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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 22, 25-28 and 30 are pending.in the Claim Set filed 11/25/2025.
Applicants elected species is compound of formula (I): nicotinamide riboside, wherein R6, R7 and R8 are each hydrogen and X- is chloride (claim 22).
Claims 1 and 22 have been amended.
Claims 3, 8, 10-21, 23, 24 and 29 are cancelled.
Herein, claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 22, 25-28 and 30 are for examination to the extent that they read on the elected species.
Withdrawn Rejections
The objections to claims 1 and 22 are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 22, 25-28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention is withdrawn in view of Applicants’ arguments.
Maintained Rejections
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 of this title, 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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 22, 26-28 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dihora et al (US 20160374918, cited in IDS filed 5/3/2022) is maintained.
Consistent with the Specification on page 15, paragraph [0072] and throughout the specification polymerized ethyl cellulose (See amended claims) is the same as (identical to) ethyl cellulose (e.g., Ethocel).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 22, 26-28 and 30,
Dihora teaches a stable cosmetic composition comprising encapsulated particles of nicotinamide riboside, wherein the term ‘nicotinamide riboside’ includes nicotinamide riboside chloride (NR-Cl) (i.e., elected species) (Abstract; [0013]; [0036]; [0053]; See entire document) (instant claims 1, 2, 4 and 22). Dihora teaches the encapsulated particles can be coated with a material to reduce the rate of leakage of NR-Cl from the particles, wherein the material is ethyl cellulose [0051] (i.e., identical to polymerized ethyl cellulose: See claim interpretation set forth above). Dihora teaches encapsulating agents further comprise fatty acids, e.g., C4-C24 fatty acids, e.g., palmitic acid or stearic acid (instant claims 5-6 and 26-27) ([0047]; chitosan (Instant claims 7 and 28) or methyl acrylate copolymers (instant claim 7 and 28); and paraffin waxes (instant claims 1 and 22) [0051], and mixtures thereof [0051]. Dihora teaches the encapsulated particles contain at least 1% NR-Cl, based on the weight of the particle but typically less than 90% (e.g., from 5% to 90%, 20% to 70% or even from 40% to 60%) of NR-Cl [0036] (overlaps with instant claims 9 and 30). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 91 9 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Dihora teaches that present disclosure provides stable encapsulated skin care agents. Particularly, Dihora teaches skin care agents may be incorporated into an ingestible composition such as a beverage and delivered to a target skin portion via the digestive and circulatory systems of the body [0026]. Therefore, Dihora teaches an edible composition.
Dihora teaches the encapsulating agent to provide encapsulated particles in a core-shell configuration, wherein the shell may be 5% to 80% (e.g., 10% to 40%) of the weight of the particle ([0030]; FIGS. 1, 2 and 3). Dihora teaches the encapsulated particles larger than 1 μm (e.g., larger than 10 μm, 20 μm, 50 μm or even larger than 100 μm). In some instances, particles larger than 100 μm may not be suitable for use in topical compositions because they can be harder to suspend in a cosmetic composition [0030], of which overlaps with the claimed particle size. "A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
In view of the recited term ‘optionally’ in claims 1 and 22, the scope of claim 1 and claim 22 lend themselves to the following claim interpretation: wherein said nicotinamide riboside, or salt thereof, and encapsulating ethyl cellulose have a ratio from about 0.1 % (w/w) to about 90% (w/w), of which may be simplified for comparison to a ratio of about 1% w/w NR-Cl to about 900% w/w EC.
Dihora teaches the encapsulated particles contain at least 1% NR-Cl, based on the weight of the particle but typically less than 90% (e.g., from 5% to 90%, 20% to 70% or even from 40% to 60%) [0036]. Furthermore, Dihora teaches the encapsulating agent, e.g. ethyl cellulose (EC), may be 5% to 80% (e.g., 10% to 40%) of the weight of the particle. For example, the teachings of Dihora embrace an encapsulated particle having 20% w/w NR-Cl (lies within the claimed range of NR-Cl in instant claims 9 and 30) and 40% w/w ethyl cellulose (EC) (the w/w of EC is not instantly claimed but is included in a ratio of NR-Cl: EC). Accordingly, Dihora teaches (makes prima facie obvious) a composition comprising NR-Cl and EC, wherein a ratio of about 20% w/w NR-Cl to about 40% w/w EC, which reduces to a ratio of about 1 w/w NR-Cl to 2 w/w EC, of which lies within the claimed ratio of about 0.1% w/w NR-Cl to about 90% w/w EC. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 91 9 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, selecting a narrow range from within a somewhat broader range disclosed in a prior art reference is no less obvious than identifying a range that simply overlaps a disclosed range. The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). The overlapping ranges create an expectation that the claimed range will have similar properties to the prior art range. Accordingly, the prior art of Dihora makes obvious the composition and all of the structural limitations of the claims. Thus, the composition claimed and the composition of the prior art are expected to have the same properties. In addition, supra, Dihora teaches a composition comprising encapsulated particles of nicotinamide riboside (NR-Cl: elected species) coated with ethyl cellulose (EC) to reduce the rate of leakage of NR-Cl from the particles, wherein the material is incorporated into an ingestible composition such as a beverage and delivered to a target skin portion via the digestive and circulatory systems of the body [0026]. Therefore, the teachings of Dihora makes prima facie obvious an edible composition. Moreover, the prior art of Dihora makes obvious the claimed composition and all of the structural limitations of the claims. Thus, the composition claimed and the composition of the prior art are expected to have the same properties. Additionally, it would necessarily follow that the composition comprising polymerized ethyl cellulose encapsulating nicotinamide riboside as taught by Dihora would be an edible composition, absent factual evidence to the contrary.
Dihora teaches that some non-limiting examples of methods of providing the encapsulated particles herein are coacervation, polycondensation, interfacial polymerization, emulsion polymerization, solvent evaporation, solvent exchange, lyophilization, nanoprecipitation, spray drying, spray chilling, prilling, extrusion, and fluid bed coating [0041]. Dihora teaches that an NR-Cl solution (e.g., NR dissolved in a miscible liquid) is dispersed in a meltable immiscible solvent, which is then spray chilled to produce encapsulated particles. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that coating would further comprise at least some of the NR-Cl. wherein it would have been well within the purview of those skilled in the art to optimize the process of coating NR-CL materials so that that the ethyl cellulose encapsulating agent further comprise about 10% NR-Cl having a reasonable expectation of success to best achieve a desired goal (instant claims 4 and 25). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to include NR-Cl in the out layer comprising ethyl cellulose to produce a small dose release of NR-Cl to provide a sustain release of NR-Cl having a reasonable expectation of success (Instant Claims 4 and 25).
All the claimed elements herein are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide instantly claimed invention and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Dihora.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that they hereby amend independent claims 1 and 22 to include limitations on weight ratio of NR and salts thereof to ethyl cellulose encapsulant and optionally wax encapsulant and setting forth a particle size limitation as set forth in the Examples of the specification as filed. Further, Applicants argue that that the amended claim scope is commensurate with the data showing unexpected results in the Examples and believe the amended claims are now in condition for allowance.
Applicants argue that the scope of the unexpected results in the Examples is well beyond the range of the cited prior art Dihora reference disclosing "5% to 80% (e.g. 10% to 40%) of the weight of the particle (0030) [ ... ]. Furthermore, Applicants argue that the cited Dihora reference teaches away from larger particle sizes, as presently claimed for an ingestible composition of the invention, as unsuitable for cosmetic applications stating, "particles greater than 100 μm may not be suitable for use in topical compositions because they can be harder to suspend in a cosmetic composition [0030]." Moreover, the Dihora reference teaches away from larger particle sizes stating "Particles larger than 500 μm, or even larger than 300 μm, may be unsuitable for use in certain compositions such as beverages because they tend to import an undesirable gritty texture to the beverage." Thus, Applicants maintain there is proper basis for the claims as amended in the specification as filed, the examples provide proper support of unexpected results supporting non-obviousness of the claimed invention, and consequently Applicants respectfully request this basis of rejection be withdrawn as, similarly to the previous basis of rejection, lacking proper basis.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because, as described above, the Dihora teaches the encapsulating agent to provide encapsulated particles in a core-shell configuration, wherein the shell may be 5% to 80% (e.g., 10% to 40%) of the weight of the particle ([0030]; FIGS. 1, 2 and 3). Dihora teaches the encapsulated particles larger than 1 μm (e.g., larger than 10 μm, 20 μm, 50 μm or even larger than 100 μm). In some instances, particles larger than 100 μm may not be suitable for use in topical compositions because they can be harder to suspend in a cosmetic composition [0030]. Thus, it clear that the teachings of Dihora encompass the claimed particle size, e.g., larger than 10 μm, 20 μm, 50 μm. For instance, larger than 10 μm includes 10.1 μm lies within the claimed particle size of about 0.1 μm to about 200 μm; larger than 20 μm includes 20.1 μm lies within the claimed particle size of about 0.1 μm to about 200 μm; larger than 50 μm includes 50.1 μm lies within the claimed particle size of about 0.1 μm to about 200 μm; larger than 100 μm includes 100.1 μm lies within the claimed particle size of about 0.1 μm to about 200 μm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 91 9 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. "A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Additionally, Dihora teaches the encapsulated particles contain at least 1% NR-Cl, based on the weight of the particle but typically less than 90% (e.g., from 5% to 90%, 20% to 70% or even from 40% to 60%) [0036]. Further, Dihora teaches the encapsulating agent, e.g. ethyl cellulose (EC), may be 5% to 80% (e.g., 10% to 40%) of the weight of the particle. For example, the teachings of Dihora embrace an encapsulated particle having 20% w/w NR-Cl and 40% w/w ethyl cellulose (EC) (lies within the claimed range of NR-Cl in instant claims). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 91 9 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. The Examiner would like to point out that ‘beverages’ is disclosed in Instant Specification [0068]. Moreover, there is no unobvious distinction between the structural and functional characteristics of the claimed composition and the composition of the cited prior art. Thus, it would necessarily follow that the Dihora composition would be an edible composition. In this respect, Dihora teaches the composition is incorporated into an ingestible composition such as a beverage ([0026]; [0031]; [0052]; claim 16: materials are safe (GRAS).
Regarding Applicants’ arguments for Unexpected Results:
Instant Specification states the following:
Example 1 on page 17 of Instant specification states:
[0080] Ethyl cellulose
Example 1: [0081] Jet milled NR-Cl with a particle size of approx. 5-10 μm was encapsulated in a 10% NR-Cl, 90% Ethyl Cellulose formulation. Ethyl Cellulose (Ethocel) was first dissolved into ethanol at 10% wt/wt. Once fully dissolved, NR-Cl was dispersed into the ethanol solution and the suspension was homogenized and fed into a spinning disk for atomization. The resulting dried formulation contained 1.04% (wt/wt) water, and produced particles ranging from 1 to 200 μm with a majority of the particles from 50 to 150 μm in diameter (Figures 2A, 2B).
At best, Example 1 can be interpreted to provide NR-Cl (elected species) and encapsulating ethyl cellulose having a ratio from about 10% w/w NR-Cl to about 90% w/w Ethyl Cellulose (EC), i.e., a ratio of about 10% w/w to about 90% w/w,
However, Instant Claims 1 and 22 recite: nicotinamide riboside and encapsulating ethyl cellulose have a ratio range from about 0.1% w/w to about 90% w/w. Hence, a ratio of 0.1% w/w (NR-Cl) to 90% w/w (Ethyl Cellulose, i.e., polymerized ethylcellulose), as instantly claimed, is a significantly broader weight-by-weight ratio range than a ratio of about NR-Cl 10% w/w to about EC 90% w/w, provided in Ex. 1.
Example 6 on page 22 of Instant specification states:
[0097] Ethyl cellulose coating/ Fumaric acid/ Stearic acid/Castor oil, providing a 60.6·% NR-Cl by weight formulation. Claims 1 and 22 do not recite Fumaric acid/ Stearic acid. Furthermore, claim 1 and claim 22 recite the term optionally, therefore, the edible oil, e.g., castor oil, is optional, where optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted. In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Example 6: [00098] NR-Cl was granulated in Isopropyl alcohol with ethyl cellulose, 4% fumaric acid and 1 % stearic acid, resulting in an approximately 10% weight gain to the NR-Cl. Then, an 87% Ethyl cellulose and 13% castor oil coating was applied utilizing a fluidized bed technology targeting a 50% weight gain. The final formulation had a theoretical NR-Cl of 60.6% (w/w) and a particle size of approximately 50-100 μm in diameter (Figure 10).
At best, Example 6 can be interpreted to provide NR-Cl and encapsulating ethyl cellulose having a ratio from about of 60.6% (w/w) NR-Cl to about ethyl cellulose (EC) (assuming it to be adjusted to EC 39.4% w/w). Of which can be expressed (approximately) as a ratio of about NR-Cl 60% w/w to EC 40).
Hence, a ratio of 0.1% w/w (NR-Cl) to 90% w/w (Ethyl Cellulose, i.e., polymerized ethylcellulose), as instantly claimed, is a significantly broader weight-by-weight ratio range than a ratio of about NR-Cl 60% w/w to about EC 40% w/w, provided in Ex. 6. (Ex.6 does not include a wax)
Example 7 on page 23 of Instant specification states:
Example 7 [000102-000103] Ethyl cellulose coating plus Beeswax/ Fumaric acid/ Stearic acid/ ·Castor oil, providing a 47.2% NR-CI by weight formulation. NR-Cl was granulated in Isopropyl alcohol with ethyl cellulose, 4% fumaric acid and 1 % stearic acid, resulting in a about 10% weight gain to the NR-Cl. Then, an 87% Ethyl cellulose and 13% castor oil coating was applied utilizing a fluidized bed technology targeting a 75% weight gain. Then, a Beeswax coating was applied over the ethyl cellulose targeting an additional 10% weight gain. The final formulation had a theoretical NR-Cl of 47.2%. (w/w) and a particle size of approximately 50-100 μm in diameter (Figure 12).
At best, Example 7 can be interpreted to provide NR-Cl and encapsulating ethyl cellulose having a ratio from about of 47.2% (w/w) NR-Cl to about ethyl cellulose (EC) (assuming it to be adjusted to EC 52.8% w/w), of which can be adjusted to about 50% (w/w) NR-Cl to about 50% w/w ethyl cellulose (or alternatively about 50% w/w ethyl cellulose with Beeswax).
Hence, a ratio of 0.1% w/w (NR-Cl) to 90% w/w (Ethyl Cellulose, i.e., polymerized ethylcellulose), as instantly claimed, is a significantly broader weight-by-weight ratio range than a ratio of about NR-Cl 50% w/w to about EC 50% w/w, provided in Ex. 7.
Example 8 on page 24 of Instant specification states:
Example 8 [000107-000108] Ethyl cellulose coating plus Beeswax/ Fumaric acid/ Stearic acid/Castor oil, providing a 41.3% NR-CI by weight formulation. In another embodiment, NR-Cl was granulated in Isopropyl alcohol with ethyl cellulose, 4% fumaric acid and I% stearic acid, resulting in a 10% weight gain to the NR-Cl. Then, 87% ethyl cellulose and 13% castor oil coating were applied utilizing a fluidized bed technology targeting a 100% weight gain. Then, a Beeswax coating was applied over the ethyl cellulose targeting an additional I 0% weight gain. The final formulation had a theoretical % NR-Cl of 41.3% (w/w) and a particle size of approximately 50- 100 μm in diameter (Figure 14).
At best, Example 8 can be interpreted to provide NR-Cl and encapsulating ethyl cellulose having a ratio from about 41.3% (w/w) to about ethyl cellulose (w/w) (assuming it to be adjusted to EC 58.7% w/w). of which can be adjusted to about 41% (w/w) NR-Cl to about 59% w/w ethyl cellulose (or alternatively about 59% w/w ethyl cellulose with Beeswax).
Hence, a ratio of 0.1% w/w (NR-Cl) to 90% w/w (Ethyl Cellulose, i.e., polymerized ethylcellulose), as instantly claimed, is a significantly broader weight-by-weight ratio range than a ratio of about NR-Cl 41% w/w to about EC 59% w/w, provided in Ex. 8.
Therefore, the Examples that merit consideration: e.g., Ex. 1, 6, 7 and 8, are not commensurate in scope with the claimed weight-by-weight ratio of a nicotinamide riboside, or salt thereof, and encapsulating polymerized ethyl cellulose and optionally wax have a ratio from about 0.1 % w/w to about 90% w/w, and have a particle size of about 1 μm to about 200 μm.
Claims 1 and 22 in Claim Set filed 11/25/2025 recite (in part):
Claim 1 (Currently Amended): wherein said nicotinamide riboside, or salt thereof, and encapsulating polymerized ethyl cellulose and optionally wax have a ratio from about 0.1 % w/w to about 90% w/w, and have a particle size of about 1 μm to about 200 μm.
Claim 22 (Currently Amended): wherein said nicotinamide riboside, or salt thereof, and encapsulating polymerized ethyl cellulose and optionally
wax have a ratio from about 0.1 % w/w to about 90% w/w, and have a particle size of about 1 μm to about 200 μm.
MPEP 716.02(d) Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope with Claimed Invention
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
Thus, in the instant case, the unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with what is instantly claimed, because the scope of Instant Claims encompass an encapsulating polymerized ethyl cellulose and optionally wax have a ratio from about 0.1 % w/w to about 90% w/w, and have a particle size of about 1 μm to about 200 μm.
That is, the composition(s) that generated said alleged unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with composition which is presently claimed (i.e., results generated by the Ex. 1, 6, 7 and 8 is/are not commensurate in scope with claimed edible composition.).
The scope of the showing must be commensurate with the scope of claims to consider evidence probative of unexpected results, for example. In re Dill, 202 USPQ 805 (CCPA, 1979), In re Lindner 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972), In re Hyson, 172 USPQ 399 (CCPA 1972), In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215, (CCPA 1980), In re Grasselli, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Clemens, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980). It should be clear that the probative value of the data is not commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by the claim(s).
MPEP 716.02(d) II. DEMONSTRATING CRITICALITY OF A CLAIMED RANGE
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Applicants have not presented results demonstrating that the unexpected results lie inside the entire scope of the claimed invention compared to results that fall outside the claimed range. Applicants bear the burden to establish that the results are unexpected and significant. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP 716.02(b).
Therefore, Applicants’ arguments directed to Unexpected Results are not persuasive.
Conclusions
No claim is allowed.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thurman Wheeler whose telephone number is (571)-207-1307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-6:00pm EST.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. 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.
/T.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/SARAH ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619