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 the Claims
Claims 36, 44, 47-54, 56, and 60 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 49-54 have been withdrawn.
Claim 36 has been amended.
Claim 60 is newly added.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 5/28/2026 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
The rejection of claims 36, 44, 47-48, and 56 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn due to the claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 the Applicant argues Llamas is drafted in such a way that it covers almost any amount of CBD and emulsifier, and the Examiner’s argument that these claimed ranges represent an enabling disclosure of homogenous/soluble cannabinoid formulations is incorrect in view of the evidence the Applicant has provided in the form of an inventor declaration and the examples of the application as filed.
The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive. First, if the prior art teaches the composition as claimed, just because the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.
Second, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 21.44.05.I. As the prior art combination of record reasonably discloses an embodiment in which the claimed concentrations are met, the claimed aerosolizable material is considered obvious.
Third, Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. See MPEP § 2144.05.III.A. and 716.02. However, the Applicant has not shown the criticality of the range. The Affidavit submitted 9/04/2024 only shows formulations with propylene glycol/glycerol in a 70:30 ratio, and is not commensurate in scope with the claimed “the propylene glycol concentration (w/w%) being equal to or above a threshold (C%)”, which is a much broader limitation. Further, the Affidavit shows that the addition of CBD is critical to solubilizing terpenes; however, CBD is added at 5.48% for every block and the Affidavit fails to establish what the minimum amount of CBD is to solubilize the terpenes. Further, the affidavit uses blocks of different terpenes with different amounts of alpha pinene, beta pinene, camphor, camphene, and eucalyptol, which have varying solubility in mixtures of propylene glycol/glycerol. However, claim 36 broadly recites the genus of “C10 terpenes,” which includes many species of terpenes outside of what is tested in the affidavit. Therefore, it appears the affidavit is also not commensurate in scope of the whole genus of “C10 terpenes”.
On page 8, the Applicant further argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would assume from the disclosure of Llamas that the solubility of the cannabidiol is the same as that for polyethylene glycol-400, propylene glycol, and vegetable glycol, and the Applicant has found that where glycerol is used as the predominant carrier, the solubility of cannabinoids is significantly impaired.
The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive because the prior art combination of record reasonably discloses an embodiment in which the claimed concentrations are met, and therefore the claimed aerosolizable material is considered obvious. As discussed previously, the Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range and the unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See MPEP § 716.02.d.
On page 9, the Applicant further argues that there is no disclosure whatsoever in Llamas that would direct a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a combination of propylene glycol and vegetable glycol. The Applicant argues that Llamas indicates PEG-400 is the most effective emulsifier, yet propylene glycol and vegetable glycol are also effective, and there is no specific direction on whether to specifically select propylene glycol or vegetable glycol.
The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive. First, preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 21213.II. Second, Llamas teaches that the carrier constituent/emulsifier may be propylene glycol or vegetable glycol ([0031]) and that a combination of different emulsifiers may be used ([0033]). Llamas clearly teaches the emulsifier may be propylene glycol or vegetable glycol instead of PEG-400. Finally, the secondary reference Lopez teaches a liquid carrier that comprises 70% propylene glycol and 30% vegetable glycerin (claim 26) and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the emulsifier of Llamas to have the disclosed amount of propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin as this merely involves incorporating a known combination of emulsifiers to a similar cannabinoid formulation to yield predictable results.
On pages 9-10, the Applicant argues the claim has been amended to the extent that the cannabidiol is a cannabidiol isolate, and that isolates by their nature excludes the present of significant concentration of impurities or other naturally derived components, such as oil form hemp. The Applicant further argues that the disclosure in paragraph [0029] of Llamas does not relate to cannabidiol isolates.
The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive because the instant specification teaches an isolate is an extract from a plant, such as cannabis, where the active material of interest (in this case the cannabinoid such as CBD) is present in a high degree of purity, for example greater than 95% purity (page 10, second paragraph). Therefore, if the prior art teaches a cannabinoid with a degree of purity greater than 95%, then the prior art teaches a cannabidiol isolate. Further, Llamas does teach a cannabinoid with a degree of purity greater than 95% (cannabidiol that contains impurities in an amount of less than 1%” [0040]) and therefore the cannabidiol as disclosed in Llamas is a cannabidiol isolate.
The following is a modified rejection made based on the claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 36 recites in line 1 “cannabidiol isolate”. The instant specification teaches an isolate is an extract from a plant, such as cannabis, where the active material of interest (in this case the cannabinoid such as CBD) is present in a high degree of purity, for example greater than 95% purity (page 10, second paragraph). Therefore, if the prior art teaches a cannabinoid with a degree of purity greater than 95%, then the prior art teaches a cannabidiol isolate.
Claim 36 recites in line 11 and claim 60 recites in lines 4-5 “one or more C10 terpenes that are soluble in the aerosolizable material”. The instant specification teaches:
It has been found that when the amount of propylene glycol in the aerosolizable material is suitably substantially equal to or above the threshold C%, a stable aerosolizable material can be provided (page 4, third paragraph).
Similarly, it is suggested that by ensuring the selected terpene meets the above threshold when present in a carrier constituent comprising propylene glycol and glycerol, the stability of the aerosolizable material will not be substantially compromised by including a terpene (page 4, fourth paragraph).
The terpene would be selected on the basis of being soluble when present in a carrier constituent comprising propylene glycol and glycerol, where the w/w% amount of propylene glycol C% present in the aerosolizable material, based on the total weight of the aerosolizable material, is determined on the basis of the following relationship (see page 4, line 24), wherein T is the amount of the at least terpene present in the aerosolizable material in mg/ml (page 4, last paragraph).
Therefore, so long as the prior art teaches propylene glycol in the aerosolizable material that is substantially equal to or above the threshold C% on the basis of the relationship (see page 4, line 24) where T is the amount of the at least one terpene present in the aerosolizable material in mg/ml, then the prior art teaches one or more C10 terpenes that are soluble in the aerosolizable material, even if the prior art is silent to solubility. The burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See MPEP § 2113.II.
Claim 36 recites in line 13 and claim 60 recites in line 7 “the cannabidiol is soluble in the aerosolizable material”. The instant specification teaches:
For an aerosolizable material comprising propylene glycol/glycerol/cannabidiol, the w/w% amount of propylene glycol in the aerosolizable material, based on the total weight of the aerosolizable material, can suitably be substantially equal to or above a threshold C%, the threshold being define to (see page 4, line 8), wherein A is the amount of the at least one cannabinoid present in the aerosolizable material in mg/ml (page 4, third paragraph).
It has been found that when the amount of propylene glycol in the aerosolizable material is suitably substantially equal to or above the threshold C%, a stable aerosolizable material can be provided (page 4, third paragraph).
Therefore, so long as the prior art teaches propylene glycol in the aerosolizable material that is substantially equal to or above the threshold C% on the basis of the relationship (see page 4, line 8) where A is the amount of the at least one cannabinoid present in the aerosolizable material in mg/ml, then the prior art teaches the cannabidiol is soluble in the aerosolizable material, even if the prior art is silent to solubility. The burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See MPEP § 2113.II.
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.
Claim(s) 36, 44, 47-48, and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llamas (US2015/0181924, cited in IDS dated 4/8/2022) in view of Lopez (CA2941961, previously cited) as evidenced by Terpenes (Terpenes – Chemistry Libretexts. Citations refer to the attached PDF).
Regarding claim 36, Llamas teaches:
An aerosolizable material (“composition that may be vaporized and heated by an electronic cigarette” [0028]) comprising a cannabidiol isolate (“cannabidiol that contains impurities in an amount of less than 1%” [0040]; therefore the cannabidiol is a cannabidiol isolate), a carrier constituent (“emulsifier” [0028]), and one or more terpene(s) derivable from a phytocannabinoid producing plant (“impurities such as myrcene” [0040]).
Llamas does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) wherein the carrier constituents comprises both glycerol and propylene glycol, (II) the propylene glycol concentration (w/w%) being equal to or above a threshold (C%) where the threshold (C%) is defined according to: C% = 11.416 x (A) ^ (0.377) wherein A is the concentration (mg/ml) of the cannabinoid component present in the aerosolizable material; the one or more terpenes are present in an amount up to about 10 mg/ml of the aerosolizable material; and the cannabidiol is present in an amount of about 50 mg/ml or more of the aerosolizable material, (III) wherein the one or more terpene(s) comprise one or more C10 terpenes, (IV) the one or more C10 terpenes are soluble in the aerosolizable material, and (V) wherein the cannabidiol is soluble in the aerosolizable material.
In regard to (I), Llamas further teaches that the carrier constituent/emulsifier may be propylene glycol or vegetable glycol ([0031]) and that a combination of different emulsifiers may be used ([0033]). The examiner notes that vegetable glycol is considered to be vegetable glycerin or vegetable glycerol as vegetable glycol is not a known compound and it is common for propylene glycol and vegetable glycerol to be listed as emulsifiers together.
Llamas does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein both glycerol and propylene glycol are present as carrier constituents.
However, Lopez, directed to a cannabinoid formulation for an electronic cigarette, teaches:
Known cannabinoid formulations with similar carrier solutions, such as propylene glycol and glycerol, that provide a general pain relief effect and therapeutic benefit [0049], [0059].
In some embodiments, the liquid carrier comprises 70% propylene glycol and 30% vegetable glycerin (claim 26).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Llamas by configuring the carrier constituent to comprise both propylene glycol and glycerol in amounts such as 30% propylene glycol and 70% glycerol as taught by Lopez, because both Llamas and Lopez are directed to electronic cigarettes, Lopez teaches known cannabinoid formulations that comprise similar components as Llamas, and this merely involves incorporating a known combination of emulsifiers to a similar cannabinoid formulation to yield predictable results.
In regard to (II) Llamas is silent to the concentration of the one or more terpenes, cannabidiol, and the propylene glycol.
However, Llamas further teaches:
the cannabidiol is present in a total amount by weight of about 0.1 to about 90% ([0034]),
the impurities within the cannabidiol which would include terpenes may be less than 1% ([0040]), and
the emulsifier may be present in a total amount by weight of about 10% to 99.9% ([0036]); and as discussed above the emulsifier may be a combination of 70% propylene glycol and 30% glycerol as taught by Lopez.
Based on the densities of all the components, one of ordinary skill would be capable of determining approximate concentrations of terpenes, cannabidiol and propylene glycol. For example, at 5% cannabidiol and a terpene amount of 1% with the remainder being emulsifier, one of ordinary skill would reasonably arrive at a material in which cannabidiol is greater than 50mg/ml (e.g. ~53 mg/ml), a terpene concentration would be less than 10 mg/ml (e.g. ~0.053 mg/ml), and propylene glycol concentration would be greater than the claimed formulae (e.g. greater than ~51.04 mg/ml). As such, the prior art combination of record reasonably discloses an embodiment in which the claimed concentrations are met and the claimed aerosolizable material is considered obvious.
In regard to (III), Llamas does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more terpene(s) comprise one or more C10 terpenes.
However, as evidenced by Terpenes, C10 terpenes are monoterpenes which have 10 carbon atoms (page 1, table below the first paragraph) and myrcene is shown to have 10 carbon atoms (page 1, myrcene figure).
Therefore, as evidenced by Terpenes, myrcene is a C10 terpene, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the myrcene disclosed by Lopez is a C10 terpene.
In regard to (IV), Llamas is silent to the solubility of the terpenes in the aerosolizable material.
However, Llamas further teaches:
the cannabidiol is present in a total amount by weight of about 0.1 to about 90% ([0034]),
the impurities within the cannabidiol which would include terpenes may be less than 1% ([0040]), and
the emulsifier may be present in a total amount by weight of about 10% to 99.9% ([0036]); and as discussed above the emulsifier may be a combination of 70% propylene glycol and 30% glycerol as taught by Lopez. Therefore, the propylene glycol concentration (w/w%) is 66.5%.
Based on the densities of all the components, one of ordinary skill would be capable of determining approximate concentrations of the terpene. For example, at 5% cannabidiol and a terpene amount of 1% with the remainder being emulsifier, one of ordinary skill would reasonably arrive at a terpene concentration of about 0.053 mg/ml. Further, the threshold C% on the basis of the relationship (see page 4, line 24) where T is the amount of the at least one terpene present in the aerosolizable material in mg/ml would therefore be about 3.78.
Therefore, as modified Llamas teaches propylene glycol in the aerosolizable material that is substantially equal to or above the threshold C% (i.e. as the propylene glycol concentration is 66.5% and the threshold C% is 3.78), then the prior art teaches one or more C10 terpenes that are soluble in the aerosolizable material.
In regard to (V), Llamas is silent to the solubility of the cannabidiol in the aerosolizable material.
However, Llamas further teaches:
the cannabidiol is present in a total amount by weight of about 0.1 to about 90% ([0034]),
the impurities within the cannabidiol which would include terpenes may be less than 1% ([0040]), and
the emulsifier may be present in a total amount by weight of about 10% to 99.9% ([0036]); and as discussed above the emulsifier may be a combination of 70% propylene glycol and 30% glycerol as taught by Lopez. Therefore, the propylene glycol concentration (w/w%) is 66.5%.
Based on the densities of all the components, one of ordinary skill would be capable of determining approximate concentrations of the cannabidiol. For example, at 5% cannabidiol and a terpene amount of 1% with the remainder being emulsifier, one of ordinary skill would reasonably arrive at a cannabidiol concentration of about 53 mg/ml. Further, the threshold C% on the basis of the relationship (see page 4, line 8) where A is the amount of the at least one cannabinoid present in the aerosolizable material in mg/ml, would therefore be about 51.
Therefore, as modified Llamas teaches propylene glycol in the aerosolizable material that is substantially equal to or above the threshold C% (i.e. as the propylene glycol concentration is 66.5% and the threshold C% is about 51), then the prior art teaches wherein the cannabidiol is soluble in the aerosolizable material.
Regarding claim 44, Llamas teaches:
The composition is liquid (abstract), which reads on the claim limitation wherein the aerosolizable material is a liquid at about 25 C.
Regarding claim 47, Llamas teaches:
The composition may further comprise a flavor enhancer ([0038]), which is considered to read on the claim limitation wherein the aerosolizable materials further comprises one or more further constituents.
Regarding claim 48, Llamas teaches:
Flavor enhances may be chosen from the list comprising apple, cherry, spearmint, etc. ([0046]), which reads on the claim limitation wherein one or more further constituents is an olfactory active constituent.
Regarding claim 56, modified Llamas is silent to the turbidity of the aerosolizable material. However, in composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties. See MPEP § 2112.01, II. Therefore, as modified Llamas yields the composition as claimed, and turbidity depends on the materials and amounts of material within the composition, it follows that where the prior art overlaps the claimed composition the prior art would have a similar or overlapping turbidity as claimed absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llamas (US2015/0181924, cited in IDS dated 4/8/2022) in view of Goldman (US2015/0083146) as evidenced by Terpenes (Terpenes – Chemistry Libretexts. Citations refer to the attached PDF).
Regarding claim 60, Llamas teaches:
An aerosolizable material (“composition that may be vaporized and heated by an electronic cigarette” [0028]) comprising a cannabidiol isolate (“cannabidiol that contains impurities in an amount of less than 1%” [0040]; therefore the cannabidiol is a cannabidiol isolate), a carrier constituent (“emulsifier” [0028]), and one or more terpene(s) derivable from a phytocannabinoid producing plant (“impurities such as myrcene” [0040]).
Llamas does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) wherein the carrier constituents comprises triethyl citrate, (II) the one or more terpenes are present in an amount up to about 10 mg/ml of the aerosolizable material; and the cannabidiol is present in an amount of about 50 mg/ml or more of the aerosolizable material, (III) wherein the one or more terpene(s) comprise one or more C10 terpenes, (IV) the one or more C10 terpenes are soluble in the aerosolizable material, and (V) wherein the cannabidiol is soluble in the aerosolizable material.
In regard to (I), Llamas further teaches that the carrier constituent/emulsifier may be propylene glycol or vegetable glycol ([0031]) and that a combination of different emulsifiers may be used ([0033]).
Llamas does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the carrier constituents comprises triethyl citrate.
However, Goldman, directed to a liquid composition for use in a personal vaporizer, teaches:
A liquid composition suitable for use in a vaporizer and can comprise a cannabinoid such as cannabidiol ([0016]).
The composition comprises a liquid base that includes propylene glycol ([0020]) and a lipid solubilizer that solubilize or increase the solubility or dispersion of lipids or lipophilic material in hydrophilic compositions, such as triethyl citrate ([0021]).
The stock emulsion for the liquid composition may include 0.1% mass monolaurin, 0.1% mass triethyl citrate, and 100 grams of propylene glycol ([0045]). The solution is considered to have 99.8% of propylene glycol by mass.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the emulsion of Llamas to have the emulsion comprising 0.1% mass monolaurin, 0.1% mass triethyl citrate, and 99.8% propylene glycol as taught by Goldman, because both Llamas and Goldman are directed to liquid compositions for vaporizers that comprise cannabidiol, Llamas teaches a combination of different emulsifiers may be used and Goldman teaches triethyl citrate increases the solubility of lipids in the composition, and there merely involves incorporating a known emulsifier blend to a similar cannabidiol liquid composition for vaporizers to yield predictable results.
In regard to (II) Llamas is silent to the concentration of the one or more terpenes, cannabidiol, and the propylene glycol.
However, Llamas further teaches:
the cannabidiol is present in a total amount by weight of about 0.1 to about 90% ([0034]),
the impurities within the cannabidiol which would include terpenes may be less than 1% ([0040]), and
the emulsifier may be present in a total amount by weight of about 10% to 99.9% ([0036]); and as discussed above the emulsifier may be a combination of 99.8% propylene glycol, 0.1% monolaurin, and 0.1% triethyl citrate as taught by Goldman.
Based on the densities of all the components, one of ordinary skill would be capable of determining approximate concentrations of terpenes, cannabidiol and propylene glycol. For example, at 5% cannabidiol and a terpene amount of 1% with the remainder being emulsifier, one of ordinary skill would reasonably arrive at a material in which cannabidiol is greater than 50mg/ml (e.g. ~50.1 mg/ml), a terpene concentration would be less than 10 mg/ml (e.g. ~0.05 mg/ml), and propylene glycol concentration would be greater than the claimed formulae (e.g. greater than ~49.9 mg/ml). As such, the prior art combination of record reasonably discloses an embodiment in which the claimed concentrations are met and the claimed aerosolizable material is considered obvious.
In regard to (III), Llamas does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more terpene(s) comprise one or more C10 terpenes.
However, as evidenced by Terpenes, C10 terpenes are monoterpenes which have 10 carbon atoms (page 1, table below the first paragraph) and myrcene is shown to have 10 carbon atoms (page 1, myrcene figure).
Therefore, as evidenced by Terpenes, myrcene is a C10 terpene, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the myrcene disclosed by Lopez is a C10 terpene.
In regard to (IV), Llamas is silent to the solubility of the terpenes in the aerosolizable material.
However, Llamas further teaches:
the cannabidiol is present in a total amount by weight of about 0.1 to about 90% ([0034]),
the impurities within the cannabidiol which would include terpenes may be less than 1% ([0040]), and
the emulsifier may be present in a total amount by weight of about 10% to 99.9% ([0036]); and as discussed above the emulsifier may be a combination of 99.8% propylene glycol, 0.1% monolaurin, and 0.1% triethyl citrate as taught by Goldman. Therefore, the propylene glycol concentration (w/w%) is 94.81%.
Based on the densities of all the components, one of ordinary skill would be capable of determining approximate concentrations of the terpene. For example, at 5% cannabidiol and a terpene amount of 1% with the remainder being emulsifier, one of ordinary skill would reasonably arrive at a terpene concentration of about 0.05 mg/ml. Further, the threshold C% on the basis of the relationship (see page 4, line 24) where T is the amount of the at least one terpene present in the aerosolizable material in mg/ml would therefore be about 3.69.
Therefore, as modified Llamas teaches propylene glycol in the aerosolizable material that is substantially equal to or above the threshold C% (i.e. as the propylene glycol concentration is 94.81% and the threshold C% is 3.69), then the prior art teaches one or more C10 terpenes that are soluble in the aerosolizable material.
In regard to (V), Llamas is silent to the solubility of the cannabidiol in the aerosolizable material.
However, Llamas further teaches:
the cannabidiol is present in a total amount by weight of about 0.1 to about 90% ([0034]),
the impurities within the cannabidiol which would include terpenes may be less than 1% ([0040]), and
the emulsifier may be present in a total amount by weight of about 10% to 99.9% ([0036]); and as discussed above the emulsifier may be a combination of 99.8% propylene glycol, 0.1% monolaurin, and 0.1% triethyl citrate as taught by Goldman. Therefore, the propylene glycol concentration (w/w%) is 94.81%.
Based on the densities of all the components, one of ordinary skill would be capable of determining approximate concentrations of the cannabidiol. For example, at 5% cannabidiol and a terpene amount of 1% with the remainder being emulsifier, one of ordinary skill would reasonably arrive at a cannabidiol concentration of about 50 mg/ml. Further, the threshold C% on the basis of the relationship (see page 4, line 8) where A is the amount of the at least one cannabinoid present in the aerosolizable material in mg/ml, would therefore be about 49.91.
Therefore, as modified Llamas teaches propylene glycol in the aerosolizable material that is substantially equal to or above the threshold C% (i.e. as the propylene glycol concentration is 94.81% and the threshold C% is about 49.91), then the prior art teaches wherein the cannabidiol is soluble in the aerosolizable material.
Conclusion
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 Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/N.A.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights