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 .
Claim Status
Claims 2 and 13 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-22 are pending.
Withdrawn rejections
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 8/28/25 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soubhagya et al. (International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 157 (available online April 24, 2020) 135–145).
Claim interpretation: The term “coating” is broad and includes full and partial coatings on the nanoparticles. The external polymer layer can be hemostasis promoting or mucoadhesive and because the pharmaceutical agent is “and/or comprises a pharmaceutical agent” then claim 12 includes embodiments where the external polymer layer is without a pharmaceutical agent.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Soubhagya et al. disclose chitosan/pectin/ZnO nanoparticles for wound healing (Abstract), which form polyelectrolyte complexes (PEC) (Page 136, left column 1st paragraph; 2.2 Fabrication of chitosan/pectin/ZnO films), which naturally form layers due to the opposite charges on the biopolymers. (The instant specification calls this being “chemically (electrostatically) compatible”; Page 20, lines 5-7.) The ZnO nanoparticles are inherently coated with a hemostasis promoting chitosan first polymer layer and an external pectin polymer layer coating the polymer-coated nanoparticle where pectin is a mucoadhesive polymer. Accordingly, in the embodiment without a pharmaceutical agent, claim 12 is anticipated by the reference.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the chitosan/pectin/ZnO nanoparticles porous films (Abstract) of Soubhagya et al. are a wound dressing with the intended use of topical application to wounds (See Introduction “dermal injuries”; Page 135 left column 1st paragraph), thus making it a topical formulation. Also note that an intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/28/25 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that: “Soubhagya et al. does not teach or even suggest the discrete core-shell structure having multiple layer-by-layer deposited coatings on a nanoparticle as recited in the pending claims.” A search of the claims does not reveal any limitation that can be remotely construed as being directed to a “discrete core-shell structure having multiple layer-by-layer deposited coatings on a nanoparticle”. At best, the term “core” appears twice in claims 3 and 14 to describe the core of the metal oxide nanoparticle comprises a doped metal oxide. The term “shell” is not found in the claims at all. Neither is “multiple layer-by-layer deposited coatings” found in the claims. Applicant is arguing limitations that are not present in the plain meaning of the language of the claim. See Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("[W]hile it is true that claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification and with a view to ascertaining the invention, it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims"). Therefore, the argument is not directed at a limitation that actually appears in the claim. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) ("[A]ppellant's arguments fail from the outset because ... they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims."). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the claimed scope includes films (Specification, page 6, lines 7-10: “In other embodiments, wound dressings can be films composed of or including the described compositions.”). Thus, the chitosan/pectin/ZnO wound healing film of Soubhagya et al. is within the scope of and reads on the claimed subject matter. And the term “core-shell” appears only once in the specification and that is only as a possible outcome for the nanocomposite mixed metal oxide nanocomposite (Page 13, lines 12-13 (Examiner added emphasis): “These changes may further lead to a hierarchic structure, a core-shell configuration of the metal oxide semiconductor nanomaterial”) and not the polyelectrolyte coated nanocomposite. This is language Applicant used from US20200231459 paragraph 0063. (See specification page 24, Example 1: “(CuO(1-x)Znx at 7.5 g/L, prepared according to US Patent Publication No. 2020/0231459”). There is serious doubt as to whether Applicant is even enabled for a core-shell structure because the formation of core-shell structures appears to be a hypothesis or theoretical possibility rather than a tangible result of experimentation. Example 1 (Page 25 of the specification) just makes a slurry of metal oxide nanoparticles in sodium alginate to which chitosan is later added to provide metal oxide nanoparticles coated with polyelectrolytes. While Figure 8 of the present specification does show an agglomeration of materials, some are transparent and some are opaque or incompletely coated. Consequently, Figure 8 is ambiguous at best. Respectfully, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and Soubhagya et al. anticipates the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Soubhagya et al. (International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 157 (available online April 24, 2020) 135–145).
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Applicant claims, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
696
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Please note that the MPEP provides, “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” See MPEP § 2111.04; see also MPEP §§ 2103(C) and 2173.05(h).
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(MPEP 2141.03)
MPEP 2141.03 (I) states: “The “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). The level of skill is that of a medical device drug delivery research scientist, as is the case here, then one can assume comfortably that such an educated artisan will draw conventional ideas from medical device drug delivery technology, medical device drug delivery therapeutic methods and drug delivery treatment devices— without being told to do so.
In addition, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level (MPEP 2141.03(II)).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7 and 9-11, Soubhagya et al. is discussed in detail above as related to the wound treatment composition and that discussion is incorporated by reference. The zinc oxide nanoparticles of Soubhagya et al. inherently inhibit bacteria, fungi, and/or viruses. Especially when Soubhagya et al. report antimicrobial activity against bacteria and fungi (Abstract). The external polymer, which can be pectin, has a negative zeta potential due to the presence of carboxyl groups.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02) and Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
The difference between the instant application and Soubhagya et al. is that Soubhagya et al. do not expressly teach a method for treatment of a wound in a subject comprising topically administering to the subject the claimed composition in or on a wound dressing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to topically administer the wound healing formulation of Soubhagya et al. in or on a wound dressing to treat a wound in a subject and produce the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because Soubhagya et al. teach that the composition is biocompatible with dermal fibroblast cells (Abstract), which renders obvious topically treating the dermal injuries (wounds to the skin) with the composition in or on a wound dressing with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments:
On page 7 of remarks, Applicant asserts that Soubhagya et al. is fundamentally different from Applicant’s claimed materials and that the claimed nanoparticles covered in multiple discrete polymeric layers is contrasted with Soubhagya et al. ZnO embedded in a single polymer network by one-step mixing and thus lacks any first polymer and external polymer but is rather a monolithic matrix. Respectfully, the Examiner does not agree because the electrostatic interaction of the pectin with chitosan naturally forms one layer on the other as shown in Figure 1 of Soubhagya et al.:
PNG
media_image2.png
436
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Indeed, Soubhagya et al. report that interaction of the amide and amino groups of chitosan with ZnO nanoparticles was observed (Page 139, top right column), thus indicating hemostatic chitosan as “coating” the ZnO nanoparticle and the pectin being external to that. Mixing in the ZnO naturally coats the ZnO with the polyelectrolyte complex of hemostatic chitosan and the mucoadhesive pectin. No layer thickness is required by the claims and therefore a strand of polymer material can read on a layer. Optional claimed components are not required.
On page 8 of remarks, Applicant asserts that: “Soubhagya also lacks any teaching of an additional, external, discrete hemostatic or mucoadhesive layer, or of loading different drugs in different layers as in the subject claims.” Respectfully, the Examiner has a different perspective because claim 12 has optional limitations which do not need to be met in order for Soubhagya to anticipate the claimed subject matter and the polymer coatings of Soubhagya serve as discrete hemostatic or mucoadhesive layers. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: “Rather the structure produced by Soubhagya is a composite film, not individually coated nanoparticles as in the subject claims.” However, the term “individually” does not appear in the claims and the composite film of Soubhagya does coat the nanoparticles. Furthermore, the claims do not exclude films and the specification teaches that the wound dressing can be a film (Specification, page 6, lines 7-10: “In other embodiments, wound dressings can be films composed of or including the described compositions.”). Consequently, the Examiner’s interpretation of the claims remains sound, the disclosure of Soubhagya anticipates/renders obvious the claimed subject matter and Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 3, 5-12, 14 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (US20050208100) and Odermatt et al. (EP2174675) and Schauer et al. (US20100062232) and Agarwal et al. (US20180028713).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1, 5, 9-12, 19 and 20-22, Weber et al. teaches medical articles such as patches for delivery of therapeutic agents to broken skin wounds and surgical sites [0024], where patches reads on wound dressing for topical application to skin wounds, comprising a multilayer coating region comprising multiple polyelectrolyte layers deposited over the surface of the ceramic or metallic region; and a therapeutic agent disposed beneath or within the multilayer coating region (Abstract). The polyelectrolyte multilayer coatings can be applied with known layer-by-layer techniques by depositing a polyelectrolyte layer having a first net charge followed by depositing a second polyelectrolyte layer having a charge opposite the first polyelectrolyte layer ([0052]; claim 34), thus creating an external layer with a positive or negative zeta potential. Weber et al. teach chitosan polycations and sodium alginate polyanions ([0061]; claim 5) and contain 2-100 polyelectrolyte layers (Claim 6). The multiple layers reads on having at least one additional polymer layer between the first polymer layer and the external polymer layer. Weber et al. teach an embodiment of a medical article comprising a multilayer coating region comprising multiple polyelectrolyte layers deposited over said surface; and a therapeutic agent disposed beneath or within said multilayer coating region, wherein said multilayer coating further comprises metal or metal oxide nanoparticles (Claim 31). Being beneath or within said multilayer coating region reads on being coated by the multilayer coating region. The therapeutic agent can be ibuprofen [0090]; anti-inflammatory agents or anesthetic agents such as the local anesthetic lidocaine (Claim 22; [0085]) and antimicrobial agents [0085].
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 12, Odermatt et al. teach antimicrobial metal oxide nanoparticles of copper oxide, silver oxide, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide (Claims 9-10).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 8, 12, 14 and 18, Schauer et al. teach that crosslinked calcium alginate is employed when applied as a wound dressing [0005]. Schauer et al. teach multilayer films comprising a plurality of layers comprising cross-linked chitosan, alginate, chondroitin sulfate or hyaluronic acid and particles that can be ceramic and metallic species (Claims 1-3, 7 and 32-34) that include doped copper oxide, zinc oxide and titanium dioxide [0052].
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Agarwal et al. teach the functional equivalence of positively charged polyelectrolytes polylysine and chitosan (Claims 5-6) and negatively charged polyelectrolytes alginate and oxidized cellulose (Claims 5 and 7).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02) and Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
The difference between the instant application and Weber et al. is that Weber et al. do not expressly teach treating a wound by topically applying a composition comprising antimicrobial metal oxide nanoparticles comprising CuO, ZnO, Ag2O, TiO2, or MgO or a doped metal oxide and hemostasis promoting polymers calcium alginate, polylysine or oxidized cellulose. This deficiency in Weber et al. is cured by the teachings of Odermatt et al., Schauer et al. and Agarwal et al. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to topically administer the medical article patch for skin wound treatment with antimicrobial metal oxide nanoparticles comprising CuO, ZnO, Ag2O, TiO2, as suggested by Odermatt et al., and calcium alginate as one of the polyelectrolyte layers as suggested by Schauer or polylysine or oxidized cellulose as suggested by Agarwal et al. for the following reasons. First, Weber et al. suggest adding metal oxide nanoparticles (Claim 31) and suggest adding antimicrobial agents [0085], which inhibit bacteria, fungi and/or viruses. It is then obvious to add the antimicrobial metal oxide nanoparticles taught by Odermatt et al. to the composition of Weber et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, Schauer et al. teach doped copper oxide (yttrium barium copper oxide) as equivalent to zinc oxide and titanium dioxide for use [0052] rendering obvious at least doped copper oxide. Secondly, Weber et al. teach and suggest crosslinking the polyelectrolyte molecules [0059] and it is known through Schauer et al. that when applied as a wound dressing the artisan employs calcium crosslinked alginate. Furthermore, Agarwal et al. render obvious polylysine as a functional equivalent to chitosan and oxidized cellulose as a functional equivalent to alginate. Therefore, in view of the combined references, the artisan would crosslink the alginate of Weber et al. with calcium, use the antimicrobial metal oxides claimed as well as polylysine and oxidized cellulose with a reasonable expectation of success. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Moreover, “Where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious." In re Fout 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982).
The difference between the instant application and Weber et al. is that Weber et al. do not expressly teach wherein the pharmaceutical composition comprises four polymer layers, and wherein the first polymer layer is chitosan or modifications thereof, the second polymer layer is sodium or calcium alginate, the third polymer layer is chitosan or modifications thereof, and the fourth polymer layer is sodium or calcium alginate. However, as shown by the Examiner above, it is obvious for the ordinary artisan to employ calcium alginate as one of the layers. It is then merely judicious selection of polyelectrolyte pairs such as chitosan-calcium alginate to make a 4-polymer layered composition with a reasonable expectation of success for use in a method of topically treating a wound in a subject.
Response to Arguments:
On pages 9-10 of remarks, Applicant discusses each of the applied references.
Applicant’s discussion is noted but the Examiner is relying upon the references as characterized by the Examiner and not as characterized by Applicant. In fact, Applicant’s assertion that Weber does not provide any teaching about nanoparticle-based wound-care systems is simply wrong. Weber expressly teaches a medical article with multilayer coatings, therapeutic agents and metal oxide nanoparticles (Claim 31) where the medical article includes patches for wounds [0024] that is made with layers of chitosan and alginate (Claim 5), which naturally provide antimicrobial and hemostatic effect. The Examiner reminds Applicant that it is impermissible to attack references singly when the Examiner relies upon the combined teachings of the references, nor may they attack a reference for not teaching a limitation of the claim when the Examiner has explicitly relied upon another reference as teaching that limitation. See In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Odermatt is not relied upon for teaching polyelectrolyte layers but rather the metal oxide nanoparticles. Applicant asserts that Schauer does not describe its materials for wound care but the Examiner pointed out through the teachings of Schauer that it is well-known in this art that crosslinked calcium alginate is employed when applied as a wound dressing ([0005] of Schauer). Applicant asserts that Agarwal et al. manufacture film-based delivery constructs and not colloidal particles or a “core-shell structure”. However as noted above, films are included in the scope of the claimed invention and “colloidal particles” and “core-shell structure” are limitations that does not appear in the claims. Again, Applicant is arguing limitations that do not appear in the claimed subject matter. Consequently, Applicant’s interpretation of the art as it applies to the claimed subject matter is improper. Respectfully, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claims 3, 4, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (US20050208100) and Odermatt et al. (EP2174675) and Schauer et al. (US20100062232) and Agarwal et al. (US20180028713), as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-12, 14 and 16-22 above, in further view of Malka et al. (Small 2013; 8 pages) and Pradeev raj et al. (Nanoscale Research Letters (2018) 13:229; 13 pages) and Chambers et al. (Dental Materials 2017;33:e115-e123) and Okeke et al. (J Nanopart Res 2020;22: 18 pages).
Applicant claims, for example:
PNG
media_image3.png
288
1012
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The references of Weber et al. Odermatt et al., Schauer et al., Agarwal et la. are discussed in detail above.
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 14-15, Malka et al. teach zinc doped copper oxide and report that: “A substantial enhancement of 10 000 times in the antimicrobial activity of the Zn–CuO nanocomposite compared to the pure CuO and ZnO nanoparticles (NPs) is observed after 10 min exposure to the bacteria.” (Abstract).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 14-15, Pradeev raj et al. teach Mg doped ZnO nanoparticles and report that: “Antibacterial studies were conducted using Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. The results demonstrated that doping with Mg ions inside the ZnO matrix had enhanced the antibacterial activity against all types of bacteria…” (Abstract).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 14-15, Chamber et al. teach silver doped titanium dioxide nanoparticles which had a significant bactericidal effect even with small quantities (Abstract; conclusions).
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 14-15, Okeke et al. teach that Cu-doped ZnO NPs showed better antibacterial activities across the selected pathogens (Abstract; page 272 upper right column).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02) and Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
The difference between the instant application and Weber et al. as modified by Odermatt et al., Schauer et al. and Agarwal et al. is that Weber et al. do not expressly teach wherein the metal oxide nanoparticle core comprises a doped metal oxide that comprises Zn doped CuO, Cu doped ZnO, Ag doped TiO2, or Mg doped ZnO. This deficiency in Weber et al. as modified by Odermatt et al., Schauer et al. and Agarwal et al. is cured by the combined teachings of Malka et al., Pradeev raj et al. ,Okeke et al. and Chamber et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to topically administer the medical article patch for skin wound treatment of Weber et al., as modified by Odermatt et al., Schauer et al. and Agarwal et al., with antimicrobial doped metal oxide nanoparticles wherein the doped metal oxide comprises Zn doped CuO, Cu doped ZnO, Ag doped TiO2, or Mg doped ZnO, as suggested by Malka et al., Pradeev raj et al. ,Okeke et al. and Chamber et al. and produce the instant invention. The ordinary artisan is motived to do so for the enhanced antimicrobial effects reported by the references with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 combined teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the combined references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/28/25 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant submits that independent claims 1 and 12 are non-obvious over the combination of Weber et al., Odermatt et al., Schauer et al., and Agarwal et al. The additional references brought in this rejection describe doped and co-doped metal oxides, but do not address the multiple distinctincts[sic] between the combination of Weber et al., Odermatt et al., Schauer et al., and Agarwal et al. and the claimed invention as discussed in detail above. Respectfully, the Examiner has a different perspective as discussed in the rejections above and in the responses to arguments above. Applicant’s arguments above were not persuasive. Applicant has produced no evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness. MPEP 2141 III states: “The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts.” Respectfully, after review of all the facts, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner has reached a determination that the instant claims are not patentable in view of the preponderance of evidence and consideration of all the facts, which is more convincing than the evidence which has been offered in opposition to it.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERNST V ARNOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8509. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3:30.
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, Brian Y Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/ERNST V ARNOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613