DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment and Status of the Claims
2. The preliminary amendment filed 2 October 2025, in which claim 1 was cancelled and new claims 2-20 were added, is acknowledged and entered.
Claims 2-20 are under prosecution.
Terminal Disclaimer
3. The terminal disclaimer filed on 2 October 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patents 12391979, 12297487, 12234505, 11560587, 11401545, 11208684, 11384386, 10961566, 10787701, 10472669, 10480022, 10308982, and 9371598
has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statements filed 27 July 2025 and 20 November 2025 are acknowledged and have been considered.
It is noted that 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.
Specification
5. The use of trade names or marks used in commerce (including but not necessarily limited to those on page 9 of the instant specification), has been noted in this application. Any trade names or marks should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 2-20 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.
This is a new matter rejection necessitated by the amendments.
A. Claim 2 (upon which clams 3-20 depend) recites each of the following:
I. Generating a nucleic acid comprising at least a portion of the analyte sequence or a complement thereof and the location sequence or a complement thereof. The claim encompasses each feature having the first and second nucleic acids separate from one another in a capture; thus amplification to include both sequences would be amplification to form a bridged structure between the two separate probes . A review of at least parent Application 15/187,667 (which is the oldest application in the continuity chain; henceforth the “598 patent) does not yield teachings of this embodiment.
II. Capture areas comprising a second sequence that identifies a location. A review of the “598 patent only yields teachings where the location probe is delivered to the substate after parent analytes/biological samples have been delivered (e.g., Figures 1 and 2), and does not support location sequences prior to fixing the sample to a support.
B. Claim 4 recites mRNA. A review of the ‘598 patent yields no teaching of mRNA.
C. Claim 6 recited interaction of the analyte with the first oligonucleotide via ligation. While review of the ‘598 patent yields teaching of ligations of location probes to analyte probes, the ‘598 patent does not teach embodiments encompassing ligation of the first oligonucleotide to the target.
D. Claim 13 recites contacting a tissue section with capture areas. The ‘598 patent only teaches tissue section that themselves form an array (e.g., column 8, lines 30-45), but not teach oligonucleotide arrays contacted with tissue sections.
E. Claim 14 recites oligonucleotides comprising a cleavage site. The ‘598 patent only teaches peptide cleavage sites (column 9, lines 45-67).
F. Claim 16 recites denaturation. The ‘598 patent does not teach “denaturation.”
G. Claim 17 recites enzymatic release of cDNA. The ‘598 patent does not teach enzymatic release.
H. Claim 19 recites associating sequence information with a location of the substrate. While the ‘598 patent relates sequence information to locations within the biological sample, it does not teach associating sequence information with a location on the substrate.
I. Claim 20 recites mapping the sequence information with a location of the substrate. While the ‘598 patent relates mapping the sequence information to locations within the biological sample, it does not teach mapping sequence information with a location on the substrate.
Thus, because the cited limitations are missing from at least the ‘598 patent, the limitations constitute new matter.
In addition, because the instant claims are new claims filed after the original filing date of this instant Application, the cited limitations constitute new matter with respect to the instant specification.
8. 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.
9. Claims 7-9 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 (upon which claims 8-9 and 18-20 depend), claim 15 (upon which claims 16-17 depend) are each indefinite in the recitation “the generated nucleic acid molecule,” which lacks antecedent basis because there is no previous recitation of “a generated nucleic acid molecule.”
It is also noted that this limitation is present in claim 18 (upon which claims 19-20 depend).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, 12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) and Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006).
Regarding claim 2, Kincaid teaches method comprising providing a substrate having a plurality of capture areas (i.e., features of a microarray; Abstract), each first comprising an oligomer test probe (Abstract), which is complementary to a nucleic acid analyte (i.e., a polynucleotide analyte; paragraphs 0052-0053) and a second oligonucleotide that identifies a location of the substrate, in the form of control probe that generates a control signal that is unique to the feature on the microarray (Abstract). The control probe is linked to the oligomer test probe (paragraph 0055), and the analyte (i.e., test target) hybridizes to the first oligonucleotide (i.e., oligomer test probe; paragraphs 0055 ad 0084 and Figure 4).
Kincaid also teaches the second (i.e., control probe) is labeled (Abstract), that the label is a primer of amplification or ligation (paragraph 0064), and that the methods have the added advantage of allowing normalization of signal trends across the array of capture areas (Abstract). Thus, Kincaid teaches the known techniques discussed above.
While Kincaid teaches the second oligonucleotide (i.e., control probe 110) is linked to the first oligonucleotide (i.e., oligomer test probe 120; Abstract, paragraph 0091, and Figure 4) and that the second oligonucleotide (i.e., control probe) is primer (paragraph 0064), Kincaid does not teach generating the claimed nucleic acid, which would contain the complements of both oligonucleotides (i.e., probes).
However, Ahmadian et al. teach methods wherein barcode sequences are used to hybridize to locations on an array (paragraph 0083). Ahmadian et al. also teach extension of the target using a probe (i.e., primer) having the barcode sequence attached thereto (paragraph 0083), wherein the barcode sequence is analogous to the second oligonucleotide (i.e., the control probe of Kincaid) and the target binding primer is analogous to the first oligonucleotide (i.e., the oligomer test probe of Kincaid). Ahmadian et al. also teach the methods allow for multiplex extension of variant target bases (paragraph 0083). Thus, Ahmadian et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the cited prior art to arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing normalization of signal trends across the array of capture areas as explicitly taught by Kincaid (Abstract) and allowing for multiplex extension of variant target bases as explicitly taught by Ahmadian et al. (paragraph 0083). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of the cited prior art could have been combined with predictable results because the known techniques of the cited prior art predictably result in methods useful for nucleic acid detection.
Regarding claims 3-4, the method of claim 2 is discussed above. Kincaid teaches the nucleic acid analyte is a mRNA (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 5, the method of claim 2 is discussed above. Kincaid teaches the analyte hybridizes to the first oligonucleotide (Abstract), and Ahmadian et al. teach targets hybridized to probes (paragraph 0083).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 18, the method of claim 2 is discussed above. Ahmadian et al. teach sequencing the template (i.e., claim 7; paragraph 0033), which is a portion of the generated nucleic acid (i.e., claim 18), as well as PCR (i.e., the amplification of claim 8; paragraph 0193). Kincaid also teaches PCR (paragraph 0049).
It is noted that the courts have held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930); Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959)). See MPEP §2144.04 IV C. Thus, the claimed amplification and/or sequencing after generating the nucleic acid is an obvious variant of the steps of the cited prior art.
MPEP 716.01(c) makes clear that “[t]he arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record” (In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965)). Thus, counsel’s mere arguments cannot take the place of evidence in the record.
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 2 is discussed above. Ahmadian et al. teach the substrate is a slide (paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 2 is discussed above. Kincaid also teaches fiducial makers on the substrate (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 15, the method of claim 2 is discussed above. Ahmadian et al. teach the target is cDNA (paragraph 0111), and Kincaid teaches cDNA (paragraph 0043). Thus, amplification of the linked first and second oligonucleotides results in second strand cDNA.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the method of claim 15 is discussed above. Kincaid teaches denaturation (i.e., claim 16; paragraph 0046), as well as enzymatic denaturation (i.e., claim 17; paragraph 0046).). Ahmadian et al. teach denaturation (paragraph 0078).
With respect to the order of steps, it is reiterated that the courts have held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Thus, the claimed denaturation after generating the nucleic acid is an obvious variant of the steps of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned to avoid merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 18 is discussed above. Kincaid teaches the second oligonucleotide ( i.e., the control probe) generates a control signal that is unique to the feature on the microarray (Abstract). Thus, extending the linked first and second oligonucleotides and sequencing them results in obtaining the control probe sequence, which is indicative of the location om the array.
Regarding claim 20, the method of clam 18 is discussed above. Kincaid teaches mapping of the sequencing information to a location on the substrate; i.e., detection allows mapping of each feature of the microarray substrate (paragraph 0024).
12. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) and Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, alternatively further in combination with Woudenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application US 2005/0048498 A1, published 3 March 2005).
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 2 is discussed above in Section11.
It is noted that the claim does not specify what entities are ligated. Kincaid teaches ligation (paragraph 0064) and Ahmadian et al. teaches ligation of probes (paragraph 0019).
It is reiterated that the courts have held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Thus, ligation at any point is an obvious variant of the steps of the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned to avoid merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Alternatively, Woudenberg et al. teach methods wherein a probe comprising a barcode portion (i.e., reporter group sequence ASO; paragraph 0162) is ligated to sequence specific probe LSO in the presence of the target analyte (Figure 2), which has the added advantage of allowing detection of a multi-allelic locus (paragraph 0162). Thus, Woudenberg et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have alternatively been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the cited prior art with the teachings of Woudenberg et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing detection of a mutli-allelic locus as explicitly taught by Woudenberg et al. (paragraph 0162). In addition, it would have alternatively been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Woudenberg et al. could have been combined with the cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Woudenberg et al. predictably result in probe regions useful for nucleic acid probes useful for nucleic acid detection
13. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) and Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18, published January 2008).
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 7 is discussed above in Section 11.
Neither Kincaid nor Ahmadian et al. teach the sequencing is the functionally equivalent next generation sequencing.
However, Schuster teaches next generation sequencing has the added advantage of allowing sequencing at unprecedented speed (Abstract). Thus, Schuster teaches the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have alternatively been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the functionally equivalent next generation sequencing of Schuster to arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing sequencing at unprecedented speed as explicitly taught by Schuster (Abstract). In addition, it would have alternatively been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Schuster could have been combined with the cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Schuster predictably result in a functionally equivalent sequencing procedure.
14. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) and Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Gumbrecht et al. (U.S. Patent Application US 2004/0029203 A1, published 12 February 2004).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 2 is discussed above in Section 11.
Neither Kincaid nor Ahmadian et al. teach flow cells.
However, Gumbrecht et al. teach methods utilizing arrays of DNA probes (paragraph 0005), wherein the arrays are withing a flow cell, which has the added advantage of allowing supply volumes for detection to be jointly accessible (paragraph 0013). Thus, Gumbrecht et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have alternatively been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the cited prior art with the teachings of Gumbrecht et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing supply volumes for detection to be jointly accessible to the array as explicitly taught by Gumbrecht et al. (paragraph 0013). In addition, it would have alternatively been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Gumbrecht et al. could have been combined with the cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Gumbrecht et al. predictably result in arrays useful for nucleic acid detection.
15. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) and Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Erlander et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0239079 A1, published 27 October 2005).
Regarding claim 13, the method of claim 2 is discussed above in Section 11.
Neither Kincaid nor Ahmadian et al. teach tissues.
However, Erlander et al teach methods where tissue sections are screened using an oligonucleotide microarray (paragraphs 0163 and 0170);
It is noted that In re Best (195 USPQ 430) and In re Fitzgerald (205 USPQ 594) discuss the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter which there is reason to believe includes functions that are newly cited or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to “prove that subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on” (205 USPQ 594, second column, first full paragraph).
In the instant case, because the whole tissue sections are analyzed on an oligonucleotide microarray, the nucleic acids are released from the tissue section on the array.
Alternatively, it is reiterated that the courts have held that any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Thus, any order of steps, including applying the tissue section to the array and then releasing the nucleic acids, is obvious over the cited prior art.
Applicant is again cautioned to avoid merely relying upon counsel’s arguments in place of evidence in the record.
Erlander et al. also teach the methods have the added advantage of allowing comparison of expression profiling between those who respond to a treatment (i.e., TAM) and those who do not (paragraph 0170). Thus, Erlander et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the cited prior art with the teachings of Erlander et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing comparison of gene expression of responders and non-responders to a drug treatment as explicitly taught by Erlander et al. (paragraph 0170). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Erlander et al. could have been combined with the cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Erlander et al. predictably result in useful samples for analyzing gene expression.
16. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) and Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Willis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0101835 A1, published 27 May 2004).
Regarding claim 14, the method of claim 2 is discussed above in Section 11.
Kincaid teaches cleavage (i.e., claim 13; paragraph 0045), as does Ahmadian et al. (paragraph 0072); however, neither reference teaches the first or second nucleic acid (i.e., the probes) have a cleavage site.
However, Willis et al. teach barcoded probe arrays (paragraph 0094), wherein a probe comprising a cleavage site, a barcode sequence and a target recognition region (e.g., Figure 2b), and that the cleavage (i.e., restriction) site has the added advantage of allowing ligation into amplification vectors (paragraph 0289-0290). Thus, Willis et al. teach the known techniques discussed above.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the cited prior art with the teachings of Willis et al. to arrive at the instantly claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the combination because said combination would have resulted in a method having the added advantage of allowing ligation into amplification vectors as explicitly taught by Willis et al. (paragraphs 0289-0290). In addition, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the known techniques of Willis et al. could have been combined with the cited prior art with predictable results because the known techniques of Willis et al. predictably result in probe regions useful for nucleic acid manipulation.
Double Patenting
17. 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
18. Claims 2-5, 7-8, and 10-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of copending Application No. 19/264,527 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006).
Both sets of claims are drawn to the same probes, capture areas, substrates, slides, flow cells, mRNA, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘527 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘527 claims do not include generating the nucleic acid.
However, Ahmadian et al. teach this limitation, as well as the additional limitations described above and the rationale for combining. The claims are therefore obvious based on the citations and rational discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
19. Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of copending Application No. 19/264,527 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, alternatively further in combination with Woudenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application US 2005/0048498 A1, published 3 March 2005) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
20. Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of copending Application No. 19/264,527 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
21. Claims 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of copending Application No. 19/264,527 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in combination with Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
22. Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, 12, and 14-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 18/516,576 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006).
Both sets of claims are drawn to the same probes, capture areas, substrates, slides, flow cells, mRNA, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘576 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘576 claims do not include generating the nucleic acid.
However, Ahmadian et al. teach this limitation, as well as the additional limitations described above and the rationale for combining. The claims are therefore obvious based on the citations and rational discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
23. Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 18/516,576 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, alternatively further in combination with Woudenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application US 2005/0048498 A1, published 3 March 2005) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
24. Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 18/516,576 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
25. Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 18/516,576 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
26. Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 18/516,576 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2above, and further in combination with Erlander et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0239079 A1, published 27 October 2005).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
27. Claims 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of copending Application No. 18/516,576 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006 as applied to claim 18 above, and further in combination with Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
28. Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, and 15-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/021,568 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006).
Both sets of claims are drawn to the same capture areas, probes, substrates, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘568 claim is encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘568 claim does not include generating the nucleic acid.
However, Ahmadian et al. teach this limitation, as well as the additional limitations described above and the rationale for combining. The claims are therefore obvious based on the citations and rational discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
29. Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/021,568 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, alternatively further in combination with Woudenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application US 2005/0048498 A1, published 3 March 2005) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
30. Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/021,568 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
31. Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/021,568 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
32. Claims 12 and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/021,568 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claims 2 and 18 above, and further in combination with Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
33. Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/021,568 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Erlander et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0239079 A1, published 27 October 2005).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
34. Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/021,568 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with
Willis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0101835 A1, published 27 May 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
35. Claims 2-5, 7-12, and 15-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-20 of copending Application No. 19/021,991 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006).
Both sets of claims are drawn to the same probes, substrates, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘991 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘991 claims do not include generating the nucleic acid.
However, Ahmadian et al. teach this limitation, as well as the additional limitations described above and the rationale for combining. The claims are therefore obvious based on the citations and rational discussed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
36. Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-20 of copending Application No. 19/021,99 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, alternatively further in combination with Woudenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application US 2005/0048498 A1, published 3 March 2005) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
37. Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-20 of copending Application No. 19/021,991 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Erlander et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0239079 A1, published 27 October 2005).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
38. Claim 14 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-20 of copending Application No. 19/021,991 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with
Willis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0101835 A1, published 27 May 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
39. Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-20 of copending Application No. 19/021,991 in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claims 2 and 18 above, and further in combination with Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
40. Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,662,468 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006).
Both sets of claims are drawn to the same probes, mapping, mRNA, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘468 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘468 claims do not include generating the nucleic acid.
However, Ahmadian et al. teach this limitation, as well as the additional limitations described above and the rationale for combining. The claims are therefore obvious based on the citations and rational discussed above.
41. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,662,468 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, alternatively further in combination with Woudenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application US 2005/0048498 A1, published 3 March 2005) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
42. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,662,468 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
43. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,662,468 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
44. Claims 12 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,662,468 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claims 2 and 18 above, and further in combination with Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
45. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,662,468 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Erlander et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0239079 A1, published 27 October 2005).
46. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,662,468 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with
Willis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0101835 A1, published 27 May 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
47. Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,001,879 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006).
Both sets of claims are drawn to the same probes, tissue sections,, mRNA, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘879 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘879 claims do not include generating the nucleic acid.
However, Ahmadian et al. teach this limitation, as well as the additional limitations described above and the rationale for combining. The claims are therefore obvious based on the citations and rational discussed above.
48. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,001,879 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, alternatively further in combination with Woudenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application US 2005/0048498 A1, published 3 March 2005) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
49. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,001,879 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
50. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,001,879 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
51. Claims 12 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,001,8798B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claims 2 and 18 above, and further in combination with Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
52. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,001,879 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Erlander et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0239079 A1, published 27 October 2005).
53. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,001,879 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with
Willis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0101835 A1, published 27 May 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
54. Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-12, and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,549,138 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006).
Both sets of claims are drawn to the same probes, substrates, flow cells, mRNA, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘138 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘138 claims do not include generating the nucleic acid.
However, Ahmadian et al. teach this limitation, as well as the additional limitations described above and the rationale for combining. The claims are therefore obvious based on the citations and rational discussed above.
55. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,549,138 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, alternatively further in combination with Woudenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application US 2005/0048498 A1, published 3 March 2005) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
56. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,549,138 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
57. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,549,138 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Erlander et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0239079 A1, published 27 October 2005).
58. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,549,138 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with
Willis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0101835 A1, published 27 May 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
59. Claims 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,549,138 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in combination with Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
60. Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, 12, and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,761,030 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006).
Both sets of claims are drawn to the same probes, substrates, fiducials, mRNA, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘030 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘030 claims do not include generating the nucleic acid.
However, Ahmadian et al. teach this limitation, as well as the additional limitations described above and the rationale for combining. The claims are therefore obvious based on the citations and rational discussed above
61. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,761,030 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, alternatively further in combination with Woudenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application US 2005/0048498 A1, published 3 March 2005) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
62. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,761,030 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
63. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,761,030 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Schuster (Nature Methods, vol. 5, pages 16-18) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
64. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,761,030 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Erlander et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0239079 A1, published 27 October 2005).
65. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,761,030 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with
Willis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0101835 A1, published 27 May 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
66. Claims 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,761,030 B2 in view of in view of Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in combination with Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
67. Claims 2-5, 7, 11-12, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,980 B2 in view of in view of Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004).
Both sets of claims are drawn to the same probes, substrates, ligation, mRNA, etc. Any additional limitations of the ‘980 claims are encompassed by the open claim language “comprising” found in the instant claims.
The ‘980 claims do not include capture areas
However, Kincaid teaches this limitation, as well as the additional limitations described above and the rationale for combining. The claims are therefore obvious based on the citations and rational discussed above.
68. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,980 B2 in view of in view of Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004) as applied to claim 2 above, alternatively further in combination with Woudenberg et al. (U.S. Patent Application US 2005/0048498 A1, published 3 March 2005) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
69. Claims 8-10 and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,980 B2 in view of in view of Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004) as applied to claims 2 and 7 above, and further in combination with Ahmadian et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0088872 A1, published 27 April 2006) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
70. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,980 B2 in view of in view of Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Erlander et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0239079 A1, published 27 October 2005).
71. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,391,980 B2 in view of in view of Kincaid (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0186310 A1, published 2 October 2003) published 12 February 2004) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in combination with Willis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0101835 A1, published 27 May 2004) based on the citations and rationale provided above.
Conclusion
72. No claim is allowed.
73. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert T. Crow whose telephone number is (571)272-1113. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Anne Gussow can be reached at 571-272-6047. 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.
Robert T. Crow
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1683
/Robert T. Crow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1683