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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of “atropine” or “Atropine sulfate” in the reply filed on 8 October 2025, is acknowledged.
Applicants’ elected species “atropine” and “Atropine sulfate” have prior art.
Therefore, per Markush search practice, the Markush search will not be extended to other species of “muscarinic antagonists” in this Office Action.
The elected species reads on claims 43-44, 51, 53-57, 61, 64-66, 68, 70-72, 77, and 79-81.
Current Status of 17/784,841
This Office Action is responsive to the amended claims of 8 October 2025.
Claims 43-44, 51, 53-57, 61, 64-66, 68, 70-72, 77, and 79-81 have been examined on the merits. Claims 43-44, 51, 55-56, 65-66, 68, 70-72, and 80-81 are original. Claims 53-54, 57, 61, 64, 77, and 79 are previously presented.
Priority
The effective filing date is 16 December 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8 October 2025; 7 March 2025; 2 December 2024; 11 June 2024; 16 April 2024; 17 July 2023; and 7 December 2022, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 43-44, 51, 53-57, 61, 64-66, 68, 70-72, 77, and 79-81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
SYDNEXIS (U.S. 2018/0193326 A1, published on 12 July 2018, which is before the instant application’s one year grace period beginning on/about 16 December 2018),
in view of:
ANSEL (Ansel, Howard C., et al. “Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Drug Delivery Systems.” (1999), 7th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 48-53).
The claims are drawn to an ophthalmic composition comprising muscarinic antagonist, deuterated water, and EDTA stabilizing agent, at various disclosed concentrations, which the artisan routinely varies/optimizes in the medicinal arts.
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art:
The prior art reference SYDNEXIS teaches an ophthalmic composition comprising atropine sulfate (Applicants’ elected “muscarinic antagonist) in an amount of from 0.001 wt% to 0.05 wt % [which is within the instant claim 43 range of about 0.001 wt% to about 0.5 wt% and hence teaches this range; it also teaches at least some of the ranges of instant claim 51 and claim 68], deuterated water, at a pH of 4.2 to 7.9, and EDTA as a stabilizing agent. This ophthalmic composition is substantially free of benzalkonium chloride preservative (hence there’s no detectable amount of preservative) [hence teaches instant claims 57 and 77 and 79] (see “Abstract”; page 34 Table 7 “Thermosetting Gel Formulation (Atropine Sulfate)…Atropine Sulfate … 0.001-0.05 (wt%)… pH = 4.2-7.9…Deuterated water q.s. to 100 wt%; para [0003], “muscarinic antagonist comprises atropine…”; also, Table 7 does not explicitly teach inclusion of benzalkonium chloride preservative, whereas other examples teach optional inclusion of benzalkonium chloride preservative; see page 33 Table 1-5). This helps teach instant claim 43.
Furthermore, SYDNEXIS envisions using atropine and atropine sulfate (each are Applicants’ elected species) as “muscarinic antagonists” (see para [0003]-[0004]). This teaches instant claims 44 and 66.
SYDNEXIS teaches further use of citrate buffering agents (see para [0099]), but does not teach the concentration (wt %) of citrate. This helps to teach instant claim 53.
SYDNEXIS teaches use of sodium chloride osmolarity adjusting agent (see para [0363]). This teaches instant claim 54-55 and helps teach instant claim 56.
SYDNEXIS para [0365] teaches the buffering agents of instant claims 54 and 61. SYDNEXIS para [0370] teaches instant claims 54 and 64: HCl, NaOH, CH3COOH, or C6H8O7 pH adjusting agents.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue:
The reference SYDNEXIS does not explicitly teach the following routinely optimized variables: concentration (wt%) range of EDTA within the instant claim 43 range; concentration (wt %) of citrate [instant claim 53]; concentration (wt %) of sodium chloride [instant claim 56]; the ratio concentrations of instant claim 65; the ratios of instant claims 70-72; and the pH ranges of instant claims 80-81.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art:
The artisan is knowledgeable in formulating ophthalmic compositions comprising muscarinic antagonists, deuterated water, and stabilizing agents (EDTA).
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness:
The artisan would view the various concentration limitations of the instant claims drawn to weight percentages (wt %), ratios, and pH ranges as variables the artisan routinely optimizes and hence prima facie obvious in light of the reference SYDNEXIS in view of ANSEL.
The artisan would be expected to routinely optimize concentrations (that include wt %, ratios, and pH ranges) to maximize therapeutic efficacy of the underlying ophthalmic composition. Moreover, the ratios between water and deuterated water are obvious as there is always some water in the solution comprising deuterated water.
The artisan would be motivated to routinely vary the concentrations to maximize therapeutic efficacy of the underlying ophthalmic composition, especially since this is commonly done in the pharmaceutical and medicinal arts (see, for example, page 48 of ANSEL reference, which teaches that physicians routinely change the dosing for each patient based on the particular requirements of the patient). This is especially true since neither the claims nor the Specification indicate how the concentrations (weight percentages, ratios, pH ranges, etc.) are critical.
Moreover, patent law views differences in concentration (herein, the varying ranges of weight percentages, pH ranges, and ratios) as not supporting 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); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Thus, instant claims 43-44, 51, 53-57, 61, 64-66, 68, 70-72, 77, and 79-81 are rejected as prima facie obvious under 35 USC 103 in light of the teachings of SYDNEXIS in view of ANSEL.
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 43-44, 51, 53-57, 61, 65-66, 68, 70-72, 77, and 79-81 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 9,421,199 B2 in view of ANSEL (Ansel, Howard C., et al. “Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Drug Delivery Systems.” (1999), 7th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 48-53).
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art:
The reference claim 1, drawn to an ophthalmic composition comprising from about 0.001 wt % to about 0.03 wt% (falls within and hence teaches instant claim 43 range of from about 0.001 wt % to about 0.5 wt %) of muscarinic antagonist atropine or atropine sulfate (Applicants’ elected species), deuterated water, and a pH of from about 4.2 to about 7.9, teaches instant claim 43, drawn to similar*.
Reference disclosure teaches EDTA stabilizing agent as an alternative embodiment to be added to the ophthalmic composition of reference claim 1 and others (see reference disclosure col. 30 and Table 7 “Thermosetting Gel Formulation (Atropine Sulfate)” within cols. 63-64).
Furthermore, the citrate buffering agents of reference claim 13 teach the citrate of instant claim 53.
The osmolarity adjusting agent sodium chloride of reference claims 8-9 teach instant claims 54-55.
Reference claim 1 is silent as to preservative thus teaching instant claim 57.
Reference claims 12-13 teach instant claim 61.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
*The reference claims do not explicitly teach the following routinely optimized variables: concentration (wt%) range of EDTA within the instant claim 43 range; concentration (wt %) of citrate [instant claim 53]; concentration (wt %) of sodium chloride [instant claim 56]; the ratio concentrations of instant claim 65; the ratios of instant claims 70-72; and the pH ranges of instant claims 80-81.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
The artisan is knowledgeable in formulating ophthalmic compositions comprising muscarinic antagonists, deuterated water, and stabilizing agents (EDTA).
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The artisan would view the various concentration limitations of the instant claims drawn to weight percentages (wt %), ratios, and pH ranges as variables the artisan routinely optimizes and hence prima facie obvious in light of the reference claims, in further view of ANSEL.
The artisan would be expected to routinely optimize concentrations (that include wt %, ratios, and pH ranges) to maximize therapeutic efficacy of the underlying ophthalmic composition. Moreover, the ratios between water and deuterated water are obvious as there is always some water in the solution comprising deuterated water.
The artisan would be motivated to routinely vary the concentrations to maximize therapeutic efficacy of the underlying ophthalmic composition, especially since this is commonly done in the pharmaceutical and medicinal arts (see, for example, page 48 of ANSEL reference, which teaches that physicians routinely change the dosing for each patient based on the particular requirements of the patient). This is especially true since neither the claims nor the Specification indicate how the concentrations (weight percentages, ratios, pH ranges) are critical.
Moreover, patent law views differences in concentration (herein, the varying ranges of weight percentages, pH ranges, and ratios) as not supporting 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); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Please file a Terminal Disclaimer (TD) to render moot this rejection.
Claims 43-44, 51, 53-57, 61, 64-66, 68, 70-72, 77, and 79-81 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,201,534 B2 in view of ANSEL (Ansel, Howard C., et al. “Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Drug Delivery Systems.” (1999), 7th ed. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 48-53).
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art:
The reference claims teach an ophthalmic composition comprising atropine or atropine sulfate (Applicants’ elected “muscarinic antagonists”) in an amount of from 0.001 wt% to 0.05 wt % [which is within the instant claim 43 range of about 0.001 wt% to about 0.5 wt% and hence teaches this range; it also teaches at least some of the ranges of instant claim 51 and claim 68], deuterated water, at a pH of 4.2 to 7.9, which teaches instant claim 43, drawn to similar*.
Reference claims do not teach EDTA as stabilizing agent. However, col. 30 and Table 7 (cols. 63-64) do teach EDTA as stabilizing agent.
The reference claim 1 ophthalmic composition is substantially free of benzalkonium chloride preservative (hence there’s no detectable amount of preservative) [hence teaches instant claims 57 and 77 and 79] (see, also, “Abstract”; page 34 Table 7 “Thermosetting Gel Formulation (Atropine Sulfate)…Atropine Sulfate … 0.001-0.05 (wt%)… pH = 4.2-7.9…Deuterated water q.s. to 100 wt%; para [0003], “muscarinic antagonist comprises atropine…”; also, Table 7 does not explicitly teach inclusion of benzalkonium chloride preservative, whereas other examples teach optional inclusion of benzalkonium chloride preservative; see page 33 Table 1-5). This helps teach instant claim 43.
Furthermore, reference claim 1 uses atropine and atropine sulfate (each are Applicants’ elected species) as “muscarinic antagonists”. This teaches instant claims 44 and 66.
Reference claim 9 teaches further use of citrate buffering agents, but does not teach the concentration (wt %) of citrate. This helps to teach instant claim 53.
Reference disclosure col. 3 teaches use of sodium chloride osmolarity adjusting agent. This teaches instant claim 54-55 and helps teach instant claim 56.
Reference claim 9 teaches the buffering agents of instant claims 54 and 61. Reference col. 84 teaches instant claims 54 and 64: HCl, NaOH, CH3COOH, or C6H8O7 pH adjusting agents.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue:
*Reference claims do not teach EDTA as stabilizing agent. However, col. 30 and Table 7 (cols. 63-64) do teach EDTA as stabilizing agent.
The reference claims do not explicitly teach the following routinely optimized variables: concentration (wt%) range of EDTA within the instant claim 43 range; concentration (wt %) of citrate [instant claim 53]; concentration (wt %) of sodium chloride [instant claim 56]; the ratio concentrations of instant claim 65; the ratios of instant claims 70-72; and the pH ranges of instant claims 80-81.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art:
The artisan is knowledgeable in formulating ophthalmic compositions comprising muscarinic antagonists, deuterated water, and stabilizing agents (EDTA).
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness:
The artisan would view the various concentration limitations of the instant claims drawn to weight percentages (wt %), ratios, and pH ranges as variables the artisan routinely optimizes and hence prima facie obvious in light of the reference, in further view of ANSEL.
The artisan would be expected to routinely optimize concentrations (that include wt %, ratios, and pH ranges) to maximize therapeutic efficacy of the underlying ophthalmic composition. Moreover, the ratios between water and deuterated water are obvious as there is always some water in the solution comprising deuterated water.
The artisan would be motivated to routinely vary the concentrations to maximize therapeutic efficacy of the underlying ophthalmic composition, especially since this is commonly done in the pharmaceutical and medicinal arts (see, for example, page 48 of ANSEL reference, which teaches that physicians routinely change the dosing for each patient based on the particular requirements of the patient). This is especially true since neither the claims nor the Specification indicate how the concentrations (weight percentages, ratios, pH ranges) are critical.
Moreover, patent law views differences in concentration (herein, the varying ranges of weight percentages, pH ranges, and ratios) as not supporting 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); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Please file a Terminal Disclaimer (TD) to render moot this rejection.
Conclusion
No claims are presently allowable as written.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S KENYON whose telephone number is (571)270-1567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a-6p.
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, Andrew D Kosar can be reached at (571) 272-0913. 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.
/JOHN S KENYON/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625