18Notice 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 .
DETAIL ACTION
This office action is a response to the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
56
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As filed, claims 1, 62, 63, and 78-83 are pending; and claims 2-61 and 64-77 are cancelled.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase, “8690415_1/100177.429C1” near the bottom of the page needs to be removed. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 79, 80, 82, and 83 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.
Applicant’s amendment with respect to amended claims 79 and 82 herein has been fully considered but is deemed to insert new matter into the claims since the specification as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation of “a method of treating or preventing a disease in a patient in need thereof, the method comprising administering the lipid nanoparticle of claim 62 to the patient” and “a method for treating or preventing a disease in a patient in need thereof, the method comprising administering the pharmaceutical composition of claim 81 to the patient”, as instantly claimed.
The instant specification and the originally filed claim (i.e. filed 9/30/2024) only provide support for a method of treating or prevent diseases or disorders in a subject in need thereof by contacting the subject with a lipid nanoparticle that encapsulate or is associated with a suitable therapeutic agent, as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
228
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(pg. 5, lines 11-18)
PNG
media_image3.png
278
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(pg. 40, lines 14-23)
and thus, a method of treating or preventing a disease without the lipid nanoparticle is considered new matter.
Adequate written description means that, in the specification, the applicant must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the [claimed] invention.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 [19 USPQ2d 1111] (Fed. Cir. 1991).
See MPEP 2163 regarding the guidelines for the written description requirement: "The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
See MPEP § 2163.06 through § 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter. The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Thus, the written description requirement prevents an applicant from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads).”
Applicant’s amendment with respect to amended claims 80 and 83 herein has been fully considered but is deemed to insert new matter into the claims since the specification as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation of “a method for vaccinating a patient in need thereof against a viral pathogen”, as instantly claimed.
The instant specification and the originally filed claim (i.e. filed 9/30/2024) only provide support for protection against infection through delivery of mRNA encoding for a suitable antigen or antibody, as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
150
635
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(pg. 5, lines 4-8)
and thus, “a method for vaccinating a patient in need thereof against a viral pathogen” is considered new matter.
Adequate written description means that, in the specification, the applicant must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the [claimed] invention.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 [19 USPQ2d 1111] (Fed. Cir. 1991).
See MPEP 2163 regarding the guidelines for the written description requirement: "The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
See MPEP § 2163.06 through § 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter. The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Thus, the written description requirement prevents an applicant from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads).”
Applicant’s amendment with respect to amended claims 80 and 83 herein has been fully considered but is deemed to insert new matter into the claims since the specification as originally filed does not provide support for the limitation of “the therapeutic agent is a viral antigen or a nucleic acid capable of transcribing a viral antigen”, as instantly claimed.
The instant specification and the originally filed claim (i.e. filed 9/30/2024) only provide support for nucleic acid as an example of therapeutic agent, which includes DNA, RNA, viral RNA, etc., as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
288
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(pg. 15, lines 20-29 and pg. 16, lines 1-18)
PNG
media_image6.png
106
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(pg. 39, lines 5-8)
and thus, “therapeutic agent is a viral antigen or a nucleic acid capable of transcribing a viral antigen” is considered new matter.
Adequate written description means that, in the specification, the applicant must “convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the [claimed] invention.” Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 [19 USPQ2d 1111] (Fed. Cir. 1991).
See MPEP 2163 regarding the guidelines for the written description requirement: "The proscription against the introduction of new matter in a patent application (35 U.S.C. 132 and 251) serves to prevent an applicant from adding information that goes beyond the subject matter originally filed. See In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 1214, 211 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).
See MPEP § 2163.06 through § 2163.07 for a more detailed discussion of the written description requirement and its relationship to new matter. The claims as filed in the original specification are part of the disclosure and, therefore, if an application as originally filed contains a claim disclosing material not found in the remainder of the specification, the applicant may amend the specification to include the claimed subject matter. In re Benno, 768 F.2d 1340, 226 USPQ 683 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Thus, the written description requirement prevents an applicant from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads).”
Claims 79 and 82 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 therapeutically treating infection via a lipid nanoparticle comprising a compound of instant formula (I) that encapsulated or is associated with an mRNA encoding for a suitable antigen or antibody, does not reasonably provide enablement for prophylactically treating or preventing any disease via a lipid nanoparticle comprising a compound of instant formula (I) that encapsulated or is associated with an mRNA encoding for a suitable antigen or antibody nor for therapeutically/prophylactically treating or preventing any disease outside of infection via a lipid nanoparticle comprising only the compound of instant formula (I) or a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound of instant formula (I) and the therapeutic agent without the lipid nanoparticle. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
As stated in the MPEP § 2164.01(a): “There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is ‘undue’.” In In re Wands (8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), the Federal Circuit established that the following factors are to be considered when determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The nature of the invention - is a method of treating or preventing any disease via a lipid nanoparticle depicted in claim 62 or a pharmaceutical composition depicted in claim 81. However, the word, “treating”, also embraces prophylactic language, according to pg. 26, lines 9-24 of the instant specification.
The state of the prior art - the pharmacological art requires the screening of potential drug candidates in vitro and in vivo to determine if the drug candidates exhibit the desired pharmacological activities.
In order to treat a disease: one would need to precisely identify what the disease is, identify what biological target is connected with the disease, demonstrate that the drug candidate in some way modulates the normal processes of the biological target, and demonstrate that a patient benefited from such modification without detrimental side effects. Typically, this process includes in vitro laboratory screening, preclinical in vivo screening, and three phases of clinical trials. Once this arduous process has been successfully completed by a drug candidate, subsequent drug candidates will benefit from the established proof of concept. The subsequent drug candidates must demonstrate a substantial correlation between their biological activity and that of the known drug candidate.
In the instant case, the prior art recognizes that ionizable cationic lipids are used within lipid nanoparticles for delivery of therapeutic nucleic acids. See Prasad Atmuri et al., Design of cationic ionizable lipids for the delivery of therapeutic nucleic acids. Molecular Therapy: Methods & Clinical Development, 2025, 33, pg. 1-12.
The predictability or unpredictability of the art – the law recognizes the pharmaceutical art as an unpredictable art and requires each embodiment to be individually assessed for physiological activity. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18 24 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, the more unpredictable an area is the more specific disclosure is necessary in order to satisfy the statute. Section 2164.02 of the MPEP provides:
"[C]orrelation” as used herein refers to the relationship between in vitro and in
vivo animal model assays and a disclosed or a claimed method of use . . . if the
art is such that a particular model is recognized as correlating to a specific
condition, then it should be accepted as correlating unless the examiner has
evidence that the model does not correlate.
In light of these remarks, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would agree with the court; that is, the pharmaceutical art is unpredictable. Thus, a substantial correlation is necessary for establishing the potential of new therapeutics.
The amount of direction or guidance presented – the instant specification briefly provides an explanation for the use of lipid nanoparticle to deliver oligonucleotides on pp. 1-3. There is no direction or guidance provided that supports a use of a lipid nanoparticle comprising only the compound of instant formula (I) or a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound of instant formula (I) and the therapeutic agent without the lipid nanoparticle for treating any disease, as instantly embraced.
The amount of guidance or direction to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. MPEP § 2164.03 (quoting In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18 24 (CCPA 1970)). As identified supra, the pharmaceutical art is recognized as unpredictable.
Thus, in order to support a claim for treating any disease, a vast amount of evidence is required because such a claim is not supported by the prior art or the instant specification.
The presence or absence of working examples - there are no working or prophetic examples in the specification that demonstrate that the instant compounds or composition thereof may treat or prevent any disease, as instantly embraced. The specification failed to provide any biological data that a lipid nanoparticle comprising only the compound of instant formula (I) or a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound of instant formula (I) and the therapeutic agent without the lipid nanoparticle can be used to treat or prevent any disease.
The breadth of the claims – is incommensurate in scope with the disclosure because a fair reading of the specification fails to support a finding that a lipid nanoparticle comprising only the compound of instant formula (I) or a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound of instant formula (I) and the therapeutic agent without the lipid nanoparticle may treat or prevent any disease in a patient.
The quantity of experimentation necessary – generally speaking, the amount of experimentation to transform a molecule into medicine is vast and the success thereof is low. Recent statistics indicate that the attrition rates during drug development remain high. Schafer et al. Drug Discovery Today 2008, 13 (21/22), 913-916. The article makes clear that there are many steps necessary to promote a new molecular entity toward its clinical use, any one of which is cumbersome.
For instance, Schafer et al. discloses: "proof of concept trials have failed when the decision to enter clinical development was based on preclinical experiments using the wrong compound, the wrong experimental model, or the wrong endpoint.” It can be gleaned from this article that a plethora of experimentation is needed to identify the lead compound (i.e. one among many in a Markush-type claim), to establish which preclinical tests are predictive of clinical success, and to establish which diseases are the best to target for each lead compound.
There is generally a vast amount of experimentation to take a drug from bench to the clinic. See e.g., Horig et al. Journal of Translational Medicine 2004, 2(44) (“Successful drug development requires satisfying a matrix of domains from relevance to the disease and the drug-ability of the target through feasibility and convenience of drug delivery, demonstration of favorable benefit-risk profile in order to achieve a drug label that reflects physician and patent acceptance.") The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would agree with the statements in these articles; that is, the amount of experimentation required to enable a pharmaceutical drug is extensive.
The level of skill in the art - the level of ordinary skill in the art may be found by inquiring into: (1) the type of problems encountered in the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the technology; and (5) the education level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 855, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). All of those factors may not be present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Based on the typical education level of the active workers in the field of pharmaceuticals and/or medicine, as well as the high degree of sophistication required to solve problems encountered in the art, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a college degree in a field related to medicine and/or the pharmaceutical art and at least four years of work experience, i.e. a masters or doctorate level scientist/clinician.
Conclusion – Claims 79 and 82 are rejected because the Examiner finds that the Wands factors suggest a conclusion that the skilled artisan would not be able to make and use the instant invention without undue experimentation, although the level of skill for an ordinary person in the art is high. That is, due to the breadth of the claims, the unpredictability of the art, the lack of guidance or direction from the disclosure, the lack of any working examples, and the amount of experimentation needed illustrate that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to treat or prevent any disease via a lipid nanoparticle comprising only the compound of instant formula (I) or a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound of instant formula (I) and the therapeutic agent without the lipid nanoparticle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 80 is 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.
Regarding claim 80, the claim is dependent of claim 62, and claim 80 recites the phrase, “the therapeutic agent” wherein the word, “the”, requires antecedent basis, and it is unclear where applicant has defined “a” therapeutic agent in claim 62 or 80. Without antecedent basis, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
The instant claims are drawn to a compound of instant formula (I) or a lipid nanoparticle thereof or pharmaceutical composition thereof; or drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising the compound of instant formula (I) and the therapeutic agent; or a method of using the abovementioned lipid nanoparticle or abovementioned pharmaceutical composition.
Claims 1, 62, and 63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) as being unpatentable over the conflicting claims of the following U.S. patents or co-pending applications. See Table below.
If the conflicting claims are in a co-pending application, then the rejection is a provisional ODP rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Co-pending Application No./ U.S. Patent No.
Conflicting Claims
Provisional ODP
(Yes or No)
11,453,639
1, 21, and 23
No
In this instance, the analysis employed for the abovementioned nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection parallels the analysis for anticipation, wherein the instant compound or lipid nanoparticle thereof is anticipated by the compounds or lipid nanoparticles thereof encompassed by the abovementioned conflicting claims of the abovementioned U.S. patent.
PNG
media_image7.png
204
762
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(from claim 19)
Claims 1, 62, and 63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) as being unpatentable over the conflicting claims of the following U.S. patents or co-pending applications. See Table below.
If the conflicting claims are in a co-pending application, then the rejection is a provisional ODP rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Co-pending Application No./ U.S. Patent No.
Conflicting Claims
Provisional ODP
(Yes or No)
12,151,996
1-22
No
The analysis employed for an obviousness-type double patenting rejection parallels the analysis for a determination of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See MPEP 804; In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 19 USPQ 2d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). For this reason, the factual inquires set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, USPQ 459 (1966) are employed herein.
The Graham v. Deere inquires are summarized as follows: (A) Determining the scope and contents of the patent claim relative to a claim in the application at issue; (B) Ascertaining the differences between the scope and content of the patent claim as determined in (A) and the claim in the application at issue; (C) Determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and, (D) Evaluate any objective indicia of nonobviousness.
(A) Determining the scope and contents of the patent claim relative to a claim in the application at issue – The conflicting claims of the abovementioned U.S. patent are drawn to a compound of instant formula (I) or a lipid nanoparticle thereof.
(B) Ascertaining the differences between the scope and content of the patent claim as determined in (A) and the claim in the application at issue - The conflicting claims of the abovementioned U.S. patent described the compound of instant formula (I) or lipid nanoparticle thereof in a method of using-type claim.
(C) Determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art - the level of ordinary skill in the art may be found by inquiring into: (1) the type of problems encountered in the art; (2) prior art solutions to those problems; (3) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (4) the sophistication of the technology; and (5) the education level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Industries, Inc., 807 F.2d 855, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986). All of those factors may not be present in every case, and one or more of them may predominate. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Based on the typical education level of active workers in the field of organic chemistry, as well as the high degree of sophistication required to solve problems encountered in the art, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a college degree in the field related to medicine, chemistry, and/or the pharmaceutical art and at least four years of work experience, i.e. a masters or doctorate level scientist/clinician.
(D) Evaluate any objective indicia of nonobviousness - none
Conclusion - Although the conflicting claims are not identical, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to the same compound or lipid nanoparticle thereof having the same therapeutic utility (e.g. capable of inducing expression of a protein in a subject, etc.). As a result, an infringer of a patent issuing from the instant claims would also be an infringer of the conflicting claims of the abovementioned U.S. patent.
As recited above, the compound or lipid nanoparticle thereof in the conflicting claims of abovementioned U.S. patent is the compound of instant formula (I) or lipid nanoparticle thereof. However, these conflicting claims did not explicitly describe the compound or lipid nanoparticle thereof in a method of using-type claim.
The unpredictable nature of the chemical arts generally allows an assertion of similarity to be rebutted by a sufficient demonstration of nonobviousness that employs secondary considerations of objective indicia. In this case, there are no indicia of nonobviousness shown to provide evidence that the therapeutic utility of the compound or lipid nanoparticle of the abovementioned U.S. patent is excluded from the therapeutic utility of the compound of instant formula (I) or lipid nanoparticle thereof of the instant application. Absent indicia of nonobviousness, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the instant process and that of the conflicting claims of the abovementioned U.S. patent to be equally effective in their objective.
This rejection is in agreement with the judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 78 and 81 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 62, 63, 79, 80, 82, and 83 are rejected.
Claims 78 and 81 are objected.
Claims 2-61 and 64-77 are cancelled.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO-CHIH CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 6:00 pm.
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, Clinton Brooks can be reached at (571)270-7682. 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.
/PO-CHIH CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights