Examiner-Initiated Interview Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`15/729,564
`
`Examiner
`
`BANYAI et al.
`
`Art Unit
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`
`Yes
`1639
`KAIJIANG ZHANG
`
`
`All participants (applicant, applicant’s representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1) KAIJIANG ZHANG.
`
`(2) David Harburger.
`
`Date of Interview: 31 January 2020.
`
`Type:
`
`B Video Conference
`Telephonic
`[:1 Personal [copy given to: Cl applicant [3 applicant's representative]
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted: C] Yes
`
`No.
`
`If Yes, brief description:
`
`Others
`103
`CI 102
`CI 112
`C] 101
`Issues Discussed
`(For each of the checked b0x(es) above, please describe below the issue and detailed description of the discussion)
`
`Claim(s) discussed: 1,4—5,7—15,18—24,26—32 and 34—39.
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Church et aI. gWO 2012/154201 A12.
`
`Substance of Interview
`(For each issue discussed, provide a detailed description and indicate if agreement was reached. Some topics may include: identification or clarification of a reference
`or a portion thereof, claim interpretation, proposed amendments, arguments of any applied references etc...)
`
`See Continuation Sheet.
`
`
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: If is not necessary for applicant to provide a separate record of the substance of interview.
`
`Examiner recordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substance of any interview of record. A complete and proper recordation of the
`substance of an interview should include the items listed in MPEP 713.04 for complete and proper recordation including the identification of the general
`thrust of each argument or issue discussed, a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the general results or
`outcome of the interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the issues raised.
`
`[:1 Attachment
`
`/KAIJIANG ZHANG/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1639
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-41BB (Rev. 8/11/2010)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper NO- 20200204
`
`

`

`Continuation Sheet (PTOL-413B)
`
`Application No. 15/729,564
`
`Continuation of Substance of Interview including description of the general nature of what was agreed
`to if an agreement was reached, or any other comments: In an effort to expedite prosecution, the
`examiner initiated the telephone interview to discuss possible rejoinder of the method claims (which
`require all the limitations of claim 1) and cancellation of the product claims to place the application in
`condition for allowance. Specifically, applicant's argument that Church et al. do not teach the feature
`that "the at least 20,000 polynucleotides encode sequences with an aggregate error rate of less than
`1 in 1000 bases compared to the preselected cDNA sequences" would be persuasive should such
`feature be recited in a method claim (instead of the product claim 1 where such recited feature does
`NOT impose any "structural" limitation on the polynucleotides in the claimed library because the
`structure of each polynucleotide is ONLY defined by its specific nucleotide sequence but NOT how it’s
`made). Although Dr. Harburger did not necessarily agree with the Office's interpretation of claim 1
`with respect to the recitation "the at least 20,000 polynucleotides encode sequences with an
`aggregate error rate of less than 1 in 1000 bases compared to the preselected cDNA sequences", Dr.
`Harburger agreed to have the method claims rejoined and allowed while having the product claims
`canceled to expedite prosecution of the instant application. During the interview, amendments to
`some of the method claims were also discussed, including the incorporation of the limitation "without
`error correction" from claim 38 to claim 24. At the end of the interview, Dr. Harburger gave an oral
`authorization for an examiner's amendment to amend the claims accordingly.
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket