Applicant-InitiatedInterview Summary
`
`Examiner
`JAMES MARTINELL
`
`Art Unit
`1634
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`Application No.
`15/632,497
`
`Applicant(s)
`Foster et al.
`
`All participants (applicant, applicants representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1) JAMES MARTINELL.
`
`(2) Ms. Tandan.
`
`Date of Interview: 22 May 2019.
`
`(3) Dr. Zhang.
`
`(4)
`
`.
`
`Type:
`
`[:1 Video Conference
`Telephonic
`C] Personal [copy given to:
`C] applicant
`
`C] applicant's representative]
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted:
`If Yes, brief description:
`
`[:1 Yes
`
`No.
`
`.103 DOthers
`C1102
`IssuesDiscussed-101I112
`(For each of the checked box(es) above, please describe below the issue and detailed description of the discussion)
`
`Claim(s) discussed: 1—6 and 8—17.
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: Cohen et al gUS 2006/0014166 A1}.
`
`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...)
`
`Itwas a reed that chan in
`
`"the circulatin level of BDNF claim 4 wold be sufficient to overcome the re'ection under
`
`1121b) since the use of the definite article, the, would have no antecedent basis n the condition of claim 1 in which a
`circulating level of BDNF was not measured. In regard to the reiection under 101, applicants argued that the reiection
`should be withdrawn in view of the PEG gJanuaEy 2019) because of the addition of the treatment step which applicants
`argue is a practical application. Examiner indicated that the "pain treatment" step may be considered to be general
`
`and non—specific and may not meet the standard of being a practical step and will reconsider applicants' arguments
`and amendment in next Office action. Applicants argued that Cohen et al teaches away from using the measurement
`of glycodelin as a marker in the diagnosis of endometriosis, see Cohen et al at paragraphs 0011 and 0014. It was
`agreed that each of the 103 reiections would stand or fall with Cohen et al. Examiner will reconsider 103 reiections in
`light of applicants' arguments and amendments to claims..
`
`
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance of the interview. (See MPEP
`section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, applicant is given a non-extendable period of the longer of one month or
`thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substance of the
`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.
`
`[3 Attachment
`
`/JAMES MARTINELL/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1634
`
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PTOL-413 (Rev. 8/11/2010)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper NO. 20190526
`
`