DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the sixth Office action on the merits of the claims.
All citations to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) refer to Revision 01.2024, which was released in November 2024.
Status of the Claims
In the Reply filed 23 January 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 19, 21, and 31. Additionally, Applicant cancelled claim 2. Claims 4, 9-10, 16-17, 20, 27-28, 30, and 32 were cancelled previously by Applicant. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-15, 18-19, 21-26, 29, 31, and 33 are pending and under consideration.
Status of the Rejections
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-15, 18-19, 21-26, 29, 31, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellamine (US 2017/0173050 A1) in view of Shah (US 2012/0315326 A1), Vilallobos (US 2010/0055178 A1), Cade (US 8,852,631 B2), and Madit (US 8,795,720 B2), as evidenced by Mendel (“The crystal structure of creatine monohydrate.” Acta Crystallographica 7.5 (1954): 443-446), is maintained. Applicant’s arguments are considered in paragraphs 49-53 of this Office action.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellamine in view of Shah, Vilallobos, Cade and Madit (as evidenced by Mendel), as applied above in the §103 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-15, 18-19, 21-26, 29, 31 and 33, and further in view of Cade 2013 (WO 2013/164121 A1) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
The provisional rejection of the claims on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of co-pending Application No. 17/765,156 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-15, 18-19, 21-26, 29, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellamine (US 2017/0173050 A1) in view of Shah (US 2012/0315326 A1), Vilallobos (US 2010/0055178 A1), Cade (US 8,852,631 B2), and Madit (US 8,795,720 B2), as evidenced by Mendel (“The crystal structure of creatine monohydrate.” Acta Crystallographica 7.5 (1954): 443-446).
Bellamine is directed to a method for increasing muscle protein synthesis and/or functional strength in mammals by administering a protein building composition. Title/Abstract.
Bellamine discloses that “the protein building composition may comprise an amino acid derivative combined with a nitrogenous organic acid.” Para. [0013]. Bellamine identifies (i) carnitine as the preferred amino acid derivative and (ii) creatine as the preferred nitrogenous acid. Paras. [0013]-[0014], [0016]-[0017], [0067]-[0068], and [0071]-[0072].
Bellamine discloses: “Creatine may be administered in a dosage from about 5 to 15,000 milligrams per day, such as from about 5 to about 10,000 milligrams per day, such as from about 50 milligrams to about 5,000 milligrams per day. The dosage, for instance, can be greater than about 100 milligrams per day, such as greater than about 500 milligrams per day, such as greater than about 1,000 milligrams per day, such as greater than about 1,250 milligrams per day.” (Emphasis added) Para. [0082]. The italicized ranges are each overlapped by the corresponding range of “less than about 500 mg” recited in claim 1 of the present application. Therefore, the claimed range is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2144.05(I) (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”).
Bellamine discloses: “The weight ratio between the amino acid derivative and the organic acid, on the other hand, can generally be from about 1:10 to about 5:1, such as from about 1:1 to about 1:5, such as from about 1:1 to about 1:3.” (Emphasis added) Para. [0078]. The corresponding weight ratio of “about 1:1” recited in claim 21 of the present application overlaps or lies inside the weight ratio ranges disclosed in paragraph [0078] of Bellamine. Therefore, the claimed weight ratio is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2144.05(I) (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”).
First, although Bellamine discloses that the protein building composition can be orally administered in the form of a capsule (paras. [0060], [0066], and [0085]), Bellamine is silent as to which types of capsules are suitable. It follows that Bellamine does not satisfy the following limitation, which is recited at the end of claim 1 of the present application: “wherein the protein building composition is contained in an acid resistant capsule shell, the capsule shell exhibiting resistance to leakage for at least one hour at a pH of 1.2 in a USP-30 simulated gastric fluid.” Emphasis added. As explained below, the following three references compensate for this deficiency: Shah, Vilallobos, and Cade.
Shah is directed to “[e]nteric coated multiparticulate compositions that use a L-carnitine compound an active ingredient.” Abstract.
Shah teaches that “[s]ince L-carnitine and the derivatives ALCAR [acetyl L-carnitine] and propionyl-L-carnitine can cause various side effects such as upset stomach, nausea and vomiting, it is desirable to administer L-carnitine, ALCAR, or propionyl-L-carnitine in a manner that minimizes the manifestation of these side effects.” Para. [0005].
Shah teaches it is advantageous for L-carnitine to be released into the intestines, as opposed to the stomach, thereby preventing the undesirable side effects or reduced efficacy of L-carnitine that may result otherwise. (Emphasis added) Paras. [0021]-[0022].
Vilallobos is directed to an “enteric-coated creatine pharmaceutical formulation.” Abstract.
Vilallobos teaches: “The main problem with all existing creatine supplementation is the ability to deliver creatine in a usable form by the human body. Current delivery systems do not protect the degradation of creatine, which breaks down rapidly to creatinine in acidic environments like the stomach. Creatinine is a toxic byproduct of creatine. It is believed that the main reason for complaints resulting from creatine consumption, namely, stomach cramps, edema, and dehydration, are caused by the body’s defense to this toxic compound.” (Emphasis added) Para. [0010].
Vilallobos teaches: “The known oral creatine supplements are dissolved in acidic solutions having a pH range from 3-6 and more importantly, the pH of the stomach is even lower. Research has shown that at these pH levels, the rate of conversion of creatine to creatinine is almost instantaneous.” Para. [0011].
Cade is directed to acid-resistant hard pharmaceutical capsules for oral administration of pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements to humans. Abstract.
Cade teaches: “Pharmaceutical capsules are widely used in the pharmaceutical field as oral dosage forms for administration to humans and animals. In this context, it is often desirable that the capsules be acid resistant in order to remain intact in the stomach of patients and do not release the encapsulated content therein. Acid resistant capsules are thus useful for the administration of substances instable in an acid environment or substances, like NSAIDs, that are associated with serious gastric side-effects.” Column 1, lines 31-39.
Cade teaches: “The capsules of the invention are obtained by aqueous compositions comprising a water-soluble film-forming polymer and gellan gum in a mutual weight ratio of 4 to 15 weight parts of gellan gum for 100 weight parts of film-forming polymer.” Abstract. Cade identifies HPMC (hydroxypropyl methylcellulose) as the preferred film-forming polymer. Column 4, lines 19-35; column 7 at Table 1; and column 8 at claim 1.
Cade teaches: “The hard capsules of the invention do not leak at pH 1.2 in a USP-30 simulated gastric fluid for at least 1 hour, confirming the acid-resistant performance.” (Emphasis added) Column 5, lines 38-40; column 7 at Table 2; and column 8 at claim 1.
Cade teaches that “[i]n a preferred embodiment, a hard capsule shell of the invention as defined above is filled with one or more acid-instable substances and/or one or more substances associated with gastric side effects in humans and/or animals.” Column 6, lines 44-47.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the teachings of Shah, Vilallobos, and Cade would have motivated a person having ordinary skill in the art to simply load the protein building composition disclosed in Bellamine into the acid-resistant hard capsules of Cade, in an effort to (i) reduce the undesirable side effects (e.g., nausea) caused by release of carnitine and creatine in the stomach, while (ii) protecting the carnitine and creatine from acid-catalyzed degradation or conversion in the low pH of the stomach.
Second, although Bellamine discloses that the protein building composition can be in the form of a capsule or liquid (paras. [0060], [0085]) and Cade teaches that the acid-resistant HPMC capsules are suitable for liquid fills (column 3, lines 15-16, 45-49; column 6, lines 64-67), Bellamine is silent as to whether a liquid fill (liquid carrier) is appropriate for the protein building composition when it is in the form of a capsule. As explained below, Madit compensates for this deficiency.
Madit is directed to a liquid-filled capsule delivery system.
Madit teaches a two-piece hard HPMC capsule, wherein the shell of the capsule further comprises a gelling agent, most preferably gellan gum. Column 4, lines 40-67.
Madit teaches that the HMPC capsule is filled with a liquid that preferably comprises L-carnitine as the active agent dissolved therein. Column 6, lines 8-51. The liquid comprises, as the preferred solvent, either glycerol or a mixture of glycerol and water. Column 6, lines 3-7; see also Column 7, lines 34-39 (“A more preferred embodiment of the present invention is a delivery system comprising a hard HPMC capsule and a liquid fill comprising a dietary supplement, like L-carnitine, and glycerol as a solvent. In another also preferred embodiment the liquid fill further comprises water such as in an amount in the range of 0% to 20%.”). Other options for solvents are disclosed in the paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6 of Madit.
Madit teaches the foregoing liquid fill/HPMC capsule combination improves bioavailability and effectiveness of L-carnitine. Column 6, lines 58-63; see also Column 3, lines 11-13 (“Liquid filled containers according to the present invention improve the performance of the active agent contained therein by improving the bioavailability of the active agent.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the teachings of Madit would have motivated a person having ordinary skill in the art to select a liquid fill (e.g., glycerol or glycerol+water) for the capsule form of the protein building composition of Bellamine, in an effort to increase the bioavailability of the L-carnitine following oral administration. MPEP § 2144.07 (the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use can support a prima facie obviousness determination).
Claims 1 and 21 each require that at least some of the creatine or derivative thereof is present in solid form in the liquid carrier. As a practical matter, Applicant is reminded that the Patent Office does not have a laboratory and, therefore, is not equipped to manufacture the capsule formulation described in the previous paragraph to determine whether the creatine or derivative thereof is soluble or insoluble in the liquid fill (liquid carrier) of Madit. However, the specification of the present application is informative, as explained below.
Page 18 of the specification states, in relevant part (emphasis added):
For example, the L-carnitine can be in liquid form. The creatine, on the other hand, can be in solid form and can be suspended within the liquid L-carnitine. The L-carnitine, for instance, can be dissolved in a liquid carrier, such as polar solvent. For example, in one embodiment, the L-carnitine can be contained in water. The solid creatine particles, on the other hand, can be added to the liquid L-carnitine at desired amounts for creating a suspension.
Page 11 of the specification states, in relevant part (emphasis added):
In one aspect, the L-carnitine or derivative thereof can be in the form of a liquid. For instance, in one aspect, the lipid matrix composition can be a liquid. Alternatively, the L-carnitine or derivative thereof can be dissolved in a liquid carrier. L-carnitine and derivatives thereof, for instance, are generally soluble in polar solvents, such as water, glycerol (primary), sorbitol, various polyols, polyethylene glycols, propylene glycol and other similar compounds that are safe to consume which are safe to consume and are capable of dissolving L-carnitine. L-carnitine, for instance, is zwitterionic.
Given the substantial overlap between the polar solvents disclosed in Madit and those described in the above excerpts from specification of the present application, the examiner concludes that at least some of the creatine or derivative thereof would form a suspension in the liquid fill of Madit. The foregoing analysis provides a sound evidentiary basis for the examiner’s position that the following property limitation, which merely concerns a state of matter (e.g., solid, liquid, gas), recited in claims 1 and 21 is satisfied: “wherein the creatine or derivative thereof is a solid in the form of particles … suspended within a liquid carrier” (emphasis added). See MPEP § 2112.01(I) (“‘When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.’”), quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant recently amended claims 1 and 21 by adding the following new limitation: “the particles comprising greater than 80% by weight creatine or derivative thereof.” The examiner notes that Bellamine identifies creatine monohydrate as the preferred form of creatine (which is recited in claim 18 of the present application). Pages 30-31 at Table for Sample Nos 1-2; see also paras. [0017] and [0072]. The cited Table discloses that the creatine monohydrate and other constituents are in particulate form. As evidenced by page 443 of Mendel, creatine crystallizes as the monohydrate, which qualifies as a substantially pure solid form and, accordingly, is considered overlapped by — or close enough to — the creatine purity range of claim 1. MPEP § 2144.05(I) (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”) and (“Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.”). Applicant is additionally referred to MPEP § 2144.04(VII), which provides that “[p]urer forms of known products may be patentable, but the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious.” Especially in the context of pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals intended for oral administration to humans, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have assumed that the purity of a compound serving as an active ingredient would be greater than 20 wt% to allow for reasonably predictable formulation and accurate dosing. MPEP § 2144.01 (“[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).
In sum, claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 18, 21-26, and 29 are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 6 and 33, Cade teaches: “The capsule caps and bodies are telescopically joined together so as to make their side walls partially overlap and obtain a hard capsule shell.” (Emphasis added) Column 3, lines 4-6. “In case the hard capsule shells are filled with substances in liquid form, it is intended that the hard capsules of the invention may be sealed or banded according to conventional techniques to avoid leakage of contained substances.” (Emphasis added) Column 3, lines 14-18; see also column 6, lines 41-43 (“Once filled, the capsules can be made tamper-proof e.g. by using appropriate banding solution used in the field of hard capsules to make the joint permanent”) and column 7, lines 37-39 (“The banding served to avoid the capsule body and cap separation during the disintegration test at pH 1.2”).
Regarding claim 8, Bellamine discloses that the protein building composition can further comprise citric acid or sodium citrate as preservatives. Paragraph [0102]. The examiner notes that both those preservatives are identified as pH-adjusting agents on pages 11-12 of the specification of the present application (see bridging paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Bellamine discloses: “The mammal treated in accordance with the present disclosure can comprise any suitable mammal. For instance, the mammal may be human or canine.” (Emphasis added) Para. [0089].
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is referred to paragraph [0102] of Bellamine, which discloses various excipients.
Regarding claim 14, Bellamine discloses: “The weight ratio between the amino acid derivative and the organic acid, on the other hand, can generally be from about 1:10 to about 5:1, such as from about 1:1 to about 1:5, such as from about 1:1 to about 1:3.” Para. [0078]; see also MPEP § 2144.05(I) (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant is referred to paragraphs [0093]-[0094] of Bellamine, which discloses an increase in mTOR expression.
Regarding claims 19 and 31, as established above, Bellamine identifies creatine monohydrate as the preferred form of creatine. Pages 30-31 at Table for Sample Nos 1-2; see also paras. [0017] and [0072]. The cited Table discloses that the creatine monohydrate and other constituents are in particulate form. As evidenced by page 443 of Mendel, creatine crystallizes as the monohydrate, which therefore qualifies as a substantially pure solid form, which is overlapped by — or close enough to — the creatine purity range recited in claims 19 and 31. MPEP § 2144.05(I) (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”) and (“Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.”).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
The following remarks are provided in response to the arguments raised by Applicant on pages 6-9 of the Reply filed 23 January 2026:
Applicant’s narrowing amendments to claims 1 and 21 are addressed above in the foregoing §103 rejection (see paragraph 40).
In paragraphs 45-48 of the previous Office action (26 September 2025), the Patent Office indicated that Applicant has the evidentiary burden of showing that the creatine or derivative thereof (e.g., creatine monohydrate) is insoluble in the liquid fill of Madit. Applicant has not yet submitted any evidence concerning this issue and is referred to paragraphs 36-39 of this Office action. The examiner notes that claims 1 and 21 are generic regarding the liquid carrier, as are all the dependent claims. The examiner additionally encourages Applicant to focus the independent claims on those species of liquid carrier that do not solubilize the creatine or derivative thereof. Additionally, Applicant should explore focusing the claims on those species of creatine derivative that are insoluble in the selected species of liquid carrier.
In response to Applicant’s remaining arguments, the examiner emphasizes that “[o]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” MPEP § 2145(IV). “This is because ‘[t]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a person having ordinary skill in the art].’” Id., quoting In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
In conclusion, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
* * *
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 obviousness-type 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR1.321(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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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 eTerminalDisclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/ eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-15, 18-19, 21-26, 29, 31, and 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-10, 14, 16, 19-21, 23, 26-27, 30, 32-34, 36, 38-39, 42-44, and 46 of co-pending Application No. 17/765,156 (as amended on 26 September 2025) in view of Shah (US 2012/0315326 A1), Vilallobos (US 2010/0055178 A1), and Cade (US 8,852,631 B2).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following: The conflicting claims (the claims of the ’156 application) differ only marginally in scope from the claims of the present application. Conflicting claims 42 and 46 require that the carnitine/creatine protein-building composition is contained in an enteric hard capsule but are silent regarding the constituents of the capsule shell, itself (HPMC, gellan gum), and consequently do not satisfy the present claims. The respective teachings of Shah, Vilallobos, and Cade are discussed above, in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. That discussion is incorporated by reference into this double patenting rejection. Those three references, in combination, compensate for the deficiency in the conflicting claims by providing motivation to select the acid-resistant (enteric) hard capsules of Cade, in an effort to (i) reduce the undesirable side effects, e.g., nausea, caused by release of carnitine and creatine in the stomach, while (ii) protecting the carnitine and creatine from acid-catalyzed degradation or conversion in the low pH of the stomach. MPEP § 2144.07 (the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use can support a prima facie obviousness determination).
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not yet been patented.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 11-15, 18-19, 21-26, 29, 31 and 33 are rejected.
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER ANTHOPOLOS whose telephone number is 571-270-5989. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday (9:00 am – 5:00 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bethany P. Barham, can be reached on Monday – Friday (9:00 am – 5:00 pm) at 571-272-6175. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/P.A./
11 May 2026
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights