVETTE BIH TAMUKONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1662
/BRATISLAV STANKOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Units 1661 & 1662