DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Application, Amendments and/or Claims
2. The amendment of 8/14/2025 has been entered in full. Claims 1, 7-9 and 12 have been amended. Claim 21 is cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 22, 25-26 and 29-31 are currently pending.
3. Claim 31, is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 28 October 2024.
4. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 22, 25-26 and 29-30, drawn to a method of treating depression comprising identifying a subject with a depressive disorder and administering a composition comprising botulinum toxin to the subject, are under examination in the instant application.
Withdrawn Objection/Rejection
5. Upon consideration of cancellation of claim 21, the objection is withdrawn.
6. Upon consideration of appropriate amendment of claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph has been withdrawn.
7. Upon consideration of amendment of claims, thereby changing the scope of claim 1 and dependent claims therefrom, the rejections under 102(e) are withdrawn.
Rejections Maintained
Double Patenting
Non-Statutory
8. 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).
9. 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).
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 22, 25-26 and 29-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US Patent 8,926,991 in view of Blumenfeld I (2004) or Blumenfeld II (2004). The rejection is maintained for reasons of record in Office Action dated 2/14/2025. It is noted that previously rejected claim 21 is currently canceled.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in each case the claims are directed to treating subjects having a symptom of sleep disturbance or insomnia (symptom of depression) comprising administering botulinum toxin in the form of immunotypes A-G to said subjects, wherein the administration is multifocal in the face, neck and scalp regions.
The only difference between the two sets of claims is:
Instant claims recite treating depression or a symptom of depression, while ‘991 claims do not mention treating depression. However, this would be obvious in view of Blumenfeld I and Blumenfeld II, which teach that depression is known to have symptoms of decreased sleep (like insomnia), and botulinum toxin treatment reduces lethargy and insomnia by improving energy levels and sleep (see paras 24, 27 of this action).
13. Therefore, the instant claims are not patentably distinct over the issued claims in U.S. patent 8,926,991.
14. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 22, 25-26 and 29-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of US patent 10,441,641. The rejection is maintained for reasons of record in Office Action dated 2/14/2025. It is noted that previously rejected claim 21 is currently canceled.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in each case the claims are directed to treating depression and sleep disorder by injecting botulinum toxin to said subjects, wherein the administration is multifocal in the neck, forehead and scalp regions. Even though the ‘641 patent claims do not recite the limitations of instant claim 15, the patent teaches that injections that are subcutaneous or non-intramuscular in the forehead, scalp and neck and other areas of the face would comprise subcutaneous or intraperitoneal (i.e., non-intramuscular), so as to maximize hypophyseal drainage (col 7, para 1). The ‘641 claims therefore, anticipate the instant method claims.
15. Therefore, the instant claims are not patentably distinct over the issued claims in U.S. patent 10,441,641.
16. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15,17-18, 22, 25-26, 29-30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 25 of co-pending application number 18/540,403 in view of Jan et al (Dev Med Child Neurol 46: 776-782, 2004), and Au et al (Ann Acad Med Singapore 33: 324-8, 2004). The rejection is maintained for reasons of record in Office Action dated 2/14/2025. It is noted that previously rejected claim 21 is currently canceled. Also, claims 13-24 and 26-30 of the ‘403 application have been cancelled.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in each case the claims are directed to treating a subject having a symptom of depression such as insomnia (e.g., sleep onset insomnia or DSPD), comprising administering botulinum toxin to said subjects, wherein the administration is multifocal, and the delivery is by non-intramuscular (e.g., transdermal, subcutaneous etc.) routes.
The only difference between the two sets of claims is:
Instant claims recite treating depression having symptoms comprising sleep disorder or insomnia, while ‘403 claims recite treating a spastic disorder and a sleep disorder. However, this would be obvious in view of the teachings of Jan et al and Au et al. Jan et al teach that children with multiple disabilities including cerebral palsy (spastic disorder) have a high prevalence of circadian rhythm sleep disorders (CRSD) with sleep difficulties (page 776, col 1, para 1; col 2, para 1), indicating that spasticity and sleep disorders are comorbid conditions. Au et al teach that 65% of hemifacial spasm (spastic disorder) patients have depression, adding that an effective treatment using botulinum toxin should be provided (Abstract). The teachings of the combined references therefore, suggest that spasticity, depression and sleep disorders co-exist in the same subject, and can be treated with botulinum toxin.
17. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
18. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 22, 25-26, 29 and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 12, 16, 17, 20-21, 24-27 of co-pending application number 17/135,938 in view of Sheftell et al (Headache 42: 934-944, 2002), and Schlesinger et al (Headache 41:586-589, 2001). The rejection is maintained for reasons of record in Office Action dated 2/14/2025. It is noted that previously rejected claim 21 is currently canceled. Also claim 28 of the ‘938 application has been canceled.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in each case the claims are directed to treating a subject having a symptom of depression such as insomnia, comprising administering botulinum toxin to said subjects, wherein the administration is multifocal in the face, neck, scalp and periocular regions and the delivery is by subdermal or non-intramuscular (subcutaneous) routes, wherein the administering maximizes uptake by a portal hypophyseal drainage.
The only differences between the two sets of claims are:
i) ‘938 claims recite treating a pain syndrome and a sleep disorder in a subject, while instant claims do not recite treating a pain syndrome. However, this would be obvious in view of the teachings of Sheftell et al. Sheftell et al teach that depression patients also exhibit pain syndrome and the two conditions are comorbid (page 938, col 1, para 2; col 2, para 1).
ii) ‘938 claims recite treating pain syndromes like CR or whiplash, while instant claims do not have this limitation. However, this would be obvious as the ‘938 PGPB teaches treating pain syndromes like CR and whiplash using botulinum toxin (para 0028).
iii) ‘938 claims recite treating sleep disorder and a pain syndrome in a subject, while instant claims do not recite treating both conditions in the same subject. However, Schlesinger et al teach that sleep disorder is associated with whiplash injury, wherein the number of arousals (sleep maintenance disorder) in whiplash injured persons are positively correlated with the intensity of the injury. The reference also teaches that sleep efficiency is inversely correlated with the number of injury findings (Abstract). Since pain and sleep disorder coexist in a subject with both whiplash and CR, treating said subject by administration of botulinum toxin would be obvious.
iv) ‘938 claims recite that the composition comprises a polycationic protein and no human blood products, while this limitation is missing in the instant claims. However, this is contemplated in the instant application (para 0036 of PGPB).
19. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
NOTE: No arguments were presented against the double patenting rejections, which means that the present amendment is not fully responsive [MPEP 714.03]. However, in the interest of advancing prosecution in a timely manner, the rejections are reconsidered. The rejections have not been overcome by amendment or the filing of an approved terminal disclaimer, and therefore, have been maintained.
Please note that provisional rejections over applications 18/521,777 and 18/455,179 are withdrawn as the applications have been abandoned.
New Rejections – necessitated by amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
20. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
21. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
22. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 22, 25-26 and 29-30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Blumenfeld US Patent 8,734,810, filed 10/12/2004 (will be referred to as Blumenfeld I in this Office Action).
23. The claims recite a method of treating depression (major depression) comprising identifying a subject with one or more symptoms of depressive disorder and directly injecting botulinum toxin type A by subdermal and non-intramuscular modes, in at least two injection sites, first being located in the neck and a second located in the face or scalp, in effective amounts (claims 1, 3, 7-9, 12, 17-18, 25-26, 29-30), wherein the injection is at least at two sites or is multifocal (claims 5-6), wherein the injection blocks a neurotransmitter (claim 10); and the symptom of depression is one from claim 22. The claims also recite administering botulinum toxin to a periocular region of the face, and further comprises administering the toxin to locations for maximum uptake by a portal hypophyseal drainage (claims 13, 15).
24. Blumenfeld I teaches treating neurological disorders including depression and having mood disorder symptoms (such as in minor depression), comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of botulinum toxin subdermally and non-intramuscularly (abstract; col 5, lines 33; col 7, para 2, 3; col 15, lines 52-53, Example 10; claims 11-18), wherein the botulinum is from Clostridium genus and is of types A-G (col 20, para 3; claim 12), wherein the botulinum toxin type A is from the Hall strain (col 14, lines 20-21) (instant claims 1, 3, 12, 17-18, 25, 29-30). Even though the reference does not explicitly teach identifying a subject with one or more symptoms of depression, the reference method is teaching treating depression by administering the toxin, which would have inherently followed the step of identifying the patient population requiring such treatment. The reference teaches that depression can have symptoms of decreased sleep (like insomnia) (col 7, para 2) (instant claim 22).
Because the trigeminal nerves and branches thereof have endings in the face including around the eyes or periocular, neck and scalp regions and forehead (col 8, lines 46-51; col 9, para 1; col 24, lines 66, 67; Figure 2), peripheral injections of botulinum to the vicinity of trigeminal nerves and its branches would inherently imply administration to these regions (col 29, para 4; col 19, para 4) (instant claims 7-9, 13). The reference also teaches that the administration is at multiple injection sites (or multifocal) (col 21, lines 43-44) (instant claims 5-6). The reference further teaches that the toxin by peripheral administration alleviates the symptoms of the neuropsychiatric disease by reducing the secretion of a neurotransmitter like acetylcholine (col 20, para 2; col 29, lines 32-36) or glutamate (col 18, lines 29-30) (instant claim 10). Furthermore, the reference teaches local or direct administration of the toxin (col 19, para 1) (instant claim 26). It is understood that administration to the vicinity of trigeminal nerves would inherently result in increased uptake by a portal hypophyseal drainage, as the trigeminal nerves are anatomically linked to the hypothalamus and pituitary gland by neurovascular connections, and the hypophyseal portal system neurovascularly links the hypothalamus with the pituitary (instant claim 15). Blumenfeld I (col 8, 9) therefore, not only teaches that the trigeminal nerve has sensory and motor nerve branches from the cranium passing the forehead skin and reaching different sites like the face, nasal cavity, neck, etc.,, the reference also teaches peripheral (subdermal or non-intramuscular) administration to a vicinity or site of a trigeminal sensory nerve (e.g., mandibular, maxillary, supra orbital, buccal, lacrimal, etc.) (col 19, lines 1, 2; 19-23; 43-51). The reference further teaches that the maxillary nerve sensory branches reach via the face, nasal cavity regions (col 9, lines 12-16); the great sensory nerve of the head and neck carries signals from the face and scalp, etc. (col 8, lines 48-55), etc., indicating that these regions would inherently be the vicinity or sites of administration. If this is the case, the limitations of claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 22, 25-26 and 29-30 are met by Blumenfeld I and the reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
25. If this is not the case, then it would nonetheless have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat subjects having depression by multifocal administration of botulinum toxin to sites located in the neck and face or scalp. In this case, claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 22, 25-26 and 29-30 are obvious in view of Blumenfeld I. Since the reference teaches that the nerve and its branches (e.g. sensory, maxillary) travel within regions comprising the face, neck, forehead, scalp, etc., the administration at a site or vicinity of the trigeminal nerve would implicitly cover sites "located" in the neck, face or scalp, absent any evidence to the contrary. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to administer the toxin in the recited regions for treating neuropsychiatric diseases (like depression) (col 5, line 38), as the trigeminal nerve and its branches act on sensory and motor signals in the body (Trigeminal nerve: cols 8, 9). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the teachings of the cited prior art.
26. Claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 22, 25-26 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Blumenfeld US Patent 8,609,112, filed 10/12/2004 (will be referred to as Blumenfeld II in this Office Action), as evidenced by Botulinum toxin Type A <Botulinum Toxin Type A, BOTOX COSMETIC, Allergan>, downloaded on 1/11/2026, pages 1-15.
27. Blumenfeld II teaches treating depression comprising peripheral administration of a therapeutically effective amount of botulinum toxin to the vicinity of trigeminal nerves or nerve endings (abstract; col 1, lines 30-32; Summary para 1-2; Detailed description para 1; col 4, last para; Example 6); wherein the toxin can be locally or directly administered subdermally, or subcutaneously (col 2, lines 5-8; 28-32; col 9, lines 31-34; claims 1, 6, 11), and wherein the treatment reduces lethargy and insomnia by improving energy levels and sleep (Example 6). The reference teaches that depression can be major depressive disorder (col 3, full para 1). It is noted that peripheral administration means subdermal or subcutaneous injection (col 9, lines 48-50). Even though the reference does not explicitly teach identifying a subject with one or more symptoms of depression, the reference method is teaching treating depression by administering the toxin, which would have inherently followed the step of identifying the patient population requiring such treatment. The reference also teaches local or direct administration (col 1, 2 - summary; col 9, lines 31-36), wherein the botulinum is from Clostridium genus and is of types A-G (col 10, para 6) (instant claims 1, 3, 12, 17-18, 22, 25-26, 29-30). It is well understood that Botulinum toxin type A, available from Allergan, Inc. under the tradename BOTOX® (col 6, lines 34-39), is produced by fermentation of Hall strain Clostridium botulinum type A (as evidenced by Botulinum toxin Type A, page 1, line 2).
Because the trigeminal nerves and its branches have endings in different regions of the face including around the eyes or periocular regions, neck and scalp regions, nasal cavity and forehead (col 5, para 2, 3; Fig 2), peripheral injections of botulinum to the vicinity of trigeminal nerves and its branches would inherently imply administration to these regions (instant claims 7-9, 13). Blumenfeld II teaches that the administration is at multiple injection sites (or multifocal) (col 12, lines 9-10) (as in instant claims 5-6). The reference also teaches that botulinum blocks the release of any neurotransmitter, such as acetylcholine and norepinephrine (col 17, lines 19-23, 44-47; col 13, lines 3-5 and 47-50; col 11, lines 14-18) (as in instant claim 10). It is understood that administration to the vicinity of trigeminal nerves would inherently result in increased uptake by a portal hypophyseal drainage, as the trigeminal nerves are anatomically linked to the hypothalamus and pituitary gland by neurovascular connections, and the hypophyseal portal system neurovascularly links the hypothalamus with the pituitary (as in instant claim 15). Blumenfeld II (col 5, 6) therefore, not only teaches that the trigeminal nerve has sensory and motor nerve branches from the cranium passing the forehead skin and reaching different sites like the face, nasal cavity, neck, etc., the reference also teaches peripheral (subdermal or non-intramuscular) administering to a vicinity or site of a trigeminal sensory nerve (e.g., mandibular, maxillary, supra orbital, buccal, lacrimal, etc.) (col 9, lines 31-32, 48-50, 53-64). The reference further teaches that the maxillary nerve sensory branches reach via the face, nasal cavity regions (col 5, lines 5-10, 40-43); the great sensory nerve of the head and neck carries signals from the face and scalp, etc. (col 5, lines 5-10), etc., indicating that these regions would inherently be the vicinity or sites of administration. If this is the case, the limitations of claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 22, 25-26 and 29-30 are met by Blumenfeld II and the reference qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(e).
28. If this is not the case, then it would nonetheless have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat subjects having depression by multifocal administration of botulinum toxin to sites located in the neck, face and scalp. In this case, claims 1, 3, 5-10, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 22, 25-26 and 29-30 are obvious in view of Blumenfeld II. Since the reference teaches that the nerve and its branches (e.g. sensory, maxillary) travel within regions comprising the face, neck, forehead, scalp, etc. the administration at a site or vicinity of the trigeminal nerve would implicitly cover sites "located" in the neck, face or scalp, absent any evidence to the contrary. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to administer the toxin in the recited regions for treating neuropsychiatric diseases (like depression) (col 2, lines 46-52), as the trigeminal nerve and its branches act on sensory and motor signals in the body (Trigeminal nerve: cols 5, 6). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on the teachings of the cited art.
Applicant’s Remarks:
29. Applicant argues that Blumenfeld I teaches injections “in any region of the trigeminal nerve”, adding that a person skilled in the art would understand that trigeminal is a “nerve of the cranium, and is not located in the neck”. Applicant therefore, alleges that Blumenfeld I does not anticipate instant claims. Applicant also alleges that Blumenfeld I is not prior art under 102(a) or 102(b). Applicant argues that Blumenfeld II being a continuation-in-part of Blumenfeld I, has a later priority date, and that any subject matter different from Blumenfeld I is not prior art. Applicant argues that Finzi teaches injections in the facial muscles and not in the neck.
30. Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, however, are not found to be persuasive for reasons stated in the rejections. It is repeated that since both, Blumenfeld I and Blumenfeld II, teach administering at a site or vicinity of the trigeminal nerve, and that the nerve and its branches (e.g. sensory, maxillary) travel within regions like the face, neck, forehead, scalp, etc., the administration would implicitly cover sites "located" in the neck, face or scalp, absent any evidence to the contrary. Please note that upon consideration of the recent amendment of claim 1 presenting a different scope, new rejections (102/103) are set forth using the Blumenfeld I and Blumenfeld II references.
31. Applicant’s argument that Blumenfeld I is not prior art under 102(a) or 102(b) is not persuasive, as the rejection is under 102(e). The allegation is therefore, moot.
32. Applicant’s argument that Blumenfeld II being a continuation-in-part of Blumenfeld I, any subject matter different from Blumenfeld I is not prior art, is considered. It is however, noted that both references present similar teachings. That is both teach treating depression (major depression) by injecting botulinum toxin type A from the Clostridium genus by subdermal or non-intramuscular route; at multiple sites to the vicinity of trigeminal nerves or nerve endings (includes face, neck, scalp, periocular regions, etc.) as stated in the rejections above. Since the subject matter of Blumenfeld II, as applicable to instant claims, matches those of Blumenfeld I, Blumenfeld II teachings get the priority date of 10/12/2004 (filing date of Blumenfeld I) and is a proper prior art under 102(e).
33. Applicant’s argument that Finzi teaches injections in the facial muscles is found to be persuasive. The rejection over Finzi is therefore, withdrawn.
Conclusion
34. No claims are allowed.
35. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in the 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).
36. 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 extension fee 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.
37. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aditi Dutt whose telephone number is (571)272-9037. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
38. 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.
39. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Stucker, can be reached on 571-272-0911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
40. 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.
/A. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 1675
11 January 2026
/KIMBERLY BALLARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1675