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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 3-4,11-13, 25-26 and 28-29 are pending.
Applicants’ arguments, filed on 07/01/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103-Maintained
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection of claims 3-4,11-13, 25-26 and 28-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
1) Wheeler of record (U.S. Patent No. 5,662,953) in view of Yu of record (JAOCS, 2000);
2) Wheeler of record (U.S. Patent No. 5,662,953) in view of Yu of record (JAOCS, 2000) and Gonzalez of record (U.S. Pub. No. 20170127693); and
3) Wheeler of record (U.S. Patent No. 5,662,953) in view of Yu of record (JAOCS, 2000 and Scheppach of record (Gastroenterology, 1992),
is maintained for the reasons of record set forth in the previous Office action.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments/Remarks
Applicants raised several issues (see pages 4-7 of Remarks filed on 07/01/2026), alleging that instant claims are non-obvious over the cited prior art on the grounds that:
1) the Office incorrectly alleges that Yu teaches that bitter taste of short chain triglycerides (SCTG) was found to be reduced by the interesterification of SCTG with long chain fatty acids (LCFA). Please see pages 4-6 of Remarks.
Response:
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive. This is because, Yu discloses that SCTG (which encompasses tributyrin, see, e.g., Table 3 of Yu), had a bitter, unacceptable flavor and interesterification of SCTG with LCFA, resulted in triglycerides with excellent flavor (see, e.g., abstract and page 913, 2nd ¶ on right column). Similar to the Applicants’ invention (see, e.g., pages 9-10, 19, 23 and 25-26 of the specification), Yu discloses using high oleic sunflower oil for the interesterification of SCTG (see, e.g., abstract and pages 912-913).
Therefore, at the time of the instant invention, a person skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that triglycerides of Wheeler produced by the interesterification of tributyrin (SCTG) with LCFA, would have reduced bitterness, compared to tributyrin.
Obviousness requires only a reasonable expectation of success, not complete confidence in a given outcome; "at least some degree of predictability" is all that is required. M.P.E.P. § 2143.02.
The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02). F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Furthermore, the Examiner would like to directed the Applicants’ attention to MPEP § 2144.09(VII), which states:
“… a claimed compound may be obvious because it was suggested by, or structurally similar to, a prior art compound even though a particular benefit of the claimed compound asserted by patentee is not expressly disclosed in the prior art. It is the differences, in fact, in their respective properties which are determinative of nonobviousness. If the prior art compound does in fact possess a particular benefit, even though the benefit is not recognized in the prior art, applicant’s recognition of the benefit is not in itself sufficient to distinguish the claimed compound from the prior art. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc).”
In the instant case:
a) Applicants (see page 10 of Remarks filed on 05/13/2024 and instant specification at, for example, pages 8 and 19), discloses that the triglyceride compounds of the invention were generated by interesterification of tributyrin with LCFA. Wheeler also teaches that the inventive compounds were generated by interesterification of tributyrin with LCFA (see columns 6-7, 11-12, 17, 22 and 33-54).
b) Applicants disclosed and claimed use of a combination the triglyceride compounds as a source of butyrate, Wheeler discloses triglyceride compounds which are within the limitation of the claimed compounds and combinations thereof, as a source of butyrate. Please see previous Office action and reiteration above.
An inherent characteristic may “be part of the prior art in an obviousness analysis even if the inherent characteristic was unrecognized or unappreciated by a skilled artisan.” Endo Pharm. Sols., Inc. v. Custopharm Inc., 894 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, claim 3 is obvious over Wheeler and Yu.
2) Gonzalez and Scheppach cannot be employed to address the deficiency in the teachings of Wheeler and Yu because Wheeler and Yu fail to demonstrate that triglycerides of Wheeler produced by the interesterification of tributyrin (SCTG) with LCFA, would have reduced bitterness, compared to tributyrin (see pages 6-7 of Remarks).
Response:
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive. This is because the Applicants’ arguments appear to be reiteration of the arguments above, which have been addressed (see discussions above). Therefore, the use Gonzalez and Scheppach in order to address the deficiency in the teachings of Wheeler and Yu, is proper.
3) Applicants have surprisingly and unexpectedly discovered that compared to tributyrin, the claimed compounds (1) and (2) of instant claim 3, were found to release the maximum number of fatty acids per molecule (three times) and the release of butyrate is targeted to the GI tract. Applicants cite Example 5 of the specification, in support of the Applicants’ allegations. Please see page 7 of Remarks.
Response:
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not found to be persuasive. This is because a review of Example 5 of the specification, fails to reveal the identity of the specific compound(s) employed, which are within the compound limitation of compounds of claim 3 (by specifying R1, R2 and R3 in compounds (1) and (2) of claim 3), for any meaningful interpretation of the results.
Regarding the advantageous results alleged by the Applicants for rebutting the obviousness of claimed invention, please note that advantageous results alone are not sufficient for overcoming an obviousness. The results must be unexpected. For the establishment of unexpected results, a few notable principles are well settled. It is Applicants’ burden to explain any proffered data and establish how any results therein should be taken to be unexpected and significant. See MPEP 716.02 (b). The claims must be commensurate in the scope with any evidence of unexpected results (emphasis added). See MPEP 716.02 (d). Further, A DECLARATION UNDER 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art in order to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See, MPEP 716.02 (e).
In instant case, the alleged advantageous results are not commensurate in the scope with the instant claims because the instant invention (e.g., claim 3), is directed to a method for providing a source of butyrate, whereas, Applicants are arguing about the maximum number of fatty acids released per molecule and targeting the release of butyrate to the GI tract.
Furthermore, the Examiner would like to directed the Applicants’ attention to MPEP § 2144.09(VII), which states:
“… a claimed compound may be obvious because it was suggested by, or structurally similar to, a prior art compound even though a particular benefit of the claimed compound asserted by patentee is not expressly disclosed in the prior art. It is the differences, in fact, in their respective properties which are determinative of nonobviousness. If the prior art compound does in fact possess a particular benefit, even though the benefit is not recognized in the prior art, applicant’s recognition of the benefit is not in itself sufficient to distinguish the claimed compound from the prior art. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc).”
In the instant case:
a) Applicants (see page 10 of Remarks filed on 05/13/2024 and instant specification at, for example, pages 8 and 19), discloses that the triglyceride compounds of the invention were generated by interesterification of tributyrin with LCFA. Wheeler also teaches that the inventive compounds were generated by interesterification of tributyrin with LCFA (see columns 6-7, 11-12, 17, 22 and 33-54).
b) Applicants disclosed and claimed use of a combination the triglyceride compounds as a source of butyrate, Wheeler discloses triglyceride compounds which are within the limitation of the claimed compounds and combinations thereof, as a source of butyrate. Please see previous Office action and reiteration above.
An inherent characteristic may “be part of the prior art in an obviousness analysis even if the inherent characteristic was unrecognized or unappreciated by a skilled artisan.” Endo Pharm. Sols., Inc. v. Custopharm Inc., 894 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
It is noted that Applicants have not provided any evidence on the record which would support what appears to be the Applicants’ allegation compounds of Wheeler which are within the limitation of the claimed compounds and combinations thereof, would not have been expected to exhibit the same property of maximum number of fatty acids released per molecule and targeting the release of butyrate to the GI tract. For the reasons above, and those made of record in the previous Office action, the rejections are maintained.
Reiterated Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103-Maintained
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The rejection of claims 3 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler of record (U.S. Patent No. 5,662,953) in view of Yu of record (JAOCS, 2000), is maintained for the reasons of record set forth in the previous Office action, of which said reasons are here reiterated.
By way of a background, Applicants’ invention (see e.g., pages 1-10, 19, 25-26 of the specification and page10 of Remarks filed on 05/13/2024), is drawn to a method for producing triglycerides comprising interesterification of SCTG (tributyrin) with LCFA. Tributyrin has high bitter taste (see, e.g., page 2 of the specification). Interesterification of tributyrin (SCTG) with LCFA results in triglycerides with reduced bitterness, when compared to tributyrin (see, e.g., page 3 of the specification).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), consistent with the specification, Applicants’ invention is being interpreted as a method for providing a source of butyrate, comprising orally administering to an individual in need thereof, a composition comprising a compound of formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a compound of formula (2):
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein:
a) each of R1, R2, and R3 = a C16-C20 long chain fatty acid;
b) each of compound of formula (1) and compound of formula (2), is present in a in an amount of at least 10% by weight of total butyrate moiety:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, containing triglycerides in the composition; and
c) each of compound of formula (1) and compound of formula (2), has reduced bitterness in comparison to tributyrin.
Similar to the Applicants’ invention (see discussions above), Wheeler relates to mixtures enriched with one or more triglycerides having C16-C22 LCFA residues and C2-C4 short chain fatty acid (SCFA) residues and method for using the mixtures in edible compositions such as food products (see abstract). The triglycerides are similarly produced by the interesterification of SCTG (tributyrin) with LCFA (see e.g., columns 6-7, 11-12, 17, 22 and 33-54).
Specifically, Wheeler describes a genus of triglyceride butyrate source compounds comprising mixtures enriched with one or more triglycerides having both long, saturated fatty acid residues (“L”) and short acid residues (“S”):
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,where each R, independently, is a long chain saturated fatty acid residue having between C16 and C40, and each R’, independently, is a short chain acid residue having C2 to C5 carbons. Please see column 5, lines 37-64. A short chain acid of C4 would be butyrate moiety:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, recited in instant claim 3.
Wheeler exemplifies an embodiment of the invention, namely:
1) a mixture of 1-butyryl-2,3-distearoyl glyceride:
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, which is a compound of formula (2), wherein R2 = R3 = C18, and 2-ibutyryl-1,3-distearoyl glyceride:
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(see columns 24-25, example 2); and
2) a mixture of 1,2-dibutyryl-3-stearoyl glyceride:
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Applicants’ formula (4), see discussions above) and 1,3-dibutyryl-2-stearoyl glyceride:
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, which is a compound of formula (1), wherein R1 = C18. Please see column 26, example 5; and
3) Wheeler also teaches various formulations with sources of butyrate. Please see Examples 13 and 14, starting at column 29, line 57, through column 31, line 11.
Although Wheeler is not explicit in teaching a specific combination comprising a compound of formula (1) and a compound of formula (2), the claimed invention would have been obvious over Wheeler. This is because Wheeler teaches that mixtures are enriched with one or more triglycerides (see discussions above).
Therefore, at the time of the instant invention, a person skilled in the art would have understood that Wheeler envisioned a mixture enriched with one or more triglycerides such as SLS (formula (1)) and LLS (formula (2)). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have readily envisaged a mixture enriched with one or more triglycerides such as SLS (formula (1)) and LLS (formula (2)), from the Wheeler reference.
Claim 3 further requires that each of compound of formula (1) and compound of formula (2), is present in the composition in an amount of at least 10% by weight of total butyrate moiety containing triglycerides.
The specification (see page 9), discloses “fatty acid moiety” as the part of the triglyceride that originates from a fatty acid in an esterification reaction with glycerol and disclose that the triglycerides used in the present invention comprise at least one butyric acid moiety and at least one long chain fatty acid moiety.
Although Wheeler teaches that SSL and SLS species range at least about 75% by weight and that LLS and LSL species range between about 0.1 and about 25% by weight (see column 6, lines 28-32), Wheeler does not explicitly suggest the % weight of the butyrate moiety containing triglycerides in the composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that SLS (i.e., formula (1)) at 75% by weight and LLS (i.e., formula (2)) at 25% by weight would independently yield at least 10% by weight of the total butyrate moiety containing triglycerides in the composition.
Regarding the requirement that compounds of claim 3 have reduced bitterness in comparison to tributyrin, at the time of the instant invention, it was known in the art that bitter taste of SCTG (e.g., tributyrin), can be reduced by the interesterification of SCTG with LCFA.
For example, Yu discloses that SCTG (which encompasses tributyrin, see, e.g., Table 3 of Yu), had a bitter, unacceptable flavor and interesterification of SCTG with LCFA, resulted in triglycerides with excellent flavor (see, e.g., abstract and page 913, 2nd ¶ on right column). Similar to the Applicants’ invention (see, e.g., pages 9-10, 19, 23 and25-26 of the specification), Yu also discloses using high oleic sunflower oil for the interesterification of SCTG (see, e.g., abstract and pages 912-913).
Therefore, at the time of the instant invention, a person skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that triglycerides of Wheeler produced by the interesterification of tributyrin (SCTG) with LCFA, would have reduced bitterness, compared to tributyrin.
Obviousness requires only a reasonable expectation of success, not complete confidence in a given outcome; "at least some degree of predictability" is all that is required. M.P.E.P. § 2143.02.
The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02). F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, the Examiner would like to directed the Applicants’ attention to MPEP § 2144.09(VII), which states:
“… a claimed compound may be obvious because it was suggested by, or structurally similar to, a prior art compound even though a particular benefit of the claimed compound asserted by patentee is not expressly disclosed in the prior art. It is the differences, in fact, in their respective properties which are determinative of nonobviousness. If the prior art compound does in fact possess a particular benefit, even though the benefit is not recognized in the prior art, applicant’s recognition of the benefit is not in itself sufficient to distinguish the claimed compound from the prior art. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc).”
In the instant case:
a) Applicants (see page 10 of Remarks filed on 05/13/2024 and instant specification at, for example, pages 8 and 19), discloses that the triglyceride compounds of the invention were generated by interesterification of tributyrin with LCFA. Wheeler also teaches that the inventive compounds were generated by interesterification of tributyrin with LCFA (see columns 6-7, 11-12, 17, 22 and 33-54).
b) Applicants disclosed and claimed use of a combination the triglyceride compounds as a source of butyrate, Wheeler discloses triglyceride compounds which are within the limitation of the claimed compounds and combinations thereof, as a source of butyrate. Please see previous Office action and reiteration above.
An inherent characteristic may “be part of the prior art in an obviousness analysis even if the inherent characteristic was unrecognized or unappreciated by a skilled artisan.” Endo Pharm. Sols., Inc. v. Custopharm Inc., 894 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, claim 3 is obvious over Wheeler and Yu.
Regarding claims 11-13, Wheeler (see column 8, lines 37-53), states:
“R may be derived from any synthetic or natural, straight or branched saturated organic acid including, but not limited to, palmitic (hexadecanoic), Stearic (octadecanoic), arachidic (eicosanoic), behenic (docosanoic), lignoceric (tetracosaenoic), cerotic (hexacosanoic), montanic (octacosanoic), melissic (triacontanoic), and the like acids. R may also be derived by hydrogenating an unsaturated acid including, but not limited to, palmitoleic (9-hexadecenoic), oleic (cis-9-octadecenoic), elaidic (trans-9-octadecenoic), vaccenic (trans-11-octadecenoic), linoleic (cis, cis-9,12 octadecedienoic), linolenic (9,12,15-octadecatrienoic and 6,9,12-octadecatrienoic), eleostearic (9,11,13 octadecatrienoic), arachidonic (5,8,11,14-eicosatetraenoic), nervonic (cis-15-tetracosenoic), eicosapentaenoic, docosatetraenoic, docosapentaenoic, docosahexaenoic, and the like acids. Chemical names include isomeric variations.” Emphasis added.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a). From the teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Thus, the claims fail to patentably distinguish over the state of the art as represented by the cited reference.
The rejection of claims 3-4 and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler of record (U.S. Patent No. 5,662,953) in view of Yu of record (JAOCS, 2000), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Gonzalez of record (U.S. Pub. No. 20170127693), is maintained for the reasons of record set forth in the previous Office action, of which said reasons are here reiterated.
The limitations of claim 3, as well as the corresponding teachings of Wheeler and Yu are described above, and hereby incorporated into the instant rejection.
The invention of claims 4 and 25-26 are similar to claim 3, however, claims 4 and 25-26 differ slightly from claim 3 in that the claims require a composition that is: i) formulated in the form of a capsule, tablet, sachet or powder (claim 4); ii) an infant or follow-on formulation (claim 25); and iii) a dietary supplement (claim 26).
Wheeler and Yu differ from the claims 4 and 25-26 only insofar as the cited references do not combine to explicitly teach the limitation of claims 4 and 25-26.
However, the claimed inventions would have been obvious over Wheeler and Yu. This is because, Gonzalez discloses nutritional compositions comprising dietary butyrate, which may refer to liquids, powders, gels, pastes, solids, concentrates, suspensions, or ready-to-use forms of enteral formulas, oral formulas, formulas for infants, formulas for pediatric subjects, formulas for children, growing-up milks and/or formulas for adults (see ¶ 0012).
Accordingly, at the time of the instant invention, one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Wheeler, Yu and Gonzalez to arrive at a pharmaceutical composition to provide a source of butyrate in the form of: i) a capsule, tablet, sachet or powder (claim 4); ii) an infant or follow-on formulation (claim 25); and iii) a dietary supplement (claim 26).
Obviousness requires only a reasonable expectation of success, not complete confidence in a given outcome; "at least some degree of predictability" is all that is required. M.P.E.P. § 2143.02.
The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02). F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a). From the teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Thus, the claims fail to patentably distinguish over the state of the art as represented by the cited reference.
The rejection of claims 3 and 28-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler of record (U.S. Patent No. 5,662,953) in view of Yu of record (JAOCS, 2000), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Scheppach of record (Gastroenterology, 1992), is maintained for the reasons of record set forth in the previous Office action, of which said reasons are here reiterated.
The limitations of claim 3, as well as the corresponding teachings of Wheeler and Yu are described above, and hereby incorporated into the instant rejection.
The invention of claims 28-29 are similar to claim 3, however, claims 28-29 differ slightly from claim 3 in that the claims require that the individual has an inflammatory bowel disease (claim 28), such as Crohn’s disease or Ulcerative Colitis (claim 29).
Wheeler and Yu differ from the claims 28-29 only insofar as the cited references do not combine to explicitly teach the limitation of claims 28-29.
However, the claimed inventions would have been obvious over Wheeler and Yu, because at the tie of the instant invention, it was known in the art that Ulcerative Colitis can be treated with a butyrate composition. For example, Scheppach discloses a method for treating Ulcerative Colitis with a butyrate composition (see ¶ abstract and discussions therein).
Accordingly, at the time of the instant invention, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to administer a composition comprising combination of triglyceride butyrate source of Wheeler and Yu (see discussions above), to an individual suffering from Ulcerative Colitis, with a reasonable expectation of treating Ulcerative Colitis in the individual.
Obviousness requires only a reasonable expectation of success, not complete confidence in a given outcome; "at least some degree of predictability" is all that is required. M.P.E.P. § 2143.02.
The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02). F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a). From the teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Thus, the claims fail to patentably distinguish over the state of the art as represented by the cited reference.
Non-Statutory Obviousness-Type Double Patenting-Maintained
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection of claims 3-4,11-13, 25-26 and 28-29 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims:
i) 1-16 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/756,872;
ii) 1-16 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/756,871;
iii) 1-8 and 9-18 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/756,887;
iv) 1-18 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/595,330;
v) 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/595,539;
vi) 1-19 and 21 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/595,629;
vii) 1-18 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/595,567;
viii) 1-15 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/595,581;
ix) 1-16 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/595,516;
x) 1-19 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/595,451;
xi) 1-16 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/595,446;
xii) 1-16 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/595,363;
xiii) 1-18 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/416,577; and
xiv) 1-16 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/413,991,
is maintained for the reasons of record set forth in the previous Office action.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments/Remarks
Applicants have not properly addressed the specific grounds of rejections as discussed in the previous Office action setting. Applicants request that the obvious-type double patenting rejections be held in abeyance. Please see pages 8-9 of Remarks filed on 07/01/2026.
Response:
Applicants’ comments are acknowledged. However, the rejections will be maintained until a terminal disclaimer is filed or the claims are amended to obviate the rejections.
Conclusion
No claim is allowable.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM D BORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7020. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM(EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFFREY S LUNDGREN can be reached on 571-272-5541. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IBRAHIM D BORI/
Examiner, Art Unit 1629
/JEFFREY S LUNDGREN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1629
Prosecution Insights