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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) (claim 37) and the species of lateral flow assay (claim 43) in the reply filed on 10/3/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 38-41 and 44-45 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/3/2025.
Applicant further withdrew claims 29-36, 38-42, 44-45 and 47 in the reply filed on 10/3/2025. Claims 28, 37, 43 and 46 are examined below.
Priority
The present application was filed as a proper National Stage (371) entry of PCT Application No. PCT/EP2023/075545, filed 09/15/2023. Acknowledgment is also made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to Application No. LU103006, filed on 09/15/2022 in Luxembourg.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 3/15/2025 and the information disclosure statement filed on 4/15/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In page 54 lines 9-10 "Ein weiterer Antikérper, der sich vorzugsweise in der Kontrollregion (Kontrollzone) befindet und immobilisiert ist, richtet sich gegen einen Detektionsantikdrper” appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 28are objected to because of the following informalities:
In .
In claim 28 lines 19-20, “wherein the other antibody and the auxiliary protein are obtained from the diatom and/or a Viridiplantae and/or the unicellular plant” appears to be a typographical error, namely “wherein the other antibody and the auxiliary protein are obtained from the diatom and/or a Viridiplantae and/or the unicellular plant” should read as “wherein the other antibody and the auxiliary protein are obtained from the diatom
In claim 46 line 4, “therein, , wherein” appears to be a typographical error, namely it is suggested that “therein, , wherein” read as “therein, wherein” (deleting the extra space and comma “ ,”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 28, 37, 43 and 46 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.
Claim 28 and its dependent claims require a first and a second antibody that is directed against a hormone, a protein or a pharmaceutical substance. Dependent claims 37 and 43 limit the first and/or second antibody to be an antibody directed against human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG).
The specification does not describe which amino acid residues or other molecular components are present in the genus of antibody agents encompassed by claims 28, 37, 43 and 46. The specification fails to disclose the structures common to all members of the genus and fails to provide sufficient specific examples of agents to be used. In the absence of a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, claims which encompass variants defined by their function are generally not considered described. Applicant is directed to MPEP § 2163 for guidelines on compliance with the written description requirement.
Regarding the claimed scope that includes antibodies, the Federal Circuit has clarified Written Description as it applies to antibodies in the recent decision Amgen v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit explained in Amgen that when an antibody is claimed, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (or pre-AIA first paragraph) requires adequate written description of the antibody itself. Amgen, 872 F.3d at 1378-79. The Amgen court expressly stated that the so-called “newly characterized antigen” test, which had been based on an example in USPTO-issued training materials and was noted in dicta in several earlier Federal Circuit decisions, should not be used in determining whether there is adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for a claim drawn to an antibody. Citing its decision in Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., the court also stressed that the “newly characterized antigen” test could not stand because it contradicted the quid pro quo of the patent system whereby one must describe an invention in order to obtain a patent. Amgen, 872 F.3d at 1378-79, quoting Ariad, 598 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In view of the Amgen decision, adequate written description of an antigen alone is not considered adequate written description of a claimed antibody to that antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional. Id.
While generically the structure of antibodies is known, the structure of the presently recited antibodies can vary substantially within the above given claimed recitations. As noted in Amgen, knowledge that an antibody binds to a particular epitope on an antigen tells one nothing at all about the structure of the antibody, wherein “instead of analogizing the antibody-antigen relationship to a ‘key in a lock,’ it [is] more apt to analogize it to a lock and ‘a ring with a million keys on it.” (Internal citations omitted). The relevant antibody art confirms this quandary, indicating that “knowledge of an epitope or antigen used to generate a monoclonal antibody is insufficient for making the original antibody available, even if suitable in vitro test systems for screening are used.” See p. 8, lines 3-5 of WO 2009/033743 A1. Therefore, those of skill in the art would not accept that the inventor had been in possession of the full genus of antibodies and variants, fragments or derivates of the antibodies of the claims.
Functionally defined genus claims can be inherently vulnerable to invalidity challenge for lack of written description support, especially in technology fields that are highly unpredictable, where it is difficult to establish a correlation between structure and function for the whole genus or to predict what would be covered by the functionally claimed genus. Abbvie Deutschland GMBH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc. (759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “When a patent claims a genus using functional language to define a desired result, the specification must demonstrate that the applicant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the applicant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally-defined genus." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the instance case, although the specification discloses the amino acid sequence of the hinge region of an antibody (“SEQ ID NO:2 represents an amino acid sequence of the hinge region of an antibody” page 16 line 14), this is not considered sufficient structural written description of the claimed antibody directed to a hormone, a protein, a pharmaceutical substance, or hCG. Also, although the specification discloses the “the purity of the antibodies produced … by so-called polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis” (page 53 lines 20-21) (see Fig. 10), there is no description of the structure of the antibody.
Consequently, in the absence of sufficient recitation of distinguishing identifying characteristics, the specification does not provide adequate written description of the full genus of antibodies encompassed by the claims. Further, given the well-known high level of polymorphism of immunoglobulins and antibodies, the skilled artisan would not have recognized that applicant was in possession of the vast repertoire of encompassed antibodies.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1991), clearly states that “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 invention. The invention is, for purposes of the ‘written description’ inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” (See page 1117). The specification does not “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed.” (See Vas-Cath at page 1116).
The skilled artisan cannot envision the detailed chemical structure of the claimed antibodies directed to a hormone, a protein, a pharmaceutical substance, or hCG. Conception is not achieved until reduction to practice has occurred, regardless of the complexity or simplicity of the method of identification. Adequate written description requires more than a mere statement that it is part of the invention and reference to a potential method of isolating it. The compound itself is required. See Fiers v. Revel, 25 USPQ2d 1601 at 1606 (CAFC 1993) and Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Therefore, the instant claims do not meet the written description provision of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 28, 37, 43 and 46 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 28 recites “[a]n immunoassay for detecting a biologically active antigen, particularly a hormone, a protein or a pharmaceutical substance in a biological sample from an individual, provided with: -a sample application area…-a capture area…-a conjugate area…characterized in that…”.
However, it is not clear whether the claim is to a product or a process. The claimed “immunoassay” can be interpreted as a product, i.e. a device (e.g. test strip), or as a method (assay for detecting a biologically active antigen). Therefore, given these two possible interpretations, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not know what the metes and bounds of the claim are.
Furthermore, the phrase “particularly” in claim 28 is indefinite. It is unclear whether “a biologically active antigen” must consist of “a hormone, a protein or a pharmaceutical substance” or rather if this language is merely exemplary.
Claim 28 is further vague. In line 5, the recitation of “preferably” is not clear if the listed biological samples are meant to be exemplary or limiting. In line 17, the recitation of a reaction vessel or a membrane is not clear as to how they are related to the other components recited in the claim. The claim is further vague as to the where the “further antibody” is situated and its function relative to the other reagents and components. The claim is further vague in reciting “the recombinant antibody is provided in a purity of at least 90%” without identifying which recombinant antibodies are being referred to – first antibody, second antibody, and further antibody appear to be all recombinant antibodies. With respect to the “the other antibody” in line 19, is that referring back to the “one further antibody” in line 15? If not, then the recitation of “the other antibody” lacks antecedent support. Line 19 is also vague because the other antibody and auxiliary protein are also obtained from the diatom and/or unicellular plant from lines 13-14 but does not say they are recombinant. Lines 13-14 seem to provide antecedent support for the diatom and/or unicellular plant recited in line 19 so the implication is the other antibody and auxiliary protein in line 19 are recombinant?
Claims 37 and 43 are included in this rejection as they depend from rejected claim 28 but do not clarify the scope of patent protection sought.
Claim 46 recites “A device, provided with: -a container, particularly a housing,…”. The phrase “particularly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “the container” must consist of “a housing” or rather if this language is merely exemplary.
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.
Claim 46 is 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.
Claim 46 recites “[a] device, provided with: -a container…and -the lateral flow immunoassay according to claim 43…”. However, given that it is not clear whether claim 43 is to a product or process (see 112b rejection above), claim 46 does not appear to be further limiting the claim. If claim 28 is to a process, then claim 46 cannot further limit the process claim because claim 46 is to a product and does not recite method steps.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 28, 37, 43 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charlton (US 6485982 B1) in view of Crowe et al. (WO 2021163265 A1) (“Crowe”), Chen et al. (US 20240228595 A1) ("Chen") and Griesbeck et al. MOLECULAR BIOTECHNOLOGY Volume 34, 2006 (Cite No. 7 of IDS 3/15/2025) (“Griesbeck”).
Regarding claim 28, although the claim is indefinite (see 112b rejection above), in the interest of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted to be to a product, i.e. a test strip device for lateral flow immunoassays.
Charlton teaches an immunoassay for detecting a biologically active antigen, particularly a hormone, a protein or a pharmaceutical substance, in a biological sample from an individual (“test device and method for colored particle immunoassay” Title, “a test cell and a method for detection of a preselected ligand in a liquid sample such as a body fluid” Abstract, “This invention relates to assays for ligands, e.g., antigens…[m]any types of ligand-receptor assays have been used to detect the presence of various substances, often generally called ligands in body fluids such as urine. These assays involve antigen antibody reactions” col. 1 lines 12 and 18-21, “a ligand, e.g., human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)” col. 3 line 25) provided with: - a sample application area for applying the biological sample from the individual, wherein the biological sample is preferably urine, whole blood, saliva, milk or serum (“When the test cell is placed with inlet 14 disposed within or otherwise in contact with a liquid sample, the liquid is transported by capillary action, wicking, or simple wetting along the flow path” col. 5 lines 41-44, “body fluids such as urine” col. 1 line 20, see Figures 1-3 showing the sample application area 14); - a capture area, wherein the capture area is provided with an immobilized first antibody that is directed against the biologically active antigen, in particular against the hormone, the protein, the peptide or the pharmaceutical substance (“Test site 18' comprises a preselected quantity of antibody against an epitope of the ligand to be detected immobilized in place within the flow path” col. 6 lines 1-3, see capture area 18’on Figs. 1-3); - a conjugate area, wherein the conjugate area is provided with a second antibody directed against the biologically active antigen, particularly against the hormone, protein, peptide or pharmaceutical substance (“Disposed within sorbent material 12 is a band 26 of dehydrated conjugate, e.g., antibody-metal sol” col. 5 lines 53-54). Charlton further suggests the first antibody and the second antibody are a recombinant antibody (“Polyclonal antisera and indeed monoclonal antibodies or fractions thereof having specific binding properties and high affinity for virtually any antigenic substance are known and commercially available or can be produced from stable cell lines using well known cell fusion and screening techniques” col. 6 lines 41-45).
Charlton teaches a control site 16’ which contains a rabbit polyclonal non-immune gamma globulin. The rabbit polyclonal non-immune gamma globulin reads on a “one further antibody” (Col. 8, lines 9-11).
Charlton differs from the instant invention in failing to teach using a unicellular plant to recombinantly make the first antibody, the second antibody, and at least one further antibody, wherein the recombinant antibodies are provided in a purity of at least 90%, and wherein the immunoassay is vegan.
Crowe suggests an immunoassay for detecting a biologically active antigen (“a method of detecting COVID-19 infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a subject comprising (a) contacting a sample from said subject with an antibody or antibody fragment… Detection may comprise… lateral flow assays” page 3 lines 2-4 and 9), particularly a hormone, a protein or a pharmaceutical substance, in a biological sample from an individual (“The antibody or antibody fragment may bind to a SARS-CoV-2 surface spike protein” page 3 lines 19-20), provided with:- a sample application area for applying the biological sample from the individual, wherein the biological sample is preferably urine, whole blood, saliva, milk or serum (“Lateral Flow Assays… The technology is based on a series of capillary beds, such as pieces of porous paper or sintered polymer. Each of these elements has the capacity to transport fluid (e.g., urine) spontaneously. The first element (the sample pad) acts as a sponge and holds an excess of sample fluid” page 66 lines 16 and 23-26);- a capture area, wherein the capture area is provided with an immobilized first antibody that is directed against the biologically active antigen, in particular against the hormone, the protein, the peptide or the pharmaceutical substance (“This material has one or more areas ( often called stripes) where a third molecule has been immobilized by the manufacturer… the second [stripe] contains a specific capture molecule and only captures those particles onto which an analyte molecule has been immobilized… Lateral flow assays are disclosed in U.S. Patent 6,485,982” page 66 lines 33-34 and page 67 lines 5-7 and 9). Crowe further suggests a conjugate area, wherein the conjugate area is provided with a second antibody directed against the biologically active antigen, particularly against the hormone, protein, peptide or pharmaceutical substance (“(conjugate pad) in which the manufacturer has stored the so-called conjugate, a dried format of bio-active particles (see below) in a salt-sugar matrix that contains everything to guarantee an optimized chemical reaction between the target molecule (e.g., an antigen) and its chemical partner (e.g., antibody) that has been immobilized on the particle's surface” page 66 lines 26-30); characterized in that the first antibody and the second antibody are a recombinant antibody obtained from a diatom or unicellular plant (“Recombinant full-length IgG antibodies can be generated by subcloning heavy and light chain Fv DNAs from the cloning vector into an IgG plasmid vector, transfected into 293 (e.g., Freestyle) cells… appropriate host cells systems include…algae” page 29 lines 19-22 and 24), and wherein the recombinant antibody is provided in a purity of at least 90% (“antibodies of the present disclosure may be purified… the term "substantially purified" is used, this designation will refer to a composition in which the protein or peptide forms the major component of the composition, such as constituting…about 90%, about 95% or more of the proteins in the composition… a substantially purified protein or peptide” page 52 lines 25, 29-32 and page 53 line 16), and wherein the immunoassay is vegan (page 29 lines 19-22 and 24).
Chen teaches “methods for monoclonal antibody generation” (Title). Chen further provides “highly potent human and humanized monoclonal antibodies and antigen-binding fragments and bispecific antibodies which are capable of binding to a wild-type or variant SARS-COV-2 spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD)” (Abstract). Chen further teaches “methods for detecting, diagnosing, and/or neutralizing SARS-COV-2” (Abstract). Chen further teaches that “[a]ntibodies and antigen-binding fragments or bispecific antibodies described herein can also be attached to solid supports, which are particularly useful for immunoassays” (paragraph 285). Chen further suggests a recombinant antibody obtained from a unicellular plant, and the at least one further antibody obtained from a unicellular plant (“Also provided herein are kits comprising one or more antibodies or antigen-binding fragments or bispecific antibodies described herein” paragraph 294, “A variety of host-expression vector systems can be utilized to express antibody molecules described herein…plant cell systems (e.g., green algae such as Chlamydomonas reinhardtii)” paragraph 300). Note that the specification page 13 lines 24-27 suggest that green alga is a unicellular plant (“the first antibody and/or the second antibody and/or the further antibody are obtained from the diatom (also diatoms), the green alga… Particularly preferred are the recombinant antibodies obtained from the diatom or the green alga”).
Griesbeck teaches “Chlamydomonas reinhardtii” (Title). Griesbeck further suggests that that Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is a unicellular plant (“the unicellular green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii” Abstract). Griesbeck further suggests that Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is an inexpensive method of large-scale production of recombinant proteins “as they [Chlamydomonas reinhardtii] can be cultivated in a cheap and easy manner and grown to high cell densities” (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a unicellular plant, as taught by Crowe, Chen, and Griesback, to recombinantly make the antibodies used in the device of Charlton because Griesback teaches the advantages of using a unicellular plant to recombinantly make proteins and Crowe and Chen also show the use of unicellular plants for recombinant production of antibodies to be a well known and conventional alternative method of making antibodies. A person of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have expected success in using recombinant antibodies on the device of Charlton because Crowe teaches the use of recombinant antibodies on a lateral flow test strip.
With respect to a recombinant antibody purity of at least 90%, Crowe teach methods for purification of antibodies to at least 90% purity by various well known protein purification techniques in the art (pages 52-53). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to purify the recombinant antibodies to 90% purity, as taught by Crowe, for use on the device of Charlton because highly pure recombinant antibodies would provide for better assay results and less likelihood of interference from spurious materials. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that Crowe and Charlton are both directed to the use of antibodies on lateral flow assays.
Note that although Charlton, Crowe, Chen, and Griesback fail to use the term “vegan”, the teaching of the antibodies being obtained from algae inherently provides a vegan immunoassay given that the specification page 22 lines 14-18 discloses that “[v]egan in the sense of the present invention, explicitly a vegan immunoassay in the sense of the present invention, is an assay which is produced by biotechnological methods and methods in compliance with the principles of veganism. This means that these products are developed without the use of animal materials and/or animal cell cultures or by-products and that no animal testing is carried out during their manufacture”. The teachings of Crowe, Chen, and Griesback do not require the use of animal materials and/or animal cell cultures or by-products or animal testing, therefore, the use of the recombinant antibodies made by the teachings of Crowe, Chen, and Griesback in the device of Charlton make the device of Charlton “vegan”.
Regarding claim 37, Charlton in view of Crowe, Chen and Griesbeck teach the immunoassay of claim 28 as discussed above.
Charlton further teaches wherein the first antibody and/or the second antibody is an antibody directed against human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) (col. 3 line 25).
Regarding claim 43, Charlton in view of Crowe, Chen and Griesbeck teach the immunoassay of claim 28 as discussed above.
Charlton further teaches wherein the immunoassay is a lateral flow immunoassay providing fluid-connected at least one sample application area, a conjugate area and a capture area fluid-connected on a membrane (“The bottom section 10" defines a pair of channels 28 above which is disposed a strip of glass fiber paper 13 (available commercially from Eaton Dikeman, Grade 111, or Whatman, Grade GFA). Test liquid applied through inlet 14 soaks along the paper strip 13 which defines the flow path and a filtering means region 20, as well as a positive control site 16' and test site 18'” col. 7 lines 40-47, see Figures showing the lateral flow assay device). Note that although Charlton fails to use the language “membrane” the teaching of a “glass fiber paper” which “defines the flow path” inherently provides a fluid-connected membrane.
Regarding claim 46, Charlton in view of Crowe, Chen and Griesbeck teach the immunoassay of claim 43 as discussed above.
Charlton further teaches a device, provided with: - a container, particularly a housing, and - the lateral flow immunoassay according to claim 43 arranged therein, wherein the first antibody and/or the second antibody is an antibody directed against human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) (“The test cell useful in the practice of the invention has an elongate outer casing which houses an interior permeable material” col. 1 lines 61-63, col. 3 line 25, see Figures).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO IVICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00 (E.T.).
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, Gregory S. Emch can be reached at (571) 272-8149. 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.
/Fernando Ivich/Examiner, Art Unit 1678
/CHRISTOPHER L CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1677