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 Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-16 are pending.
Priority
Instant application 17/595,581, filed 11/19/2021 claims priority as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
107
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-16 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite in the Office action dated 08/04/2025. In view of the amendment filed 11/03/2025, the previous rejection under section 112 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 13, and 15-16 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hayes et al in the Office action dated 08/04/2025. In view of the amendment filed 11/03/2025, the previous rejection under section 102 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 13, and 15-16 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguilar in view of Cantini, and further in view of Softly. As an initial matter, applicant notes (Remarks, page 7) that the Office cited Muller (WO 2017042337) in the statement of rejection but does not discuss Muller and instead only discusses Aguilar. Please note that the reference to Miller in the statement of rejection was a typographical error, and Aguilar was the intended primary reference as evidenced by the body of the rejection. In view of the amendment filed 11/03/2025, the previous rejection under section 103 over Aguilar in view of Cantini and Softly is withdrawn. A new rejection necessitated by the amendment is presented below.
Claim 7 was previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguilar in view of Cantini and Softly, and further in view of Chen. In view of the amendment filed 11/03/2025, the previous rejection under section 103 over Aguilar in view of Cantini, Softly, and Chen is withdrawn. A new rejection necessitated by the amendment is presented below.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-16 were provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over copending Application No. 17/595,530. In view of the amendment filed 11/03/2025, the previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-16 were provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over copending Application No. 17/756,887 in view of Aguilar and Cantini. In view of the amendment filed 11/03/2025, the previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-16 were provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over copending Application No. 17/595,446 in view of Aguilar and Cantini. In view of the amendment filed 11/03/2025, the previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguilar et al. (Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, vol. 24, no. 6, June 2014, pp. 606–13; cited previously) in view of Cantini (US 20080268094 A1; cited previously), and further in view of Froekjaer et al. (WO 1991009597 A1; 1991).
Applicants Invention
The instant claims are drawn to a method for the treatment of atherosclerosis in an individual having the atherosclerosis, comprising administering to the individual a combination of compounds having the Formulas (1) and (2), with dependent claim further including Formulas (3) and (4). The compounds of Formulas (1) – (4) are produced in a single composition by chemical interesterification between tributyrin and high oleic sunflower oil (see page 21, Example 1 in the specification). Applicant asserts that short-chain fatty acids (SFCAs) including butyrate have been shown in the prior art to have anti-inflammatory properties and are a candidate for prevention and/or treatment of atherosclerosis (specification, pages 3-4). Applicant additionally asserts that the compounds of Formula (1) – (4) and compositions thereof represent a food-grade source of butyrate having improved organoleptic properties as compared to butyrate (specification, page 4, lines 20-25).
Aguilar
Aguilar discloses that butyrate impairs atherogenesis by reducing plaque inflammation and vulnerability and decreasing NFκB activation (title, abstract). Aguilar discloses administering butyrate orally to mice (page 607, left side, “Methods”) for 10 weeks. Aguilar further discloses that atherosclerosis in the aorta was reduced by 50% in the butyrate supplemented group (page 610, left side, first paragraph and Figure 1). Aguilar concludes by stating “oral supplementation with 1% of sodium butyrate is able to slow the progression of atherosclerotic lesions by reducing the adhesion and migration of macrophages and increasing plaque stability…All of these data support a possible role for butyrate as an atheroprotective agent”.
Aguilar differs from instant claims 1 and 13 by the administration of sodium butyrate instead of a composition comprising Formulas (1), (2), (3), and (4).
Cantini
Cantini discloses that glycerides of butyric acid can serve as a source of butyrate in animal feed, including triglycerides of Formulas (1) – (4) (title, abstract). In particular, Cantini discloses compositions for animal food comprising a mixture of glycerides of fatty acids, wherein the glycerides are mixtures of butyric acid and C18 unsaturated fatty acid glycerides (see, for example, claim 31). Cantini discloses that triglycerides can comprise up to 100% of the total mixture of glycerides (see, e.g., para. [0029]).
Cantini discloses that butyrate triglycerides offer advantages including the ability to simultaneously administer both butyric acid and the long chain fatty acids (e.g., palmitic, stearic, oleic, etc.) which are essential fatty acids not synthesized in the animal (para. [0048]). Further, Cantini discloses that the compositions solve problems associated with butyric acid, including unpleasant odor and volatility (para. [0017]); and allowing for passage through the stomach (gastric by-pass) and slow release in the intestine.
Cantini is therefore relied upon for its teaching of butyrate triglycerides as a source of butyric acid, and for teaching the advantages of butyrate triglycerides (improved organoleptic properties) over butyric acid.
Cantini does not disclose an exact butyrate triglyceride composition. However, butyrate triglyceride compositions comprising a combination of Formula (1) and Formula (2), and indeed all four of Formulas (1) – (4), were known in the prior art to the person having ordinary skill.
Froekjaer
Froekjaer is drawn triglycerides with biological effects on the intestinal mucosa (title, abstract). Froekjaer is focused on solving certain problems associated with free fatty acids, such as butyric acid. Specifically, Froekjaer discloses that when free fatty acids (such as butyric acid) are used, these free fatty acids have the drawback that they exhibit a bad smell and a bad taste, and are subject to the so-called first pass effect, i.e. they are rapidly eliminated by the liver (page 1, lines 1-28). Thus, the purpose of Froekjaer’s invention is the provision of an agent with a biological effect on the intestinal mucosa, which have advantages over the free fatty acid equivalents, such as butyric acid (page 1, lines 1 – 28).
In particular, Froekjaer discloses triglycerides comprising one or more linear, saturated or unsaturated acyl groups containing 2 – 5 carbon atoms, and one or more linear, saturated or unsaturated acyl groups containing 16 – 24 carbon atoms (Abstract; page 2, lines 3 – 7; claim 1), having the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
263
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Example 1 of Froekjaer, the synthesis of triglycerides comprising butyric acid and long chain fatty acids is disclosed, wherein the triglycerides are prepared by an interesterification reaction between high oleic sunflower oil and butyric acid (page 4, Example 1). The obtained product consisted of 100% triglycerides, i.e. no mono- or diglycerides were present (page 4, lines 9 – 10). The fatty acid composition of the lipid is shown below (page 4):
PNG
media_image3.png
197
299
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As evidenced by the table above, the fatty acids were either butyric acid (C-4) or fatty acids having between 16 and 20 carbon atoms (such as C-18:1, oleic acid), as defined in the instant claims. Please note that the triglyceride of Example 1 in Froekjaer was prepared in a process which is similar to that of Example 1 of the instant application where interesterification between high oleic sunflower oil and tributyrin was performed. Froekjaer is considered to represent the closest prior art to applicant’s triglyceride composition disclosed in Example 1 of the instant specification.
Froekjaer differs from instant claims 1 and 13 because Froekjaer does not specify an anti-atherosclerotic effect, but more broadly discloses a “biological effect on the intestinal mucosa”.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. See MPEP 2143.
Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applying KSR example rationales (B) and/or (G), it would have been prima facie obvious to substitute butyrate in the method of preventing or treating atherosclerosis taught by Aguilar with the butyryl triglyceride composition taught by Cantini in view of Froekjaer. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make such a substitution in view of Cantini’s and Froekjaer’s teachings of the advantages of a butyryl triglyceride composition over free fatty acids (namely improved taste and smell; and avoiding the first pass effect). A skilled artisan would have reasonably predicted success because Cantini and Froekjaer teach that Froekjaer’s composition is an active alternative to butyric acid; and Aguilar discloses that butyrate prevents and/or treats atherosclerosis.
With respect to claims 1-3, 13, and 15, the combination of Aguilar, Cantini, and Froekjaer teaches administering a composition comprising butyryl triglycerides of Formulas (1) – (4) to treat atherosclerosis in an individual with atherosclerosis; and teaches that the composition has improved organoleptic properties relative to butyric acid.
With respect to claims 4-5, the composition in Froekjaer comprises a combination of compounds reading on Formulas (1) – (4). Froekjaer does not disclose the specific percentages of each compound in the composition, and identifies in the table at page 4, lines 14-19 that the composition is primarily comprised of triglycerides with C-4 (22.0 wt. %) and C-18:1 acids (70.6 wt. %).
However, differences in result-effective variables will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the value of the result-effective variable is critical. See MPEP 2144.05. In the instant case, the percentages of the individual triglycerides of Formulas (1) – (4) in the composition are result-effective variables which can be optimized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. The fatty acid composition can be modified by interesterifying tributyrin with different oils such as canola, cotton seed, soybean, etc. as taught by Froekjaer (page 3, 3rd para.). Absent a showing of criticality, optimizing result-effective variables is routine experimentation.
With respect to claim 8, Froekjaer teaches an animal feed composition (see Example 4, page 8), which are considered to read on the limitations “nutritional composition”; “dietary supplement”; and “pet care product”.
With respect to claims 9-10 and 16-19, the combination of Aguilar, Cantini, and Froekjaer teaches a triglyceride composition having oleic acid (C-18:1) as one of the long chain fatty acids. Oleic acid is a monounsaturated fatty acid.
Response to Arguments
In response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over (in part) Aguilar and Cantini, Applicant presented the following arguments in the Remarks filed 11/03/2025:
Applicant argues that Aguilar and Cantini are silent with respect to the treatment of the claimed indications by administering compounds of Formula (1) and (2).
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The rejection is based on the combination of Aguilar, Cantini, and Froekjaer.
Compositions comprising compounds of formula (1) – (4) were known sources of butyrate which could be used to deliver butyrate to the gut as taught by Cantini in view of Froekjaer. Butyrate was known to be useful for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases such as atherosclerosis in view of Aguilar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have enjoyed a reasonable expectation of success in view of the combination of the references.
Applicant alleges that Cantini teaches away from the claimed compounds in view of the passage at page 4, lines 13-34. Please note that this citation appears to refer to some other publication and the passage was identified on page 2, para. [0024] – [0026] in the US publication of Cantini cited in the rejection.
Applicant alleges that “[a]s a whole, Cantini teaches that compounds provide bacteriostatic efficacy by releasing butyrate and that nutritional efficacy is provided by compounds that cannot be re-esterified (predominantly those substituted in the 1 and 3 positions only). Thus to provide synergy between bacteriostatic and nutritional efficacy, the skilled person would realize that the preferred triglycerides would include butyrate at the 2-position and comparatively longer chain fatty acids in the 1 and 3 position.”
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Please note MPEP 2123(I), which states: “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments”; and MPEP 2123(II), which states “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments.” Note also MPEP 2145, which states “[T]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…”
In the instant case, Cantini provides a broad teaching of the use of mono-, di-, and triglycerides comprising fatty acids from C1 to C22 and butyric acid (abstract, para. [0003], para. [0010], para. [0017], claim 31, claim 33). Cantini’s broader disclosure clearly establishes that butyrate triglycerides can serve as a source of butyric acid which avoid certain limitations of butyric acid, such as “the extremely unpleasant and persistent odor which also remains in some products in which it is contained (i.e. in the salts of butyric acid such as calcium or sodium butyrate)” (para. 0015]); and “the high costs of products which although containing butyric acid are odorless, but generally also very expensive, such as microencapsulated products.” (para. 0016]).
The passage cited by applicant, particularly section B), identifies an additional benefit for certain monoglycerides and diglycerides, comprising fatty acids primarily in the 1 or 3 positions. While Cantini identifies this benefit for certain monoglycerides and diglycerides, the broader disclosure teaches the use of butyrate triglycerides as a source of butyrate.
Section C) of the cited passage identifies a benefit of any mixed glycerides containing butyric acid (i.e. mono-, di-, or triglycerides), which is that synergy between bacteriostatic efficacy (from butyrate) and nutritional efficacy (from long chain fatty acids) is always obtained. Please note that the examiner disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of section C) as referring to butyrate glycerides comprising butyrate in the 1 and 3 positions only. Cantini refers to the bacteriostatic efficacy of butyrate/butyric glycerides elsewhere in the publication (e.g. para. [0012]); and also refers to the nutritional efficacy of C1 to C22 fatty acids elsewhere (e.g. para. [0002], para. [0023]). Thus the “synergy” discussed in section C) is the result of any glyceride comprising both butyric acid esters and nutritionally useful fatty acid esters.
Indeed, Cantini states in para. [0044]: The use of glycerides containing both butyric acid and short and medium chain fatty acids from C1 to C12 in animal feed makes it possible to obtain, in addition to the antibacterial/bacteriostatic effect, an important nutritional value especially for young animals; and states in para. [0045]: The use of mixtures of butyric acid and C18 unsaturated fatty acids in the form of glycerides in animal feed has shown to have high digestibility, a high energy value and numerous and different actions.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of Cantini’s entire disclosure.
Applicant argues that the present invention provides an unexpected and unpredictable improvement in view of the cited art, because “the claimed compounds have been demonstrated to possess an improved taste in comparison to tributyrin” (Remarks, page 10).
Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention possesses and unexpected improvement over tributyrin is not persuasive, because the above rejection is founded on the prior art’s teaching of certain advantages (i.e., improved smell, taste, and avoiding first pass effect) of Froekjaer’s composition over Aguilar’s butyrate (not tributyrin). Regarding applicant’s arguments generally asserting that the “improved smell and taste” of the claimed composition was unexpected, these are unpersuasive in view of both Cantini’s and Froekjaer’s disclosures of improved organoleptic properties of butyryl triglycerides relative to butyrate.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguilar et al. in view of Cantini and Froekjaer applied above, and further in view of Chen (US20060141101A1; cited previously).
The teachings of Aguilar, Cantini, and Froekjaer are disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein by reference. The combination of Aguilar, Cantini, and Froekjaer teaches administering a composition comprising a combination of compounds of Formulas (1) – (4) to treat atherosclerosis.
Neither Aguilar, Cantini, nor Froekjaer disclose compositions comprising the claimed compounds and dietary fiber. However, compositions comprising dietary fiber and triglycerides are known in the prior art. For example, Chen discloses a delivery system for low calorie bulking agents coated with a lipid compound (title, abstract). The lipid layer can be an edible fat, such as a triglyceride prepared by interesterification of tributyrin with canola, soybean, cottonseed, or sunflower oil which contain SCFA and LCFA (para. [0022]; para. [0032]).
Applying KSR example rationale (A), it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the composition taught by the combination of Aguilar, Cantini, and Froekjaer with dietary fiber as taught by Chen. A skilled artisan would have reasonably predicted that the combination would result in a composition which delivers a combination of both butyric acid and dietary fiber.
Double Patenting
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).
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).
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.
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.
Copending Application No. 17/044,684
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-4, 10-22, and 25-29 of copending Application No. 17/044,684 (reference application) in view of Aguilar et al. (Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, vol. 24, no. 6, June 2014, pp. 606–13; cited in IDS), and further in view of Cantini (US20040086621A1; published 06 May 2004; cited in IDS).
The reference application claims a method for providing a source of butyrate to an individual comprising administering the individual a compound having the same formula (1)-(4) as the instant application; and claims a composition comprising compounds which read on instant formulas (1) – (4).
The claims of the reference application fail to recite treating atherosclerosis in an individual having the atherosclerosis.
However, the compounds of the reference application, having the same formula (1)-(4) as the instant application as claimed will provide a source of dietary butyrate in the method of treating cardiovascular disorders taught by the combination of Aguilar and Cantini.
The teachings of Aguilar in view of Cantini are disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein by reference and applied to instant claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-16. The combination of Aguilar and Cantini teaches administering butyric triglycerides of Formulas (1) – (4) or compositions thereof to treat and/or prevent atherosclerosis in animals.
Applying KSR example rationales (B) and/or (G), it would have been prima facie obvious to administer the dietary butyrate recited in the claims of the reference application to treat and/or prevent a cardiovascular disorder, such as atherosclerosis taught by Aguilar and Cantini, to arrive at a method of the instant claims. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected that administering the butyrate source of formulas (1) – (4) recited in the claims of the above copending applications to treat and/or prevent atherosclerosis would be effective, because Aguilar teaches that butyrate is an atheroprotective agent, and the compounds of Formulas (1) – (4) are a source of dietary butyrate.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
In response to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection, Applicant requests that the nonstatutory double patenting rejection be withdrawn or held in abeyance until claims are allowed in the present application.
In response, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is still deemed proper and is maintained.
Conclusion
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, and 15-19 are rejected
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Nottingham whose telephone number is (571)270-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Brooks can be reached at (571) 270-7682. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1621
/CLINTON A BROOKS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1621