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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2020/082035 03/20/2020 which claims foreign priority to CHINA 201910711349.9 08/02/2019.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 201910711349.9, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior filed application fails to provide support for:
(I) The 0.01%-5% formic acid water in a volume ratio of 1-5:9-5; a flow rate controlled at 50-300 mL/min, a UV detection wavelength is 220-280 nm and 350-380 nm; the reverse-phase chromatographic column is balanced for 3-30 min, required in claim 1, step a);
(II) Weighing any amount of a pomegranate peel extract; dissolving in any amount of water; centrifuging under any conditions; concentrating the two components at 30°C-50°C, required in claim 1, step b);
(III) Obtaining any amount of lyophilized powder of β-punicalagin and concentrating by a rotary evaporator at a temperature of 30°C-50°C; and concentrating the two components to any volume by a rotary evaporator at a temperature of 30°C-50°C; required in claim 1, step c);
(IV) Weighing 0.1-10 g of pomegranate peel extract and dissolving in 10-50 mL of water, required in claim 2 and claim 8;
(V) Centrifuging at a rotation speed of 5000-10000 revolutions per minute for 3-10 minutes, required in claim 3 and claim 9; and
(VI) Reducing the volume to 10-50 mL, required in claim 4 and claim 10.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1.
Thus, the Examiner is interpreting claims 1-4 and 6 have an effective filing date of March 20, 2020.
Claim Status
The claim set and Applicant’s remarks filed on May 07, 2025 have been entered. Claims 5 and 7-11 are canceled. Thus, claims 1-4 and 6 as amended are examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
With respect to the objections and/or rejections mailed in the non-final office action on February 25, 2025:
(I) The objection of claim 1, step b), line 4, which the Examiner respectfully notes is line 11 starting from the beginning of claim 1, is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amended line 11 to insert the word “an” immediately before the recitation of “α-punicalagin” and inserting the word “a” immediately before the recitation of “β-punicalagin”.
(II) The objection of claim 4, line 2 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim to recite “wherein in step b) the concentrating the two components is performed to reduce the volume of each component to 10-50 mL”.
(III) The objection to claim 5 and claim 11 is withdrawn in view of Applicant canceling claim 5 and claim 11 as discussed in the Claim Status section above.
(IV) The objection to claim 6, line 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant replacing the word “A” with the word “The”.
(V) The objection to claim 6, line 2 is withdrawn in view of Applicant replacing the recitation “comprising following steps of:” with “further comprising the following steps of:”.
(VI) The objection of claim 6, step b), line 7, which the Examiner respectfully notes is on pg. 4 of 16, line 12, is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment inserting the word “the” immediately before the word “two”.
(VII) The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, is withdrawn in view of Applicant replacing the phrase “by cutting at a position” with the phrase “from the chromatographic peak”.
(VIII) The rejection of claims 4, 6 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of:
Claim 4 reciting “wherein in step b) the concentrating the two components is performed to reduce the volume of each component to 10-50 mL”;
Claim 10 being canceled by the Applicant as discussed in the Claim Status section above; and
Claim 6 replacing the phrase “by cutting at a position” with the phrase “from the chromatographic peak”.
(IX) The rejection of claims 5 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant canceling claims 5 and 7-9 as discussed in the Claim Status section above.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 1-4 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Applicant argues or declares:
(A) An additional element is not taught in the combined prior art references, specifically claim 1 recites the distinguishing limitation of collecting the two components after a second reverse-phrase chromatography is performed, wherein claim 1 recites the limitation “reloading the two concentrated components at a position of the α-punicalagin and circularly loading the two concentrated components”, see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 10 of 16, last paragraph of the page.
(B) The single injection and collection taught by Lu et al. (2008) (hereafter referred to as “Lu-1”) cannot be responsive to both the first (b) and second (c) chromatographic separations steps; that the initial separation via HPLC and the second separation via HPLC are separate elements; and that it is improper to rely on the same process for both the first (step b) and second (step c) chromatographic separation steps, see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 12 of 16, paragraph 1.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments (A)-(B), the Examiner respectfully notes that Lu-1 teaches determination of punicalagin isomers in pomegranate husk, use of a reversed phase C18 column and wherein the representative chromatogram of the pomegranate husk sample is shown in Fig. 1, which demonstrates two chromatographic peaks of α-punicalagin and β-punicalagin as discussed in the 103 rejection below.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully noted in the 103 rejection below that the limitation of “reloading at a position of the α-punicalagin and circularly loading the two concentrated components”, required in claim 1, line 13 and line 21, respectively, was interpreted by the Examiner to be a design choice within the scope of the artisan to optimize the pilot-scale prior art conditions taught by Lu-1 above as discussed in the 103 rejection below through routine experimentation; as this limitation is a general feature of extraction and separation based procedures within column chromatography processes. Thus, these teachings allow one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely experiment and arrive at the presently claimed limitations in order to provide additional separation, collection and purification steps in order to provide an optimal extraction and separation procedure for purifying punicalagin based on the procedure discussed by Lu-1 in the 103 rejection below.
As Lu-1 teaches comparing the chromatogram (b) of pomegranate husk sample with the chromatogram (a) of the punicalagin standard, see pg. 304, Fig. 1; and Lu et al. (2010) (hereafter referred to as “Lu-2”) teaches a method to purify natural punicalagin by preparative HPLC with 14% methanol in 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid solution as the mobile phase resulting in 81.7 mg punicalagin at 98.05% purity obtained from 300 mg crude extract containing 30% punicalagin as discussed in the 103 rejection below.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the pilot-scale prior art conditions of Lu-1 as discussed above through routine experimentation and thus arrive at the claimed invention in order to provide a rapid, simple and accurate analytical method to determine the content of each punicalagin isomer in pomegranate husk as taught by Lu-1, see pg. 304, left column, paragraph 2. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success as Lu-1 teaches the separation and collection of chromatographic peaks of α-punicalagin and β-punicalagin using a reversed phase C18 column as taught by Lu-1 above and Lu-2 teaches HPLC purification of punicalagin resulting in a 98.05% purity.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments (A)-(B) are not found persuasive.
(C) Lu-1 is silent on teaching two mutually convertible isomers, see pg. 11 of 16, paragraph 1.
(D) Mozelle does not teach the criticality of using a rotary evaporator under controlled temperature and time conditions to form a liquid concentrate, see Applicant’s Remarks, pg., 13 of 16, paragraph 1.
(E) The Applicant (1) identified the problem of co-elution of impurities due to the matrix effect and (2) leveraged the mutual interconversion property between the two isomers of punicalagin by additional steps of concentrating and reloading to achieve purification at an increased cost to solvent the problem, see Applicant’s Remarks, pg. 14 of 16, paragraph 1.
(F) Applicant’s declaration of Haji Akber Aisa (coinventor) submitted by Applicant on May 07, 2025 under 37 CFR 1.132 is acknowledged.
The Aisa declaration states that the core innovation of the present invention lies in leveraging the mutual interconversion property between the two isomers of punicalagin (α-punicalagin and β-punicalagin) to achieve purification, see pg. 2 of 4, paragraph # 9.
Additionally, Aisa declares although Lu-2 claims to achieve 98.05% HPLC purity for punicalagin, the punicalagin obtained from the present invention due to the absence of any co-eluting impurities can exhibit test results showing a purity exceeding 98% under any chromatographic conditions or UV detection wavelengths, a feature absent in the method of Lu-2, see pg. 3 of 4, paragraph #14.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments (C)-(E) and the Aisa declaration (F), the Examiner respectfully notes that Lu-1 teaches punicalagins are often noted in the singular punicalagin, however, it is found naturally as two reversible α- and β-anomers, see, Lu-1, pg. 303, right column, paragraph 3; and that α-punicalagin and β-punicalagin interconverted within the samples of Lu-1, see pg. 305, middle column, equilibrium constant of punicalagin content in pomegranate husk, paragraph 1.
The Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant states in Applicant’s arguments, that the two fractions are concentrated using a rotary evaporator under controlled temperature and time conditions, wherein during this process the isomers undergo mutual interconversion, reverting fraction 1 (F1) and fraction 2 (F2) back into a mixed solution of α-punicalagin and β-punicalagin, see Applicant’s Remarks, last paragraph of the page, lines 16-18.
The Examiner respectfully notes that claim 1 recites:
(I) a first component of the two components collected around a chromatographic peak of the β-punicalagin is concentrated by a rotary evaporator at a temperature of 30°C-50°C, see the claim set filed 05/07/2025, claim 1, lines 16-17; and
(II) concentrating a second component of the two components collected from a chromatographic peak of the α-punicalagin by the rotary evaporator at a temperature of 30°C-50°C, see the claim set filed 05/07/2025, claim 1, lines 19-21.
The Examiner respectfully notes that Morzelle teaches pomegranate sample extracts were prepared by percolation of the peel, centrifuged, and the supernatant was concentrated at 35˚C using a rotary evaporator as discussed in the 103 rejection below.
Additionally, when Morzelle concentrates the supernatant at 35˚C using a rotary evaporator under vacuum, until completely dry, and subsequently flash freezes the concentrated sample in liquid nitrogen, as discussed in the 103 rejection below, the Examiner reasonably interprets this is a physical limitation for its intended use in microencapsulation of the pomegranate samples as taught by Morzelle; and that it is a design choice within the scope of the artisan to concentrate the pomegranate samples of Morzelle to either a liquid concentrate or until completely dry when the concentration step is performed in the rotary evaporator as taught by Morzelle.
Moreover, the Examiner respectfully notes that the mutual interconversion of punicalagin is a known effect in chromatographic column purification as taught by Lu-1 above; in addition to the teachings of Morzelle as discussed above which meet the controlled temperature conditions of the rotary evaporator required for mutual interconversion of the punicalagin isomers when concentrating the punicalagin sample as required in claim 1; the consideration of leveraging the mutual interconversion property of punicalagin during the purification step of Lu-1 and the concentration step of Morzelle with extracts of punicalagin is taught by the prior art and thus the problem of co-elution of impurities due to the matrix effect is addressed by the teachings of Lu-1 and Morzelle.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully notes that Lu-2 teaches 98.05% HPLC purity of punicalagin as required in claim 1, lines 18-19; and that the purity of punicalagin exceeding 98% under any chromatographic conditions or UV detection wavelengths is not a required limitation of claim 1.
Therefore, the conditions required for the mutual interconversion of the punicalagin isomers in Applicant’s argument (C); the liquid concentrate in Applicant’s argument (D); the problem of co-elution of impurities due to the matrix effect in Applicant’s argument (E); and the Aisa declaration (F) are all met by the teachings of Lu-1, Lu-2 and Morzelle as discussed above.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments (C)-(E) and the Aisa declaration (F) are not found persuasive.
New Claim Rejections
The following is a modified rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendment, filed on May 07, 2025, where claims 5 and 7-11 are canceled. Therefore, the rejection from the previous Office Action, dated February 25, 2025, has been modified and is listed below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (hereafter referred to as "Lu-1", Published 25 June 2008, Chromatographia, Vol. 68, No. 3/4, pp. 303-306, PTO-892 mailed 02/25/2025) in view of Morzelle et al. (Published 9 November 2016, PLOS One, Vol. 11, Issue 11, pp. 1-20, PTO-892 mailed 02/25/2025); Lu et al. (hereafter referred to as "Lu-2", Published 20 December 2010, Separation Science and Technology, Vol. 46, Issue 1, abstract, PTO-892 mailed 02/25/2025) and Nshanian et al. (Published 24 December 2017, International Journal of Mass Spectrometry, Vol. 427, pp. 157-164, PTO-892 mailed 02/25/2025).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 6, Lu-1 teaches determination of punicalagin isomers in pomegranate husk (e.g. pomegranate peel, required in claim 1, step b), line 1). Lu-1 teaches a simple and accurate method for punicalagin analysis based on ethanol extraction and RP-LC (e.g. reverse-phase liquid chromatography) using linear gradient of methanol in 0.1% TFA solution was established, see abstract. Lu-1 teaches the content of each isomer and total content of punicalagins in husk were determined, see abstract. Lu-1 teaches the mean value of punicalagins content in pomegranate husk was 82.4 mg g-1, see abstract.
Lu-1 teaches one gram of dried husk powder was extracted ultrasonically with 30 mL 40% ethanol for 30 min twice. The supernatants were combined. Thirty milligram of the sample were precisely weighed by a Sartorius scale (BP211D) and dissolved in a 10 mL volumetric flask with methanol–water (1:1). See pg. 304, middle column, Sample preparation, paragraph 1.
Lu-1 teaches a reversed phase C18 column (250 X 4.6 mm, 5 µm, DiamodsilTM) was used (e.g. a pilot-scale reverse phase chromatographic column, required in claim 6). The solvent system consisted of MeOH (eluent A) and 0.1% (v/v) TFA in water (eluent B). The flow rate was 1.0 mL min-1, and 5 µl portions were injected into the column. Punicalagin was detected by absorbance at 378 nm. The representative chromatograms of the pomegranate husk sample is shown in Fig. 1, which demonstrates two chromatographic peaks of α-punicalagin and β-punicalagin. See pg. 304, left column, Operating Conditions, paragraphs 1-2.
Although, Lu-1 does not teach (a) concentrating the two components at 30°C-50°C respectively to obtain two concentrated components, required in claim 1, lines 11-12; (b) the use of formic acid in the mobile phase, required in claim 1, line 4; (c) a powder of the β-punicalagin with a purity higher than 98% detected by a high-performance liquid chromatography, required in claim 1, lines 18-20; (d) the gram amount of pomegranate peel and the volume of water, required in claim 2 and claim 6, pg. 4 of 16, lines 7-8; (e) centrifuging at a rotation speed for the duration recited, required in claim 3 and claim 6, pg. 4 of 16, lines 8-9; and (f) concentrating to the volume recited, required in claim 4 and claim 6, pg. 4 of 16, lines 11-12.
However, in the same field of endeavor of pomegranate extracts, with respect to limitations (a) and (c), Morzelle teaches pomegranate sample extracts were prepared by percolation of the peel in an 80/20 hydroalcoholic solution at a 1:10 ratio (peel [g]: solvent [mL]), see pg. 2, Pomegranate samples, paragraph 1, lines 1-2.
Morzelle teaches the resulting extract was centrifuged at 1956.2g (Model NT 825, New Technique, Brazil), and the supernatant was concentrated at 35˚C using a rotary evaporator (Model 801, Fisatom, Brazil) under vacuum, until completely dry and subsequently flash frozen in liquid nitrogen, see pg. 3, paragraph 1, lines 3-5.
In addition, with respect to limitation (c), Lu-2 teaches a novel, rapid, and high efficiency method to purify natural punicalagin by preparative HPLC is described, see abstract. Lu-2 teaches optimum purification condition for punicalagin purification was 14% methanol in 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid solution as the mobile phase, see abstract. The flow rate was 12 ml/min. 81.7 mg punicalagin at 98.05% purity was obtained from 300 mg crude extract containing 30% punicalagin, see abstract.
Moreover, in the same field of endeavor of reverse-phase chromatography, with respect to limitation (b), Nshanian teaches trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) is often used as a mobile phase modifier to enhance reversed phase chromatographic performance. TFA adjusts solution pH and is an ion-pairing agent, but it is not typically suitable for electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (ESI–MS) and liquid chromatography/MS (LC–MS) because of its significant signal suppression, see abstract.
Nshanian teaches formic acid (FA) remains the preferred additive for LC–MS analysis, despite inferior chromatographic performance as compared to TFA. It’s pKa is lower than acetic acid (3.75 vs. 4.67), such that at 0.1% (v/v) yields a lower pH and a greater degree of protonation in solution. Formic acid is sometimes preferred over acetic acid simply because its odor is less objectionable. See pg. 158, left column last paragraph, line 7 – right column, paragraph 1, line 2.
With respect to limitations (d)-(f), Lu-1, teaches thirty milligram of the pomegranate sample was dissolved in a 10 mL volumetric flask with methanol–water (1:1), as discussed above, and Morzelle teaches the resulting extract was centrifuged and the supernatant was concentrated at 35˚C using a rotary evaporator, as discussed above.
In addition, with respect to the limitations “the volume ratio”, “the flow rate”, “the UV detection wave length”, and “the column is balanced for 3-30 minutes”, required in claim 1, lines 4-7 and claim 6, lines 1-6;
“collecting the two components around two chromatographic peaks”, required in claim 1, lines 10-11” and lines 15-16;
“reloading at a position of the α-punicalagin and circularly loading the two concentrated components”, required in claim 1, line 13 and line 22, respectively;
“a powder of the β-punicalagin with a purity higher than 98% detected by a high-performance liquid chromatography”, required in claim 1, lines 18-20;
“a six-way valve”, required in claim 6, pg. 4 of 16, line 10; and
“obtaining 137 mg of the punicalagin”, required in claim 6, pg. 4 of 16, lines 19-20;
are all limitations reasonably interpreted by the Examiner to be design choices within the scope of the artisan to optimize the pilot-scale prior art conditions taught by Lu-1, and/or could be arrived at through routine experimentation; as the above referenced limitations are general features of extraction and separation based procedures within column chromatography processes as discussed by the combination of Lu-1, Morzelle, and Nshanian as discussed above. Thus, these teachings allow one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely experiment and arrive at the presently claimed limitations in order to provide an optimal extraction and separation procedure for purifying punicalagin based on the procedure discussed by Lu-1 above. Thus, all of these limitations will be met or will be arrived at based on the teachings of Lu-1, Morzelle, and Nshanian through routine experimentation and optimization of the extraction and separation method of punicalagin as taught by Lu-1 above.
In addition, MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) discloses “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.”. Thus, by optimizing the prior art conditions taught by Lu-1 above, through routine experimentation, all of the limitations discussed above are within the scope of the artisan by optimizing the teachings of Lu-1, Morzelle and Nshanian through routine experimentation.
With respect to the limitation of “an isomerization feature-based method for purifying punicalagin”, required in claim 1, line 1; the Examiner is reasonably interpreting this to be a physical limitation that is met by the teachings of Lu-1, as Lu-1 teaches determination of punicalagin isomers in pomegranate husk and the content of each isomer in the husk were determined using a reversed phase C18 column (250 X 4.6 mm, 5 µm, DiamodsilTM) as discussed above; and as evidenced by the Specification which discloses “The isomerization feature-based method for purifying punicalagin of the present invention is characterized in that the chromatographic column used in the method is a reversed-phase C18 chromatographic column” (see pg. 5, paragraph 2, lines 1-4). Thus, since Lu-1 teaches a reverse phase C18 column for liquid chromatography for determining punicalagin isomers as discussed above, the recited limitation will be met.
With respect to the limitation of “the pale yellow powder of the punicalagin with a purity higher than 98%”, the Examiner is interpreting the “pale yellow” limitation to be a physical limitation of the punicalagin as purified by the claimed process. Since the combination of Lu-1, Morzelle and Nshanian teach a method of purifying punicalagin at a value that is higher than the 98% purity level after detection with high-performance liquid chromatography, this physical limitation will be met.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have included limitations (a)-(f) into the extraction and separation procedure taught by Lu-1 above as within the scope of the artisan by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a simple and accurate method for punicalagin analysis as taught by Lu-1 above; and with respect to the substitution of the trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) taught by Lu-1 above, for the formic acid (FA) taught by Nshanian above, one would have been motivated to provide a greater degree of protonation in solution by using formic acid or to use formic acid as its odor is less objectionable than acetic acid as taught by Nshanian above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to have included limitations (a)-(f) into the method of Lu-1 as taught above, as the prior art discussed above is directed to either extracts of punicalagin as taught by Morzelle; purifying punicalagin with HPLC as taught by Lu-2; and the use of trifluoracetic acid as the mobile phrase in liquid chromatography as taught by Nshanian above.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed in this action.
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 JARET J CREWS whose telephone number is (571)270-0962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am-5:30pm 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, Renee Claytor can be reached at (571) 272-8394. 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.
/JARET J CREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 1691
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Prosecution Insights