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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Priority
This application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2020/072220, filed 8/7/2020. This application claims foreign priority to IN201941032098, filed 8/8/2019 and EP19202430.5, filed 10/10/2019.
Claim Status
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 12/16/25 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2, 4-15, 17-20 are currently pending. Claims 6-15 are withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-5, 17-20 are currently under examination.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Withdrawn Rejections/Objections
The claim objections made in the previous office action have been withdrawn due to claim amendments.
The 112(b) rejections made in the previous office action have been withdrawn due to claim amendments.
The new matter rejections made in the previous office action have been withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Modified Claim Rejection(s) Necessitated by Amendments
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 (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 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 1-2 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knaup et al. (WO2019/034698A1; Feb. 21, 2019) in view of Anwar et al. (Journal of Food Engineering 105 (2011) 367-678).
Knaup throughout the reference teaches tablets (solid dosage form) with high active ingredient content of omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts (polyunsaturated fatty acid salt) and a method for preparing the tablets (Abstract). Knaup teaches a tablet comprising a composition containing one or more omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts, characterized in that the amino acid is chosen from basic amino acids, preferably lysine, arginine and ornithine (page 4, line 11-15). Polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids, which are used for producing the tablets, can be obtained from any suitable material and be processed with any suitable method (page 6, line 7-10). Knaup teaches omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts may be obtained as fine, virtually colourless powders by precipitation from aqueous or aqueous alcoholic media or by spray-drying, which differ advantageously from the waxy consistency of these substances (page 8, line 6-9). Thus, Knaup is teaching preparing a binder comprising solid powdered polyunsaturated fatty acid salt. The composition also contains additional substance which acts as a plasticizer (page 4, line 26-39). While Knaup teaches magnesium stearate as one of the plasticizer that can be used, Knaup does not require using magnesium stearate and discloses various other plasticizers that can be used in the tablet formation. Tablet further comprise one or more additional active ingredient including vitamins and minerals, and pharmaceutical active ingredients (page 7, line 1-3; page 8, line 21-26). Omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts are compressed together with one or more binders and/or one or more structure forming substances (page 7, line 30-38). Omega 3-lysine salt was mixed with the other components using a tumbling mixer to form a mixture. The omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts are granulated preferably with a solvent, or with a solvent mixture, prior to the compression and optionally prior to the compaction. (page 8, line 1-5). Knaup teaches blending the mixture to form a powder blend and compressing the powder blend in a tablet machine to obtain a tablet. (see: examples 2-4; page 8, line 28-32; page 14, line 4-7). Knaup teaches the content of omega-3 fatty acids is in total 40% by weight or more, preferably 50% by weight, which reads on the concentration of the binder recited in instant claim 1 (page 5, line 24-26).
The teachings of Knaup have been set forth above.
While Knaup does not expressly teach a binding parameter and friability of the tablets prepared, Knaup teaches applying a higher pressure during compression causes destruction of the tablet and there exists a need to provide composition containing high amounts of omega-3 fatty acid salts, which can be directly compressed to tablet (without causing destruction of the tablet). Knaup teaches tablets comprising one or more omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts are compressible (without breaking) when the composition has a glass transition temperature Tg of <110 C. (page 3, line 33 to page 4, line 3). Knaup also discloses addition of only small amount of plasticizer improved compression of the composition, which was unexpected and showed how good the composition stick together, when using only small amount of a plasticizer. (page 13, line 6-9; example 2; page 14, line 9-11).
Knaup does not expressly teach the mean particle size of the binder before mixing is between 2 and 600 micrometer. However, Anwar cures these deficiencies.
Anwar teaches the influence of drying methods on fish oil microcapsules, specifically a comparison of spray granulation, spray drying, and freeze drying (title; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Anwar outlines that microencapsulation then drying of omega-3 fish oil by spray granulation (SG) is able to produce powder having a very low propanal content and with a shelf life of 5 weeks (abstract; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Anwar further outlines that spray granulation is proved to be the best drying process to produce stable microcapsules (page 377, paragraph 2; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Anwar teaches the spray granulation results provided a lower chance of lipid degradation by autooxidation than spray drying (SD -abbreviation found in abstract) (page 377, paragraph 2; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Anwar teaches the method of granulation to be continuous granulation (page 373, paragraph 3; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 3). Anwar also teaches the particle size of spray drying powder is 50 to 150 micrometer and particle size of spray granulation granules is on average around 500-600 micrometer, which reads on the particle size recited in claim 3 (see: section 3.2.2. Microcapsule production by spray drying).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to compress and formulate a solid dosage form (tablet) having a binding parameter of at least 2 and friability of 5% or less because Knaup teaches the need to provide composition containing high amounts of omega-3 fatty acid salts, which can be directly compressed to tablet (without causing destruction of the tablet). As discussed supra, Knaup teaches a glass transition temperature of the composition and plasticizers affect the compressibility and the breakability of the tablet form. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to manipulate these parameters to obtain a particular binding parameter and friability of the solid dosage form. 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. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Knaup and Anwar and utilize a continuous spray granulation process to prepare the omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts and have the mean particle size of the binder before mixing to be between 2 and 600 micrometer. As outlined by Anwar, using the process of spray granulation in a fluidized suspension produces a stable omega-3 granule with a lower chance of lipid degradation than spray drying which would motivate someone skilled in the art to advantageously add the process of spray granulation in a fluidized bed to the process of Knaup as it would have a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the process of granulation as claimed would have been obvious. Anwar teaches the method of granulation to be continuous granulation and particle size of spray granulation granules is on average around 500-600 micrometer, thus making the particle size and continuous spray granulation process obvious to one skilled in the art.
From the combined teaching of the cited references, 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, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knaup et al. (WO2019/034698A1; Feb. 21, 2019) in view of Anwar et al. (Journal of Food Engineering 105 (2011) 367-678) as applied to claims 1-2 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Schwarm et al. (WO2016/102323A1; June. 30, 2016).
The teachings of Knaup and Anwar have been set forth above.
With regards to claim 4, as discussed supra, Knaup teaches Polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids, which are used for producing the tablets, can be obtained from any suitable material and be processed with any suitable method (page 6, line 7-10). Knaup teaches the omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts can be obtained by spray drying of an aqueous or alcoholic aqueous solution and the omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts can be granulated with a solvent (water or ethanol) prior to compression. (see: page 8). Knaup does not expressly teach the specific method steps of preparing the omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts which are recited in instant claim 4. However, Schwarm cures this deficiency.
Schwarm teaches increasing the stability of a composition comprising polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids. Schwarm discloses preparation of polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids wherein the process comprises (i) providing a starting composition comprising at least one polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acid component; (ii) providing a lysine composition; (iii) admixing aqueous, aqueous-alcoholic or alcoholic solutions of starting composition and lysine composition, and subjecting resulting admixture to spray drying conditions subsequently, thus forming a solid product composition comprising at least one salt of a cation derived from lysine with an anion derived from a polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acid. (see: Abstract).
Knaup does not expressly teach wherein the spray drying conditions comprise a pure spray drying, batch spray granulation process or continuous spray granulation process. However, Anwar also addresses this deficiencies.
Anwar teaches the influence of drying methods on fish oil microcapsules, specifically a comparison of spray granulation, spray drying, and freeze drying (title; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Anwar outlines that microencapsulation then drying of omega-3 fish oil by spray granulation (SG) is able to produce powder having a very low propanal content and with a shelf life of 5 weeks (abstract; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Anwar further outlines that spray granulation is proved to be the best drying process to produce stable microcapsules (page 377, paragraph 2; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Anwar teaches the spray granulation results provided a lower chance of lipid degradation by autooxidation than spray drying (SD -abbreviation found in abstract) (page 377, paragraph 2; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Anwar teaches the method of granulation to be continuous granulation (page 373, paragraph 3; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 3). Anwar also teaches the particle size of spray drying powder is 50 to 150 micrometer and particle size of spray granulation granules is on average around 500-600 micrometer, which reads on the particle size recited in claim 3 (see: section 3.2.2. Microcapsule production by spray drying).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Knaup, Anwar and Schwarm and utilize the specific method taught by Schwarm to prepare the polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salt. As discussed supra, Knaup teaches Polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids can be obtained from any suitable material and be processed with any suitable method. Schwarm discloses a method of preparing the polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acid to increase stability of a composition and therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate a method of preparation which is known in the art. Additionally, Knaup broadly teaches the omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts can be obtained by spray drying of an aqueous or alcoholic aqueous solution and the omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts can be granulated with a solvent (water or ethanol) prior to compression. Schwarm also teaches similar method steps of preparation but with specific details not taught in Knaup and one skilled in the art would have motivated to utilize the teachings of Schwarm for specific method steps required to prepare the omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Knaup, Schwarm and Anwar and utilize a continuous spray granulation process to prepare the omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts. As outlined by Anwar, using the process of spray granulation in a fluidized suspension produces a stable omega-3 granule with a lower chance of lipid degradation than spray drying which would motivate someone skilled in the art to advantageously add the process of spray granulation in a fluidized bed to the process of Knaup and Schwarm as it would have a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, the process of granulation as claimed would be of obviousness. Further, Anwar teaches the method of granulation to be continuous granulation and particle size of spray granulation granules is on average around 500-600 micrometer, thus making the particle size and continuous spray granulation process obvious to one skilled in the art.
From the combined teaching of the cited references, 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, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knaup et al. (WO2019/034698A1; Feb. 21, 2019) in view of Anwar et al. (Journal of Food Engineering 105 (2011) 367-678) as applied to claims 1-2 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 543 (2018) 234-244).
The teachings of Knaup and Anwar have been set forth above.
As discussed supra, Knaup teaches blending the mixture to form a powder blend and compressing the powder blend in a tablet machine to obtain a tablet. Knaup does not expressly teach an ejection force of not more than 150 N as recited in claim 17. However, Yang cures this deficiency.
Yang teaches a mechanistic study on tablet ejection force and its sensitivity to lubrication for pharmaceutical powders. The study showed that the tablet ejection force is mainly governed by 1) tablet diameter and thickness, 2) compact-die wall friction coefficient, and 3) residual die wall stress upon ejection. Additionally, lubrication was highly effective in reducing tablet ejection force, achievable through decreasing the compact-die wall friction coefficient. High ejection force is indicative of the sub-optimal stress condition of the tablet post-unloading. Therefore, learnings from this study are beneficial for practitioners to harness the ejection force as an effective metric to identify and mitigate risks of tablet defects. Fig. 1 demonstrates that a broad range of tablet ejection forces could be encountered depending on the choice of common pharmaceutical excipients. Yang discloses the ejection force values which can be less than 0.1 kN (100 N). (Abstract; Results and Discussion; Entire document).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Knaup and Yang and use lubrication method to reduce tablet ejection force and achieve an ejection force which can be less than 100 N as taught by Yang. Yang teaches High ejection force is indicative of the sub-optimal stress condition of the tablet post-unloading. Therefore, learnings from this study are beneficial for practitioners to harness the ejection force as an effective metric to identify and mitigate risks of tablet defects. Yang teaches lubrication was highly effective in reducing tablet ejection force, achievable through decreasing the compact-die wall friction coefficient. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one skilled in the art to use lubrication to reduce the ejection force of the tablet to less then 150N as recited in the instant claims.
From the combined teaching of the cited references, 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, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argued the previous 103 rejections cannot be sustained in view of the merger of the limitations of claims 3 and 16 into claim 1.
In response, applicant’s attention is respectfully drawn to the modified 103 rejections above which render obvious all of the limitations of claim 1 and the dependent claims, including the limitations of claims 3 and 16 merged into claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-16 of copending Application No. 17/633,533 (US20220287345A1) in view of Knaup et al. (WO2019/034698A1; Feb. 21, 2019), Anwar et al. (Journal of Food Engineering 105 (2011) 367-678) and Schwarm et al. (WO2016/102323A1; June. 30, 2016).
‘533 application claims a method of preparing a pharmaceutical or nutraceutical dosage form comprising at least one polyunsaturated fatty acid salt comprising at least one omega-3 fatty acid selected from EPA and DHA, and at least one pharmaceutical or nutraceutical active ingredient, the method comprising: a) co-processing at least one polyunsaturated fatty acid salt comprising at least one omega-3 fatty acid selected from the group consisting of EPA and DHA, at least one pharmaceutical or nutraceutical active ingredient, and optionally a pharmaceutically or nutraceutically acceptable excipient; b) optionally mixing the co-processed components from step a with one or more excipients; and c) formulating the components to produce a dosage form. The dosage form is a tablet, the mixed components from step b are compressed in a tableting machine to produce a tablet, and the ejection force experienced by the tableting machine is not more than 150 N. The polyunsaturated fatty acid salt and the pharmaceutical or nutraceutical active ingredient are co-processed with one or more ionic polymers. The co-processing in step a comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of spray drying, pure spray drying, spray-agglomeration, co-milling, freeze drying, physical mixing, co-sifting, vacuum drying, hot-melt extrusion, compaction, slugging, 3D printing, molding, film casting, and coating. The mixture of ‘533 does not contain magnesium stearate. The dosage form further comprising at least one excipient selected from the group of consisting of a binder, an antioxidant, a glidant, a lubricant, a pigment, a plasticizer, a polymer, a brightener, a diluent, a flavor, a surfactant, a pore former, and a stabilizer.
‘533 does not teach a binding parameter and friability of the solid dosage form. ‘533 also does not teach the particle size of the polyunsaturated fatty acid (i.e. binder) and the amount thereof. ‘533 is also silent on the preparation method of the binder recited in claims 4 and 5. However, Knaup, Anwar and Schwarm cure these deficiencies.
The teachings of Knaup, Anwar and Schwarm have been set forth above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of ‘533 and Knaup and formulate a solid dosage form having a binding parameter of at least 2 and friability of 5% or less because Knaup teaches the need to provide composition containing high amounts of omega-3 fatty acid salts, which can be directly compressed to tablet (without causing destruction of the tablet). As discussed supra, Knaup teaches a glass transition temperature of the composition and magnesium stearate affect the compressibility and the breakability of the tablet form. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to manipulate these parameters to obtain a particular binding parameter and friability of the solid dosage form. Further, Knaup teaches the content of omega-3 fatty acids is in total 40% by weight or more, preferably 50% by weight, which reads on the concentration of the binder recited in instant claim 1. Thus, it would have been obvious to include an amount of the omega-3 fatty acid known in the art when preparing the solid dosage form. 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. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of ‘533, Knaup, Anwar and Schwarm and utilize the specific method taught by Schwarm to prepare the polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salt. As discussed supra, Schwarm discloses a method of preparing the polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acid to increase stability of a composition and therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to incorporate a method of preparation which is known in the art.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of ‘533, Knaup, Schwarm and Anwar and utilize a continuous spray granulation process to prepare the omega-3 fatty acid amino acid salts. As outlined by Anwar, using the process of spray granulation in a fluidized suspension produces a stable omega-3 granule with a lower chance of lipid degradation than spray drying which would motivate someone skilled in the art to advantageously add the process of spray granulation in a fluidized bed to the method of ‘533. Therefore, the process of granulation as claimed would be of obviousness. Further, Anwar teaches the method of granulation to be continuous granulation and particle size of spray granulation granules is on average around 500-600 micrometer, thus making the particle size and continuous spray granulation process obvious to one skilled in the art.
From the combined teaching of the cited references, 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, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI SAEED whose telephone number is (571)272-2371. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, SUE X LIU can be reached at 5712725539. 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.
/ALI S SAEED/ Examiner, Art Unit 1616