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 .
This office action is written in response to the Applicants Remarks filed 8/20/25. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-33 are pending. Claims 6 and 12 were previously cancelled. Claims 30-32 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-29, and 33 have been examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-24, 26, 28-29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giridhar et al. (WO 2017/027528) in view of Woelfel (WO 2019/014631) as evidenced by Renwick et al. (US 2018/0221332) and in further view of Kottayil et al. (US 2009/0181080).
Regarding Claims 1 and 23: ----Giridhar discloses a method of adding dropwise an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) onto a substrate [abstract]. Giridhar discloses application in a plurality of microdroplets and microdosing [abstract; 0085]. Giridhar discloses that the substrate is edible [0032; 0043; 0062]. Giridhar discloses bringing the edible substrate to a nozzle and then dispensing the desired amount of API [0009; 0049; 0058]. Giridhar discloses drops having a microliter amount of between 1µl and 50 µl [0046]. Giridhar discloses that the mass of the API is 0.01mg (10µg) to 65mg [0046]. The amount of API in Giridhar is overlapping with the claimed amount of 50µg/µL to 1mg/µL of solution where Giridhar can disclose 10µg/µL to 65mg/µL. Giridhar discloses that the API can be a BCS Class II pharmaceutical [0040]. Giridhar discloses that examples of fluids that can be microdosed using microdroplets include solutions, colloids, melts, suspensions, and emulsions [0034].
Giridhar does not disclose addition to a food product.
Giridhar does not disclose that the API containing liquid includes a cannabinoid.
Woelfel discloses a method of making cannabinoid and placing it in or on a food product in amounts of 0.1 to 50% by weight [051- 054]. The product can be in the form of an emulsion having a droplet size of less than 2 microns to 500 nm and 100 nm to 1.4 [061]. Woelfel discloses micro doses [099].
Renwick teaches that cannabinoids are BCS Class II drugs [0064].
Kottayil discloses oral cannabinoid formulations in the form of solutions, suspensions, drops, emulsions, gel, syrups, elixir or other dosage forms [0019; 0021; 0105; 0270]. Kottayil discloses a solution comprising cannabinoid for oral administration [0063; 0094]. Kottayil discloses pre-metering the amounts [0250]. Kottayil discloses administration for the absorption in the gastrointestinal tract of humans [0040].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the API of Giridhar to include cannabinoids as in Woelfel and Kottayil since Giridhar discloses the method as appropriate for Class II drugs and since Renwick teaches cannabinoids as Class II drugs. Further, it would have been obvious to modify the edible substrate of Giridhar to include food products as in Woelfel since it was known to use cannabis in food and beverages. Further it would have been obvious that the cannabinoid would have been provided in the form of a solution since Giridhar discloses providing Class II drugs in solution form and since Kottayil discloses that to provide the cannabinoids in particular can be provided not only in the form of solutions, suspensions, drops, emulsions, gel, syrups, elixir but in the form of a solution.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the date of the of the claimed invention to use known methods of adding API and cannabis to foods, since the methods of using microdosing was known, and it was known to use such in foods. One of ordinary skill in the art before the date of invention would have an expectation of success, since it was known to microdose cannabinoids into foods as disclosed above.
Although Giridhar does not explicitly disclose 50µg/µL to 1mg/µL of solution, one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Giridhar overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claims 2 and 33: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses drops emitting from a nozzle by gravitational force [0046]. The use of a vertical direction of travel along the direction of travel, would have been within the skill of the ordinary worker to use these processes to arrive at dosing microdroplets using an array of dosing heads onto a food product.
Regarding Claim 3: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 2. Giridhar discloses nozzles in the plural sense [0032; 0068; 0078]. Giridhar discloses microdosing onto a food product. The use of a direction of travel along the direction of travel, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary worker to use these processes to arrive at dosing microdroplets using an array of dosing heads onto a food product.
Regarding Claim 4: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 3. Giridhar discloses that the drops can be delivered such that multiple different APIs can be delivered onto a food [0058; 0059]. This would render obvious a first delivery of a first API and a second delivery of a second API.
Regarding Claim 5: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 3. Giridhar discloses that the API liquids contain a solvent [0034; claims 1-4, 56].
Regarding Claim 7: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses that the mass of the API is 0.01mg (10µg) to 65mg in a microdroplet [0046].
Although Giridhar does not explicitly disclose API in a range approximately 0.1 µg to approximately 10 mg require particular amounts of microdroplets, one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Giridhar overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 8-10: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses drops having a microliter amount of between 1µl and 50 µl [0046]. Giridhar does not disclose wherein each of the microdroplets has a volume that is in a range from approximately 2 nanoliters to approximately 10 microliters (claim 8); wherein the volume is in a range from 25 nanoliters to approximately 2 microliters (claim 9); wherein the volume is in a range from approximately 50 nanoliters to approximately 1 microliter (claim 10).
Although Giridhar does not explicitly disclose approximately 2 nanoliters to approximately 10 microliters (claim 8); wherein the volume is in a range from 25 nanoliters to approximately 2 microliters (claim 9); wherein the volume is in a range from approximately 50 nanoliters to approximately 1 microliter, one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Giridhar overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 11: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses a variability of drops measured by relative standard deviation and that it is within 5%, 4%, 3%, 2%, 1%, [0046].
Regarding Claim 13: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar does not disclose wherein the food product is cooked prior to the bringing step.
Woelfel discloses applying cannabinoids to baked products such as brownies, cakes, muffins and cookies and soup [0100].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Giridhar to include the step of applying to cooked food as in Woelfel in order to provide the cannabinoids to desserts and other treats and soup.
Regarding Claim 14: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 13. Giridhar discloses using a staging mechanism that is in the position to receive a drop and that the stage contains the comestible/substrate and that the substrate is moved in relation to the nozzle [0057; 0058] and therefore discloses performing a bringing step. Giridhar does not disclose a step of cooking and then transporting. However, cooking a food product is well known as it would have been obvious to transport cooked food to the microdosing station.
Regarding Claim 15: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar does not disclose that the food product is a dried fruit or nut.
Woelfel discloses incorporation of cannabinoid into or onto nuts and dried fruit [017; 0100].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Giridhar to include the application of the cannabinoids onto nuts and dried fruit as in Woelfel in order to provide the benefits of cannabis in a readily edible food product or snack food.
Regarding Claim 16: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar does not disclose that the food product is a gummy candy.
Woelfel discloses the incorporation of cannabinoid in to gummy products, gummies, and candies [006; 064; 0100].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Giridhar to include the application of the cannabinoids onto gummies as in Woelfel in order to provide the benefits of cannabis in a readily edible food product or snack food.
Regarding Claim 17: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1.
Giridhar discloses multiple substrates and delivering the microdroplets to the substate [0034]. As modified by Giridhar food is the substrate.
Regarding Claim 18: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses multiple substrates and delivering the microdroplets to the substate [0034]. As modified by Giridhar food is the substrate. Giridhar discloses that the drops can be delivered such that multiple different APIs can be delivered onto a food [0058; 0059].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to deliver the composition to different substations depending on what had to be administered to the substrate, and to use various hoppers as in any food product line.
Regarding Claim 19: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 18. Giridhar discloses that the drops can be delivered such that multiple different APIs can be delivered onto a food [0058; 0059].
Regarding Claim 20: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses multiple substrates and delivering the microdroplets to the substate [0034]. As modified by Giridhar food is the substrate. Giridhar discloses that the drops can be delivered such that multiple different APIs can be delivered onto a food [0058; 0059].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to deliver the composition to different substations depending on what had to be administered to the substrate, and to use various hoppers as in any food product line.
However, the dosing stations have been discussed above, it is known to treat ingredients at particular stations that can be different.
Regarding Claim 21: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 20. Giridhar discloses that the drops can be delivered such that multiple different APIs can be delivered onto a food [0058; 0059].
Regarding Claim 22: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses a pure API [00110].
Woelfel discloses a process of making pure API which can be a cannabinoid [0037].
Regarding Claim 24: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses that the drops can be delivered such that multiple different APIs can be delivered onto a food [0058; 0059].
Regarding Claim 26: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses heating of a substrate to effect evaporation of the solvent and that this effects the dissolution and subsequently the bioavailability of the drug [0050; 0051; 0052; 0061]. Giridhar discloses fast evaporating to yield an amorphous active ingredient and that this form is more soluble than crystalline form [0051-0053]. Thus Giridhar discloses post-processing the food product, wherein post-processing increases absorption of the API into the food product.
Regarding Claim 27: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses heating the mixture of API in order to liquefy the mixture [0036]. This is indicative of a lowered viscosity as the API is liquefied and therefore thinner.
Regarding Claim 28: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses that the microdroplets can be delivered such that multiple different APIs can be delivered onto a food and that they can be delivered such that each drop can avoid interactions [0058; 0059]. Therefore Giridhar discloses the step of delivering microdroplets of the API-containing liquid at different respective locations in a dosing zone of the food product.
Regarding Claim 29: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar does not disclose wherein the cannabinoid is an extract from a marijuana plant, hemp plant, or any alternative cannabinoid alone or in combination with one or more of a flavonoid or terpene.
Woelfel discloses cannabinoid extracts derived from a natural cannabis source/ cannabis plant matter (marijuana/hemp) [0030; 0041].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Giridhar to include extract derived from marijuana or hemp as in Woelfel in order to utilize a natural source of cannabis.
Regarding Claim 33: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses using a staging mechanism that is in the position to receive a drop and that the stage contains the food/substrate and that the substrate is moved in relation to the nozzle [0057; 0058]. Claim 33, requires that the dosing head is aligned with the food product along the direction of travel. Certainly the food product would have had to be aligned, so it would not miss the target as is done in Giridhar. It would have been within the skill of the ordinary worker to align in such a manner.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giridhar et al. (WO 2017/027528) in view of Woelfel (WO 2019/014631) as evidenced by Renwick et al. (US 2018/0221332) and in further view of Kottayil et al. (US 2009/0181080) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Bush et al. (WO99/42000).
Regarding Claim 14: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 13. Giridhar discloses using a staging mechanism that is in the position to receive a drop and that the stage contains the comestible/substrate and that the substrate is moved in relation to the nozzle [0057; 0058] and therefore discloses performing a bringing step. Giridhar does not disclose a step of cooking and then transporting.
Bush discloses cooking a food product and then after cooking transporting it to have a liquid applied to the food [abstract; claim 1].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Giridhar to incorporate the step of cooking and transporting to an area for receiving liquid as in Bush in order to achieve immediate and efficient application of the cannabinoid after cooking .
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giridhar et al. (WO 2017/027528) in view of Woelfel (WO 2019/014631) as evidenced by Renwick et al. (US 2018/0221332) and in further view of Kottayil et al. (US 2009/0181080) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Moore (US 2017/0196923).
Regarding Claim 25: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses providing an edible substrate and moving it to have the API deposited and then [0058; 0071]. Giridhar does not explicitly disclose wherein the bringing step comprises causing the food product to travel from a hopper to a first location of a delivery member, move along the delivery member from the first location to a second location, performing the delivery step at the second location, and subsequently moving the food product from the second location to a third location whereby the food product is transported to a packaging station, wherein the delivery member, the dosing station, and the packaging station are included in a stand-alone unitary dosing machine supported by a common support structure of the machine.
Moore discloses a method of making a cannabis hemp paste that is cooked and blended [abstract]. Moore discloses conveying food products through various steps of the process [0021; 0043]. Moore discloses packaging the food products [0015-0018; 0040]. Moore discloses all of the steps in a single location [0040].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Giridhar to include the step of conveying food to be packaged as in Moore in order to better preserve the food product and to provide it in a saleable form. Further, it would have been obvious to provide the conveying from one step to another in a single location as in Moore in order to expedite processing and the distribution of the food product.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giridhar et al. (WO 2017/027528) in view of Woelfel (WO 2019/014631) as evidenced by Renwick et al. (US 2018/0221332) and in view of Kottayil et al. (US 2009/0181080) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Flora et al. (US 2018/0140965).
Regarding Claim 27: Giridhar as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Giridhar discloses heating the mixture of API in order to liquefy the mixture [0036].
Giridhar does not explicitly disclose lowering the viscosity of API.
Flora discloses a cannabinoid oil that is heated up and then the viscosity is decreased [0089].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious that the method of Giridhar would have resulted in lowered viscosity since Flora discloses that heating a liquid cannabinoid oil lowered viscosity.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
9. The Applicants assert that the only reference that discloses a cannabinoid solution is Kottayil and that the range of dosage in Kottayil is below the instantly claimed range. The Applicants assert that Giridhar discloses active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) including nonsteroid anti-inflammatories, painkillers, cytotoxic drugs and anti-depressants and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Giridhar and equate those APIs with cannabinoids.
The Examiner disagrees since cannabinoids are associated with helping to calm inflammation, pain, stress, and anxiety [Woelfel et al. pg. 9 para 0027; pg. 10 , para 028]. Since pain, inflammation, stress, and anxiety are conditions that Giridhar aims to alleviate, one would look to Giridhar in administering cannabinoids since cannabinoids are able to provide the same type of pharmaceutical relief. Further, secondary reference Kottayil rendered obvious the inclusion of the claimed cannabinoid in the form of a solution. Primary reference Giridhar disclosed APIs as including the category of BCS Class II pharmaceuticals which are provided microdosed using microdroplets in the form of solutions, colloids, melts, suspensions, and emulsions. The combination of Kottayil’s cannabinoid in solution and Giridhar’s API in solution rendered obvious the limitation of microdroplet solutions containing cannabinoid.
10. The Applicants assert that Giridhar discloses an infinitely broad range and therefore renders the range meaningless and is so broad that it fails to invite optimization. The Applicants assert that the concentration of cannabinoids in the instant claims are critical, narrow, and focused. The Applicants assert that the recited range is critical to accurate dosing and dispensability of the cannabinoid.
The Examiner disagrees because Giridhar discloses using amounts disclosed by the Applicants. Applicant have not shown any criticality in the claimed amounts. Further, the amounts disclosed in Giridhar are not infinitely broad, there being an expressly disclosed starting minimum and final maximum amount of API in a similar dosage range as instantly claimed. The range in Giridhar is disclosed as being acceptable for providing pharmaceutical relief and discloses advantages of dropwise microdosing in order to personalize drug therapy and to enhance safety by using smaller amounts of hazardous or potent APIs [0033].
The Applicants further assert that Giridhar needs to deliver 2000 drops in order to dose one 10 milligram of API. The Applicants assert Giridhar is “unable to deliver microdroplets of cannabinoid solution”. The Applicants assert discloses Giridhar as having an infinite range and at the same time discloses it as having a finite range. The Applicants assert that higher amounts of API per drop are unattainable using viscous API.
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants assertions. The Examiner maintains that Giridhar is overlapping with the ranges of the quantity of API in a microdroplet, and of the volume of each microdroplet, and therefore meets the limitations. Applicants appear to complicate the matter of dosing in order to overcome Giridhar. However, in Giridhar it is clear that the range of 10µg/µL to 65mg/µL overlaps with the claimed ranged and that a µL droplet of Giridhar can contain 50 µg/µl to 1mg of API. It is not enough to argue criticality by emphasizing that the prior art is broader than a claimed range.
Further, regarding the state of the cannabinoid, it is noted that at least independent claim 1 does not rely on the viscosity of the cannabinoid. Giridhar does anticipate the use of viscous APIs and discloses reducing the viscosity. Further, the 325 mg API per drop is outside of the range claimed by Applicants. It is not clear why the range would be relied upon by Applicants to show that viscous cannabinoid in these amounts is unattainable. The amount of 325mg/5µl drop is not even within the scope of the instant invention. Applicants rely on high ends and low ends of Giridhar to somehow show that Giridhar does not render the claim obvious. The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation and use of Giridhar and maintains that it renders obvious the recited ranges. Applicants arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
9. The Applicants assert that Giridhar does not address the problems solved by accurate dosing considering the viscosity of cannabinoids.
The Examiner disagrees. Giridhar discloses that the invention may be used with any active ingredient that can be prepared as a fluid [0041]. Giridhar acknowledges that APIs can be viscous and that drop dynamics in microdosing are affected by surface tension and viscosity [0045]. Giridhar discloses that it is preferable to use an API with a viscosity of 20 mPas (2,000 cP) or less. Further Giridhar acknowledges difficulties in using nozzles and that there may be melt hardening during the process of deposition, so it discloses temperature control by heating or holding the apparatus and reservoir at greater than ambient temperatures to prevent hardening of the API [0048]. Further, secondary reference Woelfel speaks to lowering the viscosity of cannabinoids in order to make them easier to apply to substrates [0016; 0064; 0072] and Kottayil discloses using viscosity modifiers in solution with cannabinoids [abstract; 0085; 0173; 0204; 0206]. Further, Finley (WO 2017091764) discloses cannabis oil as highly viscous and discloses mixing with vitamin E oil to reduce viscosity [0004; 0236]. Finley discloses that vitamin E is sufficient to reduce the viscosity to about 3,500 cp or less [0006; 0129; 0130]. Finley discloses that the cannabis compositions can be administered by ingesting [0183-0185;0188].
10. The Applicants assert that there was no motivation to combine the references because the reliance on Renwick was improper.
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants assertion. Renwick was incorporated as a teaching reference to show that it was known that cannabinoids (as disclosed in Woelfel) are BCS Class II drugs. BCS Class II drugs were disclosed as used in the invention of primary reference Giridhar. Further, Applicants argument suggests that an anticipatory rejection need be made to meet their claim limitation. This is not true. Giridhar’s disclosure of microdosing BCS Class II drugs coupled with Renwick’s teaching that cannabinoids are BCS class II drugs and the disclosure of microdosing cannabinoids in Woelfel is sufficient motivation to combine the references and render the claims obvious. Giridhar, in disclosing BCS Class II drugs discloses that even drugs that have dissolution challenges are within the purview of the invention.
11. The Applicants assert that there was no motivation to combine the references because the reliance of Woelfel was improper. The Applicants assert that the droplet sizes disclosed in Woelfel are not the size that are delivered to the edible/substrate.
The Examiner disagrees because Woelfel clearly disclosed providing cannabinoids in droplet form. The only thing lacking in primary reference Giridhar was the explicit disclosure of a cannabinoid. Woelfel was incorporated for its disclosure of cannabinoids in droplet form, for its teaching of medicinal purposes and for its teaching of their addition to a substrate. Woelfel disclosed cannabinoids and motivation to combine was provided by showing it has been used like the APIs of Giridhar, i.e. in droplet form and applied to or in food as a substrate. The Examiner also points out that the Woelfel droplet sizes were not relied upon and were only referenced to establish that it was known to supply cannabinoids in droplet form for application to a food/substrate. However, the Examiner does disagree with Applicants assertions regarding the size of the droplet based on the disclosures of Woelfel [061-063].
12. The Applicants assert that Woelfel and Renwick teach away from a cannabinoid solution.
A prior art reference that "teaches away" from the claimed invention is a significant factor to be considered in determining obviousness; however, "the nature of the teaching is highly relevant and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, "the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although Woelfel discloses that cannabinoid compounds can create ‘oil slicks’ this does not equate to a teaching away from a cannabinoid solution.
Further, the examiner notes that the cannabinoid solution was disclosed in Kottayil.
11. Regarding the rejections of claims 14, 25, and 27 the Applicants assert that the rejections in further view of Bush, Moore, and Flora, respectively should be withdrawn because the patentability of claim 1 and therefore claims 14, 25, and 27 were established.
The Examiner disagrees for the reasons discussed above.
12. The Examiner maintains the rejections for the rejections for the reasons discussed above.
Pertinent Prior Art
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. David Schiable "A Look into the World of Cannabinoid Formulation" https://www.tabletscapsules.com/3641-Technical-Articles/598566-Formulation-Regulation-A-Look-into-the-World-of-Cannabinoid-Formulation/October 2017 discloses cannabinoids as API and discloses formulating the API [pg. 3-7].
Conclusion
14. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA C TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/Felicia C Turner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights