DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The present application, filed June 15, 2022, is a national stage application of PCT/EP2020/087330, filed December 18, 2020, which claims priority to foreign priority application EP19218817.5, filed December 20, 2019.
Status of the Application
Applicant’s communication, received December 24, 2025, wherein claim 18 is amended and claims 19-23 are canceled, is acknowledged.
Claims 18, 24-27 and 29-34 are pending in this application.
Claims 30 and 33-34 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 18, 24-27, 29, and 31-32 are examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 18-27, 29, and 31-32 under 35 USC § 112(a) as lacking enablement for solvates of the claimed compounds, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because claims 19-23 are canceled and claim 18 is amended to no longer claim solvates of the compounds of formula I’. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 USC § 112(d) for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because independent claim 18 is amended to permit variable group M is absent if the adjacent oxygen has a formal negative charge. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 18-21, 24 and 29 under 35 USC § 102 as anticipated by Wang, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because claims 19-21 are canceled and independent claim 18 is amended to require the proviso that at least one of
PNG
media_image1.png
20
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
represents the alpha anomer, which Wang does not teach. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 18 and 25 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Wang in view of Woenckhaus, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because independent claim 18 is amended to require the proviso that at least one of
PNG
media_image1.png
20
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
represents the alpha anomer, which the combination of Wang and Woenckhaus do not teach. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 18 and 31-32 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Wang in view of Kristian and Ganapati, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because independent claim 18 is amended to require the proviso that at least one of
PNG
media_image1.png
20
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
represents the alpha anomer, which the combination of Wang, Kristian, and Ganapati do not teach. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 18, 20-24, and 29 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Szczepankiewicz in view of Wall, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because claims 20-23 are canceled and independent claim 18 is amended to require each of X1 and X2 as oxygen and to require the proviso that at least one of
PNG
media_image1.png
20
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
represents the alpha anomer, which the combination of Szczepankiewicz and Wall does not teach. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 25 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Szczepankiewicz in view of Wall and Woenckhaus, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because independent claim 18 is amended to require the proviso that at least one of
PNG
media_image1.png
20
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
represents the alpha anomer, which the combination of Szczepankiewicz, Wall, and Woenckhaus does not teach. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 31-32 under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Szczepankiewicz in view of Wall, Kristian, and Ganapati, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because independent claim 18 is amended to require the proviso that at least one of
PNG
media_image1.png
20
38
media_image1.png
Greyscale
represents the alpha anomer, which the combination of Szczepankiewicz, Wall, Kristian, and Ganapati does not teach. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 18-27 and 29 over the claims of co-pending application 17/640204, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because application 17/640204 is abandoned. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 31-32 over the claims of co-pending application 17/640204 in view of Wang, Kristian, and Ganapati, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because application 17/640204 is abandoned. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 18-25 and 32 over the claims of co-pending application 17/926246, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because application 17/926246 is abandoned. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 26-27 over the claims of co-pending application 17/926246 in view of Szczepankiewicz, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because application 17/926246 is abandoned. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 18-27 and 29 over the claims of co-pending application 17/910581, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because application 17/910581 is abandoned. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 31-32 over the claims of co-pending application 17/910581 in view of Wang, Kristian, and Ganapati, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because application 17/910581 is abandoned. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 18-25 and 29 over the claims of co-pending application 17/927478, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because application 17/927478 is abandoned. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 26-27 over the claims of co-pending application 17/927478 in view of Szczepankiewicz, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because application 17/927478 is abandoned. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, received December 24, 2025, with respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 31-32 over the claims of co-pending application 17/927478 in view of Wang, Kristian, and Ganapati, has been fully considered and found to be persuasive to remove the rejection because application 17/927478 is abandoned. Therefore the rejection is withdrawn.
The following rejections are maintained from the previous Office action, updated herein to reflect Applicant’s amendments to the claims received December 24, 2025.
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 18, 24-27, and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,752 (reference patent, herein referred to as ‘752). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘752 anticipate the claimed invention.
The present application and ‘752 are each assigned to Nuvamid SA and include Guillaume Bermond and Laurent Garçon as inventors.
Claim 9 of ‘752 claims a method of treatment of joint pain induced by physical activity, the method comprising the step of topically administering a composition comprising nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN), a pharmaceutically acceptable derivative thereof, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable excipient.
Claim 14 of ‘752 requires that the pharmaceutically acceptable derivative is selected from dihydronicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN-H), alpha-NM, a compound of formula (I), or a compound of formula (II).
Claim 15 of ‘752 claims the compounds of Formula Ia-B, Ia-C, Ia-E, and Ia-F which are the same compounds shown in claim 26 and satisfy all limitations of claims 18 and 24-27. Therefore, the method of claims 9, 14, and 15 of ‘752 necessitates a compound of claims 18 and 24-27.
The pharmaceutically acceptable carrier of present claim 29 is interpreted as equivalent to the pharmaceutically acceptable excipient recited in claim 9 of ‘752, and thus the composition with the compounds of claim 15 of ‘752 anticipates present claim 29.
Claims 18, 24-27, and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,011,454 (reference patent, herein referred to as ‘454). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘454 anticipate the claimed invention.
The present application and ‘454 are each assigned to Nuvamid SA and include Guillaume Bermond and Laurent Garçon as inventors.
Claim 1 of ‘454 claims a method of treatment of Polycythemia comprising the administration of a compound of Formula (I). Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and requires the compound is selected from a group of structures that includes structures 010, 011, 013, and 014, which are the same compounds recited in present claims 26 and 27 and satisfy all limitations of claims 18 and 24-27. Therefore, the method of claims 1 and 11 of ‘752 necessitates a compound of claims 18 and 24-27.
Claim 13 of ‘454 claims a method of treatment of polycythemia, the method comprising the administration of a pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 1 and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Thus the composition of claim 13 with structures 010, 011, 013, or 014 satisfy present claim 29.
Claims 18 and 24-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. patent application 12,403,153 (reference patent, herein referred to as ‘153). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘153 anticipate the claimed invention.
The present application and ‘153 are each assigned to Nuvamid SA and include Guillaume Bermond and Laurent Garçon as inventors.
Claim 1 of ‘153 recites a method of treatment for sickle cell disease, the method comprising administration of a compound as shown, including compound 010, 011, 013, and 014, which are the same compounds recited in present claims 26 and 27 and satisfy all limitations of claims 18 and 24-27. Therefore, the method of claim 1 of ‘153 necessitates a compound of claims 18 and 24-27.
Claims 18, 24-27, and 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 24, and 29 of co-pending U.S. patent application 18/040182 (reference application, hereinafter ‘182). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘182 anticipate the claimed invention.
The present application and ‘182 are each assigned to Nuvamid SA and include Guillaume Bermond and Laurent Garçon as inventors.
The amended claims received November 14, 2025 are cited in this provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 16 of ‘182 claims a method for treating an antineoplastic-induced toxicity in a subject in need thereof, wherein the toxicity is selected from cardiotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, haematotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, lymphoid toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, dermal toxicity, reproductive toxicity, bone toxicity, genetic toxicity and bladder toxicity, said method comprising administering to said subject a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of Formula (I).
Claim 24 claims the compound of formula (I) is selected from the structures shown, including structure 010, 011, 013, and 014, which are the same compounds recited in claims 26 and 27 and satisfy all limitations of claims 18 and 24-27. Therefore, the method of claims 16 and 24 of ‘182 necessitates a compound of claims 18 and 24-27.
Claim 29 of ‘182 claims the method according to claim 16, wherein the compound of formula (I) is comprised in a pharmaceutical composition also comprising at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. This composition, with compounds of structure 010, 011, 013, and 014, would satisfy all limitations of present claim 29.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented. However, a Notice of Allowance has been mailed in ‘182, and upon issue of the corresponding patent, this provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection will become a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 18 and 24-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 19 of co-pending U.S. patent application 17/914576 (reference application, herein referred to as ‘576). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘576 anticipate the claimed invention.
The present application and ‘576 are each assigned to Nuvamid SA and include Guillaume Bermond and Laurent Garçon as inventors.
The amended claims received August 15, 2025 are cited in this provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 12 of ‘576 claims a method for decreasing bacterial load in affected organs and/or boy fluids in a subject suffering from a bacterial infection, said method comprising administering to said subject a therapeutically effective quantity of at least one compound of formula (I). Claim 19 claims the method according to claim 12, wherein the compound of formula (I) is selected from the compounds shown, including I-H, I-I, I-K, and I-L, which are the same compounds recited in claims 26 and 27 and satisfy all limitations of claims 18 and 24-27. Therefore, the method of claims 12 and 19 of ‘576 necessitates a compound of claims 18 and 24-27.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Claims 18 and 24-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending U.S. patent application 18/817541 (reference application, herein referred to as ‘541). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘541 anticipate the claimed invention.
The present application and ‘541 are each assigned to Nuvamid SA and include Guillaume Bermond and Laurent Garçon as inventors.
The claims received August 28, 2024, are cited in this provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1 of ‘541 claims a method of treating depression and/or anxiety related to Parkinsonism comprising administering to a subject a therapeutically effective amount of at least one compound selected from the group shown, including compounds Ia-C, Ia-D, Ia-F, and Ia-G. These are the same compounds recited in claims 26 and 27 and satisfy all limitations of claims 18-27. Therefore, the method of claim 1 of ‘541 necessitates a compound of claims 18 and 24-27.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Claims 18, 24-27, and 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 24, and 30 of co-pending U.S. patent application 18/570879 (reference application, herein referred to as ‘879). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘879 anticipate the claimed invention.
The present application and ‘879 are each assigned to Nuvamid SA and include Guillaume Bermond and Laurent Garçon as inventors.
The amended claims received December 15, 2023 are cited in this provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 16 of ‘879 claims a method for treating heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a subject in need thereof, said method comprising administering to said subject a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of Formula (I) as shown.
Claim 24 of ‘879 depends from claim 16 requires the compound of Formula (I) is selected from those shown, including compounds 010, 011, 013, and 014. These are the same compounds recited in claims 26 and 27 and satisfy all limitations of claims 18-27. Therefore, the method of claims 16 and 24 of ‘879 necessitates a compound of claims 18 and 24-27.
Claim 30 of ‘879 depends from claim 16 and requires the compound of Formula (I) is comprised within a pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Therefore, the composition of claim 30 of ‘879 with compounds 010, 011, 013, and 014 would satisfy all limitations of present claim 29.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
The following are new and/or modified grounds of rejection in response to Applicant’s amended claims received December 24, 2025. The nonstatutory double patenting rejections include new applications which were filed after mailing of the previous office action, are amended to improve the clarity of the rejection, or are new grounds of rejection with a new secondary reference to support the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27 depends from claim 18 and recites the limitation " wherein the compound is of formula I-B or I-C." However, claim 18 does not recite a compound of formula I-B or I-C, and thus the compounds required by claim 27 are unclear.
The examiner believes that claim 27 is intended to depend from claim 26, which recites a compound of formula I-B or I-C.
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 18 and 24-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19 of copending U.S. patent application 19/345274 (reference application, hereinafter ‘274). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘274 anticipate the claimed invention.
The present application and ‘274 are each assigned to Nuvamid SA and include Guillaume Bermond and Laurent Garçon as inventors.
This application is a divisional application of 17/640204 and claims priority to an earlier effective filing date than the present application.
Claim 1 of ‘274 claims a method for prevention and/or treatment of pain, the pain being visceral nociceptive pain and not neuropathic pain, the method comprising: administering to a subject a therapeutically effective amount of a compound that includes a compound of Formula II as shown in the claim.
Claim 19 of ‘274 depends from claim 1 and requires a compound of Formula II selected from those listed in the claim. Compounds II-B, II-C, II-E, and II-F are the same compounds in present claim 26 and satisfy the limitations of claims 18 and 24-27. Therefore, the method of claims 1 and 19 of ‘274 necessitates the compounds of claims 18 and 24-27.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Claims 18, 29, and 31-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 18, and 19 of copending U.S. patent application 19/345274 (reference application, hereinafter ‘274) in view of Yagyu (Publication no. US 20180334474 Al; cited in PTO-892).
The claims of ‘274 claim as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection. In addition, claim 18 of ‘274 depends from claim 1 and requires a compound of Formula I is selected from those listed in the claim, including NMN and NMN derivatives I-C through I-H.
The claims of ‘274 do not claim a pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18 and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier as required by claim 29, a food composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent as required by present claim 31, or a cosmetic composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, as required by present claim 32.
Yagyu teaches nicotinamide mononucleotide derivatives, or salts thereof, represented by general formula (1), which includes nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN) when R1 and R2 are H (cover page, Abstract, lines 1-5). Yagyu teaches that antiaging action has been observed for NMN, an intermediate metabolite of NAD+, and utilization of the antiaging action of NMN is being examined in applications such as topical skin preparations, cosmetics, and food additives (p. 1, [0005], lines 1-6) (emphasis added). Yagyu teaches that the topical skin preparation and cosmetic may also contain other ingredients, such as ingredients ordinarily used in topical skin preparations or cosmetics, including carriers or additives pharmaceutically acceptable as topical skin preparations (p. 7, [0110]-[0111]).
The topical skin preparation with pharmaceutically acceptable carrier is reasonably considered as a pharmaceutical composition, as recited in present claim 29.
Yagyu teaches that as a food additive, NMN or a derivative thereof can be prepared in various forms such as a tablet, coated tablet, pill, powder, granules, capsule, liquid, suspension or emulsion in the same manner as known food additives (p. 9, [0132]). The food accompanying the food additive taught by Yagyu is reasonably considered as a carrier or diluent. Alternatively, the formulation of the food additive as, for example, a liquid or suspension would require a carrier or diluent.
It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the compounds claimed by ‘274 as a pharmaceutical composition, food, or cosmetic with at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, because ‘274 claims the compounds of claims 18 and 19 for the method of treating pain of claim 1, and because Yagyu teaches formulating NMN and NMN derivatives as pharmaceutical compositions, food additives, and cosmetics with one or more carriers or diluents.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the compounds of claims 18 and 19 of ‘274 may be used for practicing the same method. Because claims 18 and 19 of ‘274 encompass compounds II-B, II-C, II-E, and II-F and the NMN and NMN derivatives I-C through I-H, one of ordinary skill in the art would have contemplated formulating compounds II-B, II-C, II-E, and II-F with the full scope of NMN formulations known in the art, including the pharmaceutical composition, food, and cosmetic formulations taught by Yagyu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Claims 18 and 31-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,752 (reference patent, herein referred to as ‘752) in view of Yagyu (Publication no. US 20180334474 Al; cited in PTO-892).
The claims of ‘752 claim as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection. In addition, claim 15 claims the derivative of NMN may be selected from the NMN or NMN derivative structures I-B through I-F and the nicotinamide structures I-H through I-J.
The claims of ‘752 do not claim a food composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent as required by claim 31, or a cosmetic composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, as required by claim 32.
Yagyu teaches as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the compounds claimed by ‘752 as a food, or cosmetic with at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, because ‘752 claims the compounds of claim 15 for the method of treatment of joint pain of claim 9, and because Yagyu teaches formulations for NMN and NMN derivatives, including formulating NMN and NMN derivatives food additives and cosmetics with one or more carriers or diluents.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the compounds of claims claim 15 of ‘752 may be used for practicing the same method. Because claims 15 of ‘752 encompass compounds Ia-B, Ia-C, Ia-E, and Ia-F and NMN and NMN derivatives I-C through I-G, one of ordinary skill in the art would have contemplated formulating compounds Ia-B, Ia-C, Ia-E, and Ia-F with the full scope of NMN formulations known in the art, including the food and cosmetic formulations taught by Yagyu.
Claims 18 and 31-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,011,454 (reference patent, herein referred to as ‘454) in view of Yagyu (Publication no. US 20180334474 Al; cited in PTO-892).
The claims of ‘454 claim as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection. In addition, claim 11 claims the selected from the nicotinamide mononucleotide structures 001 through 004 as shown in the claim.
The claims of ‘454 do not claim a food composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent as required by present claim 31, or a cosmetic composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, as required by present claim 32.
Yagyu teaches as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the compounds claimed by ‘454 as a food or as a cosmetic with at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, because ‘454 claims the compounds of claim 11 for being used to practice the method of treatment of Polycythemia of claim 1, and because Yagyu teaches formulating NMN and NMN derivatives as food additives and cosmetics with one or more carriers or diluents.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that all compounds of claim 11 of ‘454 may be used for practicing the same method. Because claim 11 of ‘274 encompass compounds 010, 011, 013, and 014 and the NMN and NMN derivatives 001 through 004, one of ordinary skill in the art would have contemplated formulating compounds 010, 011, 013, and 014 with the full scope of NMN formulations known in the art, including the food and cosmetic formulations taught by Yagyu.
Claims 18, 29, and 31-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of 12,403,153 (reference patent, herein referred to as ‘153) in view of Yagyu (Publication no. US 20180334474 Al; cited in PTO-892).
The claims of ‘153 claim as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection. In addition, claim 1 claims the compound is selected from the nicotinamide mononucleotide structures 001 through 004 as shown in the claim.
The claims of ‘153 do not claim a pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18 and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier as required by claim 29, a food composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent as required by present claim 31, or a cosmetic composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, as required by present claim 32.
Yagyu teaches as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the compounds claimed by ‘153 as a pharmaceutical composition, food, or cosmetic with at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, because ‘153 claims the compounds of claim 1 treatment of sickle cell disease, and because Yagyu teaches formulating NMN and NMN derivatives as pharmaceutical compositions, food additives, and cosmetics with one or more carriers or diluents.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the compounds of claim 1 of ‘153 may be used for practicing the same method. Because claim 1 of ‘153 encompass compounds 010, 011, 013, and 014 and the NMN and NMN derivatives 001 through 004, one of ordinary skill in the art would have contemplated formulating compounds 010, 011, 013, and 014 with the full scope of NMN formulations known in the art, including the pharmaceutical composition, food, and cosmetic formulations taught by Yagyu.
Claims 18 and 31-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 24, and 29 of co-pending U.S. patent application 18/040182 (reference application, hereinafter ‘182) in view of Yagyu (Publication no. US 20180334474 Al; cited in PTO-892).
The claims of ‘182 claim as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection. In addition, claim 24 claims the compound may be selected from the nicotinamide mononucleotide structures 001 through 004 as shown in the claim.
The claims of ‘182 do not claim a food composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent as required by present claim 31, or a cosmetic composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, as required by present claim 32.
Yagyu teaches as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the compounds claimed by ‘182 as a food or as a cosmetic with at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, because ‘182 claims the compounds of claim 24 for practicing the method of treating an antineoplastic-induced toxicity of claim 16, and because Yagyu teaches formulating NMN and NMN derivatives as food additives and cosmetics with one or more carriers or diluents.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the compounds of claim 24 of ‘182 may be used for practicing the same method. Because claim 24 of ‘182 encompasses compounds 010, 011, 013, and 014 and the NMN and NMN derivatives 001 through 004, one of ordinary skill in the art would have contemplated formulating compounds 010, 011, 013, and 014 with the full scope of NMN formulations known in the art, including the food and cosmetic formulations taught by Yagyu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented. However, a Notice of Allowance has been mailed in ‘182, and upon issue of the corresponding patent, this provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection will become a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 18 and 24-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 19 of co-pending U.S. patent application 17/908337 (reference patent, herein referred to as ‘337). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘337 anticipate the claimed invention.
The present application and ‘337 are each assigned to Nuvamid SA and include Guillaume Bermond and Laurent Garçon as inventors.
The amended claims received August 31, 2022 are cited in this provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 11 of ‘337 claims a method for treating arrythmia in a subject in need thereof, said method comprising administering to said subject a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of formula (I). Claim 19 claims the compound of formula (I) is compound I-J, I-K, I-M, and I-N, which are the compounds recited in present claims 26 and 27 and satisfy all limitations of claims 18 and 24-27.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Claims 18, 29, and 31-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 19 of co-pending U.S. patent application 17/908337 (reference patent, herein referred to as ‘337) in view of Yagyu (Publication no. US 20180334474 Al; cited in PTO-892).
The claims of ‘337 claim as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection. In addition, claim 19 claims the compound may be selected from the nicotinamide mononucleotide structures I-C through I-H as shown in the claim.
The claims of ‘337 do not claim a pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18 and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier as required by claim 29, a food composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent as required by present claim 31, or a cosmetic composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, as required by present claim 32.
Yagyu teaches as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the compounds claimed by ‘337 as a pharmaceutical composition, food, or cosmetic with at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, because ‘337 claims the compounds of claim 19 for being used to practice the method of treatment of arrhythmia of claim 11, and because Yagyu formulating NMN and NMN derivatives pharmaceutical compositions, food additives, and cosmetics with one or more carriers or diluents.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the compounds of claim 19 of ‘337 may be used for practicing the same method. Because claim 19 of ‘337 encompasses compounds I-J, I-K, I-M, and I-N and the NMN and NMN derivatives I-C through I-H, one of ordinary skill in the art would have contemplated formulating compounds I I-J, I-K, I-M, and I-N with the full scope of NMN formulations known in the art, including the pharmaceutical composition, food, and cosmetic formulations taught by Yagyu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Claims 18, 29, and 31-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 19 of co-pending U.S. patent application 17/914576 (reference application, herein referred to as ‘576) in view of Yagyu (Publication no. US 20180334474 Al; cited in PTO-892).
The claims of ‘576 claim as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection. In addition, claim 19 claims the compound may be selected from the nicotinamide mononucleotide structures I-A through I-D as shown in the claim.
The claims of ‘576 do not claim a pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18 and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier as required by claim 29, a food composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent as required by present claim 31, or a cosmetic composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, as required by present claim 32.
Yagyu teaches as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the compounds claimed by ‘576 as a pharmaceutical composition, food, or cosmetic with at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, because ‘576 claims the compounds of claim 19 for being used to practice the method of decreasing bacterial load of claim 12, and because Yagyu teaches formulating NMN and NMN derivatives as pharmaceutical compositions, food additives, and cosmetics with one or more carriers or diluents.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the compounds of claim 19 of ‘576 may be used for practicing the same method. Because claim 19 of ‘576 encompasses compounds I-H, I-I, I-K, and I-L and the NMN and NMN derivatives I-A through I-D, one of ordinary skill in the art would have contemplated formulating compounds I-H, I-I, I-K, and I-L with the full scope of NMN formulations known in the art, including the pharmaceutical composition, food, and cosmetic formulations taught by Yagyu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Claims 18, 29, and 31-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending U.S. patent application 18/817541 (reference application, herein referred to as ‘541) in view of Yagyu (Publication no. US 20180334474 Al; cited in PTO-892).
The claims of ‘541 claim as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection. In addition, claim 1 of ‘541 claims the compound may be selected from the nicotinamide mononucleotide structures I-A through I-F as shown in the claim.
The claims of ‘541 do not claim a pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18 and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier as required by claim 29, a food composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent as required by present claim 31, or a cosmetic composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, as required by present claim 32.
Yagyu teaches as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the compounds claimed by ‘541 as a pharmaceutical composition, food, or cosmetic with at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, because ‘541 claims the compounds of claim 1 for being used for a method of treating depression and/or anxiety related to Parkinsonism, and because Yagyu teaches formulating NMN and NMN derivatives as pharmaceutical compositions, food additives, and cosmetics with one or more carriers or diluents.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the compounds of claim 1 of ‘541 may be used for practicing the same method. Because claims 1 of ‘541 encompasses compounds Ia-B, Ia-C, Ia-E, and Ia-F and the NMN and NMN derivatives I-A through I-F, one of ordinary kill in the art would have considered formulating compounds Ia-B, Ia-C, Ia-E, and Ia-F with the full scope of NMN formulations known in the art, including the pharmaceutical composition, food, and cosmetic formulations taught by Yagyu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Claims 18 and 31-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16, 24, and 30 of co-pending U.S. patent application 18/570879 (reference application, herein referred to as ‘879) in view of Yagyu (Publication no. US 20180334474 Al; cited in PTO-892).
The claims of ‘879 claim as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection. In addition, claim 24 of ‘879 claims the compound may be selected from the nicotinamide mononucleotide structures 001 through 004 as shown in the claim.
The claims of ‘879 do not claim a food composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent as required by present claim 31, or a cosmetic composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, as required by present claim 32.
Yagyu teaches as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the compounds claimed by ‘879 as a food or cosmetic with at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, because ‘879 claims the compounds of claim 24 for a method of treating heart failure, and because Yagyu teaches formulating NMN and NMN derivatives as food additives or cosmetics with one or more carriers or diluents.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have contemplated that all compounds of claim 24 of ‘879 may be used for practicing the same methods. Because claim 24 of ‘879 encompasses compounds 010, 011, 013, and 014 and the NMN and NMN derivatives 001 through 004, one of ordinary skill in the art would have contemplated formulating compounds 010, 011, 013, and 014 with the full scope of NMN formulations known in the art, including the pharmaceutical composition, food, and cosmetic formulations taught by Yagyu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Claims 18 and 24-27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 and 29 of co-pending U.S. patent application 17/919559 (reference application, herein referred to as ‘559). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘559 anticipate the claimed invention.
The present application and ‘559 are each assigned to Nuvamid SA and include Guillaume Bermond and Laurent Garçon as inventors.
The amended claims received October 17, 2025 are cited in this provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 21 of ‘559 claims a method for treating and/or preventing a viral respiratory infection in a subject, the method comprising administering to the subject at least one compound from the group consisting of compounds of Formula (I) or compounds of Formula (la) as shown.
Claim 29 of ‘559 claims the at least one compound is selected from the group consisting of compounds as shown in the claim, including compounds Ia-B, Ia-C, Ia-E, and Ia-F. These are the same compounds recited in claims 26 and 27 and satisfy all limitations of claims 18 and 24-27.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Claims 18, 29, and 31-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 and 29 of co-pending U.S. patent application 17/919559 (reference application, herein referred to as ‘559) in view of Yagyu (Publication no. US 20180334474 Al; cited in PTO-892).
The claims of ‘559 claim as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection. In addition, claim 29 claims the compound may be selected from the nicotinamide mononucleotide structures I-A through I-F as shown in the claim.
The claims of ‘559 do not claim a pharmaceutical composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18 and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier as required by claim 29, a food composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent as required by present claim 31, or a cosmetic composition comprising at least one compound according to claim 18, and at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, as required by present claim 32.
Yagyu teaches as described in the above nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the compounds claimed by ‘559 as a pharmaceutical composition, food, or cosmetic with at least one acceptable carrier and/or diluent, because ‘559 claims the compounds of claim 29 for being used to practice the method of treating a viral infection of claim 21, and because Yagyu teaches formulating NMN and NMN derivatives as pharmaceutical compositions, food additives, and cosmetics with one or more carriers or diluents.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the compounds of claim 29 of ‘576 may be used for practicing the same method. Because claim 29 of ‘576 encompass compounds Ia-B, Ia-C, Ia-E, and Ia-F and the NMN and NMN derivatives I-A through I-F, one of ordinary skill in the art would have contemplated formulating compounds Ia-B, Ia-C, Ia-E, and Ia-F with the full scope of NMN formulations known in the art, including the pharmaceutical composition, food, and cosmetic formulations taught by Yagyu.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not been patented.
Summary of Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejections
In order to overcome the above nonstatutory double patenting rejections, Applicant may amend the claims or file terminal disclaimers to disclaim extension of patent term beyond the term of the reference patent or application. Based on the current prosecution status of the co-pending applications above, terminal disclaimers would be required for U.S. patent 11,730,752, U.S. patent 12,011,454, U.S. patent 12,403,153, as well as U.S. patent application 18/040182 (in which a Notice of Allowance has been mailed) and U.S. patent application 19/345274 (which claims priority to an earlier effective filing date).
If additional reference applications above are allowed after mailing of this Office action, the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) that rely on those reference applications would become nonstatutory double patenting rejections and would also require terminal disclaimers to overcome those rejections.
Response to Applicant’s arguments: With respect to the previous nonstatutory double patenting rejections, Applicant requests that the rejections over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,730,752, 12,011,454, and 12,403,153 be held in abeyance.
With respect to the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection over U.S. patent application 17/640,204, Applicant argues that that the selection of claimed compounds comprising at least one α-anomer in the present application was neither taught nor suggested by any of the cited prior art. Applicant argues that a different effect is disclosed in the instant application between compound I-A (beta, beta), compounds 1-B (beta, alpha) and 1-C (alpha, alpha) on visceral pain from Example 2. Applicant submits that compounds 1-B and 1-C have an effect after 2 hours, unlike compound 1-A, and this data is not disclosed in the "204" application, which, although also directed to visceral pain, does not disclose or suggest the observed α-anomer-dependent effects.
Finally, Applicant argues that the remaining patent applications are later filed than the present application.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the above nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been fully considered.
Each of U.S. patents 11,730,752, 12,011,454, and 12,403,153 require the presently claimed compounds, and thus the rejections over these references are maintained above. These rejections may be overcome by filing of a terminal disclaimer disclaiming any extension of patent term beyond that of the above patents.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments relating to the provisional rejections over U.S. patent application 17/640,204, these arguments are moot because ‘204 is now abandoned. However, application 19/345274 is a divisional application of 17/640204 and claims priority to an earlier effective filing date (September 9, 2019) than the present application. This rejection may be overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer disclaiming any extension of patent term beyond that of 19/345274.
To the extent that the arguments of unexpected results in ‘204 apply to application 19/345274, these arguments are not persuasive because ‘274 requires the compounds of claims 18 and 24-27, and thus ‘274 anticipates claims 18 and 24-27.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN BRANDSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)270-5241. 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.
/B.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/ANDREA OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693