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 .
Claim Status
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 2-4 and 11-14 are canceled.
Claims 1, 7, and 15-16 are amended.
Claims 7-9 and 16 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10, and 15 are examined on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
In regards to claims 1 and 15, as to the limitation of 'for forming a product that is absorbable by the skin' it is noted that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use, such as in a product that is absorbable by the skin, is not given patentable weight. Thus any composition comprising a first compound to be electrospun, an electrospinning promoter and at least one active ingredient, wherein said first compound to be electrospun comprises hyaluronic acid; said electrospinning promoter comprises pullulan; and said active ingredient comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of cosmetic active ingredients, pharmaceutical active ingredients and nutritional active ingredients, wherein the hyaluronic acid and the pullulan are present in the a weight proportion between 2:1 and 3:1, in regards to claim 1 and any composition comprising a first compound to be electrospun, an electrospinning promoter and at least one active ingredient, wherein said first compound to be electrospun comprises hyaluronic acid, said electrospinning promoter comprises poly(oxyethylene) (PEO) and alginate in a weight proportion of 1:1, wherein a proportion of the first compound to be electrospun and the electrospinning promoter is between 3:1 by weight, and wherein the PEO and alginate mixture has a concentration between 4% and 10% by weight in the composition in regards to claim 15 will meet this limitation.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandri et al. (WO2019021325A1, published 01/31/2019, hereafter Sandri) as evidenced by Ingredi (Ingredi. (2018, December 11). What is Citric Acid and How is it Used? Ingredi.com. https://ingredi.com/blog/what-is-citric-acid-and-how-is-it-used-/?srsltid=AfmBOoruHw9Pee0tZyjXNkn9yL0JRsC4xKPqdK8vxKdaeXhjw3rnkU9o, hereafter Ingredi), and as evidenced by Klegeris et al. (Klegeris, A., & McGeer, P. L. (2005, July 1). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsaids) and other anti- inflammatory agents in the treatment of Neurodegenerative Disease. Current Alzheimer Research. https://www.benthamdirect.com/content/journals/car/10.2174/1567205054367883, abstract only, hereafter Klegeris).
As evidenced by Ingredi, citric acid is an active ingredient is cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, specifically chemical peels and antiviral tissues (page 4, last paragraph).
As evidenced by Klegeris, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDS) are a type of inflammatory agent (abstract).
Sandri claims a process of preparing nanofibers comprising a water solution of glycosaminoglycan in an amount from 0.01-5.00%, a polymer chosen in the group consisting of polysaccharides in an amount of 1-30%, and a polycarboxylic acid in an amount of 0.1-5% (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 5-6). These concentrations calculate to a glycosaminoglycan to polysaccharides ratio of 0.0003:1 up to 5:1. Claim 1 of Sandri further teaches the composition to be electrospun to form nanofibers (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 2 of Sandri claims the polysaccharide is pullulan (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 12 of Sandri claims the glycosaminoglycan is hyaluronic acid (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 3 of Sandri claims the concentration of pullulan is in the amount of 7-15% (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Furthermore, Sandri claims the composition comprises antimicrobial agents (claim 6; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Sandri claims the polycarboxylic acid of claim 1 to be citric acid and claims the amount of citric acid in the solution to be from 2 to 3% (claims 10-11; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 6). Lastly, Sandri references prior art, CN104307026, teaching a composition of 8-20 parts pullulan, 8-15 parts sodium hyaluronate, and 3-8 parts of an anti-inflammatory agent (page 6, lines 9-14; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 5-6, and 10). Lastly, Sandri teaches the nanofibers are used for promoting cutaneous wound healing of chronic lesions and burns (page 1, lines 3-6; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 10).
Sandri does not teach with sufficient specificity to anticipate and so the claims are obvious. It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the teachings of Sandri with a reasonable expectation of success to obtain the composition of the instant claims.
A reference is analyzed using its broadest teachings. MPEP 2123 [R-5]. “[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. A person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton is capable of producing the composition of the instant claims with predictable results.
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaca et al. (WO2018056937A2, published 07/26/2018, hereafter Karaca) in view of Seo et al. (US20190117464A1, published 04/25/2019, hereafter Seo).
Karaca claims a nanofiberous mat obtained from the hyaluronic acid and carboxymethyl cellulose polymer mixture and is suitable for using as an adhesion barrier in the biomedical field (claim 1). Karaca claims the nanofiberous mat is characterized in that the said polymer mixture comprises a sodium alginate (claim 2). Karaca claims the concentration of the hyaluronic acid solution is 8-15% (claim 8). Karaca claims the concentration of the carboxymethyl cellulose solution is 1-4% (claim 9). Karaca claims the concentration of the sodium alginate solution is 1-4% (claim 10). Karaca claims the hyaluronic acid solution, the carboxymethyl cellulose solution and the sodium alginate solution are mixed at a ratio of 3/1/1 -5/1/1 by volume (claim 11). Karaca teaches the nanofibrous adhesion barrier is obtained by electrospinning method from a mixture of hyaluronic acid (HA), sodium alginate (NaAlg) and carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) polymer solutions (abstract). Lastly, Karaca teaches CMC has a rigid structure and high surface tension that does not allow chain complexity and therefore the aqueous solutions cannot form a stable jet, the electrospinning of CMC polymer is quite hard (page 9, lines 20-22). Karaca further teaches that it has been possible to produce CMC nanofibrous mate by using copolymers such as polyethylene oxide (PEO) (page 9, lines 22-25).
Although Karaca teaches the addition of PEO, it does not teach PEO is in a specific ratio or concentration in the composition.
Seo claims an antimicrobial dressing comprising a nanofiber comprising polymers that is used for contacting a wound (claim 13). Claim 13 of Seo further claims the nanofibers containing a water-soluble polymer that is dissolved in an exudate secreted from the wound. Further, Seo teaches the polymers is a mixture of one or more polymer selected from the group to include polyethylene oxide (PEO) and carboxyl methyl cellulose (CMC) (claim 15). Seo teaches the nanofibers are obtained by electrospinning ([0037]).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim an electrospun nanofiber mat comprising hyaluronic acid, carboxy methyl cellulose, sodium alginate, and optionally polyethylene oxide with the simple substitution of polyethylene oxide for the water-soluble polymer in the electrospun nanofiber as outlined by Seo. Simple substitution of one nanofiber water-soluble polymer for another is within the purview of the skilled artisan and would yield predictable results.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 17-21 of copending Application No. 17798014 (reference application).
17798014 claims a patch product comprising a membrane substrate absorbable by the skin and at least one active ingredient, characterized in that said membrane substrate is formed by at least one electrospun fiber comprising hyaluronic acid and an electrospinning promotor, wherein the promotor comprises at least one of pullulan and alginate and that the active ingredient is selected from cosmetic active ingredients, pharmaceutical active ingredients and nutritional active ingredients (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Furthermore, claim 8 of 17798014 claims the active ingredient comprises a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and/or one or more analgesics (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 10). Claim 17 of 17798014 claims the electrospinning promotor is pullulan (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 19 of 17798014 claims the patch in which the ratio of hyaluronic acid and the electrospinning promotor are present in the at least one electrospun fiber in a weight ratio of between 10:1 and 1:10 (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 5). Claims 20 and 21 of 17798014 further narrows the ratio of hyaluronic acid and the electrospinning promotor in the at least one electrospun fiber in a weight ratio of 4:1 – 1:7 or 3:1 – 1:6 respectively (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 5).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 11-12 of copending Application No. 17798029 (reference application).
17798029 claims a composition to be electrospun for forming a product that is absorbable by the skin, consisting of: a first compound to be electrospun consisting of hyaluronic acid; and an electrospinning promotor, wherein said first compound to be electrospun comprises hyaluronic acid and said electrospinning promotor consisting of pullulan (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). 17798029 claims the proportion between the first compound to be electrospun and the electrospinning promotor is comprised between 4:1 and 1:7 (claim 4; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 1 of 17798029 claims the composition further comprising an active ingredient selected from the group consisting of peptide, amino acid, antioxidant, and vitamin (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 12 of 17798029 claims the pullulan:hyaluronic acid weight ratio is equal to 1:2 (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,7, and 21-23 of copending Application No. 18844848 (reference application) in view of Barbe et al. (CA3019941A, published 10/12/2017, hereafter Barbe).
18844848 claims a composition to be electrospun comprising a first compound to be electrospun elected from xanthan gum, pectins, chitin, chitosan, dextran, carrageenan, guar gum, agar, cellulose derivatives, albumin, starch, gelatin, collagen, elastin, 3-glucans, glycosaminoglycans, mucopolysaccharides, water-soluble polysaccharides and their derivatives; and an electrospinning promoter selected from alginate, pullulan and a mixture thereof (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 7 of 18844848 claims the weight ratio between said first compound to be electrospun and said electrospinning promotor is comprised between 2:1 and 1:2 (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Lastly, 18844848 claims the first compound to be electrospun is hyaluronic acid (claims 21-23; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1).
18844848 fails to claim the addition of an active ingredient to be a cosmetic active ingredient, a pharmaceutical active ingredient, a nutritional active ingredient, or more specifically a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.
As mentioned above, Barbe claims a nanofibrous mat composition comprising electrospun nanofibres forming said mat and ceramic particles dispersed throughout said nanofibres and comprising a ceramic matrix and a dopant releasably encapsulated (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of claim 1). Claim 2 of Barbe claims the nanofibers biodegradable polymers and claim 3 of Barbe claims the nanoparticles to be selected from a group to include hyaluronic acid and sodium alginate (according to the claim limitations of claim 1). Furthermore, claim 16 of Barbe teaches the dopant to be analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) (according to the claim limitations of claim 1).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim an electrospun composition comprising pullulan and hyaluronic acid as claimed by 18844848 with the ready for improvement with the known technique of adding a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug as an active ingredient as outlined by Barbe. Adding the forementioned components to an electrospun composition comprising pullulan and hyaluronic acid as claimed by instant claim 1 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan. 18844848 claims a ratio range of first compound to electrospinning promotor that lies within the range claimed by instant claim 4 thus making the claims of obviousness.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-7 of copending Application No. 19101023 (reference application) by Sandri et al. (WO2019021325A1, published 01/31/2019, hereafter Sandri) as evidenced by Ingredi (Ingredi. (2018, December 11). What is Citric Acid and How is it Used? Ingredi.com. https://ingredi.com/blog/what-is-citric-acid-and-how-is-it-used-/?srsltid=AfmBOoruHw9Pee0tZyjXNkn9yL0JRsC4xKPqdK8vxKdaeXhjw3rnkU9o, hereafter Ingredi), and as evidenced by Klegeris et al. (Klegeris, A., & McGeer, P. L. (2005, July 1). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsaids) and other anti- inflammatory agents in the treatment of Neurodegenerative Disease. Current Alzheimer Research. https://www.benthamdirect.com/content/journals/car/10.2174/1567205054367883, abstract only, hereafter Klegeris).
19101023 claims an article comprising a patch product disposed on a base support, wherein said patch product contains a membrane substrate absorbable by the skin formed by at least one electrospun fiber composed of a first compound to be electrospun and an electrospinning promoter (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 10). Claim 5 of 19101023 claims the first compound to be electrospun is selected from a group to include glycosaminoglycans (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1 and 10). Furthermore, claim 6 of 19101023 claims the electrospun compound is selected from a group to include hyaluronic acid (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 10). Claim 7 of 19101023 claims the electrospinning promotor is selected from alginate, pullulan, and mixtures thereof (according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 10).
19101023 fails to claim the addition of an active ingredient, specifically a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug as in instant claim 1. Further 19101023 fails to claim the hyaluronic acid and the pullulan are present in a weight proportion between 2:1 and 3:1 as in instant claim 1.
As outlined above, Sandri claims a process of preparing nanofibers comprising a water solution of glycosaminoglycan in an amount from 0.01-5.00%, a polymer chosen in the group consisting of polysaccharides in an amount of 1-30%, and a polycarboxylic acid in an amount of 0.1-5% (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 5-6). These concentrations calculate to a glycosaminoglycan to polysaccharides ratio of 0.0003:1 up to 5:1. Claim 2 of Sandri claims the polysaccharide is pullulan (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Claim 12 of Sandri claims the glycosaminoglycan is hyaluronic acid (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim an electrospun composition comprising pullulan or alginate and hyaluronic acid as claimed by 19101023 with the ready for improvement with the known technique of adding a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug as an active ingredient and adjusting the ratio of hyaluronic acid to pullulan as outlined by Sandri. Adding and adjusting the forementioned components to an electrospun composition comprising pullulan and hyaluronic acid as claimed by instant claim 1 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/22/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
In regards to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection over Sandri, Applicant argues that on January 28, 2026 they amended the claims to state ‘composition to be electrospun for forming a product that is absorbable by the skin’ and that this is a requirement of the instant claims despite the examiner stating it is intended use. Applicant furthers this argument by stating the specification states the product ‘determines a fast absorption of the active ingredient and also the first compound in the wound’. Applicant continues by stating this language imposes a functional requirement. Secondly, Applicant argues that claim 1 and withdrawn claim 7 have been amended to include ‘the hyaluronic acid and pullulan are present in a weight proportion between 2:1 and 3:1’ and that Sandri does not disclose this amount. Applicant further the argument by stating that Sandri’s examples are directed towards a far higher amount of pullulan then hyaluronic acid
In response to Applicants’ argument ‘for forming a product this is absorbable to the skin’ holds patentable weight, it is again noted that intended use, such as using the composition to form a product and then using said product on the skin is not given patentable weight. See Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) , “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”. Further, the MPEP 2111.02(II) states “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Lastly, it is noted that Sandri teaches an electrospinning composition comprising pullulan, sodium hyaluronate, and an active ingredient thus teaching the limitations of the instant claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Sandri does not teach the ratio of hyaluronic acid to pullulan of the instant claim 1, specifically 2:1 to 3:1, it is first noted that the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection over Sandri has been withdrawn and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Sandri has been made in its place. Under 35 U.S.C. 103, A reference is analyzed using its broadest teachings. MPEP 2123 [R-5]. “[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. A person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton is capable of producing the method of the instant claims with predictable results. In the instant case, as outlined above, Sandri claims a process of preparing nanofibers comprising a water solution of glycosaminoglycan (hyaluronic acid) in an amount from 0.01-5.00%, a polymer chosen in the group consisting of polysaccharides (pullulan) in an amount of 1-30%(claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 5-6) which calculates to a glycosaminoglycan (hyaluronic acid) to polysaccharide (pullulan) ratio of 0.0003:1 up to 5:1. Therefore, Sandri teaches a concentration range that encompasses the range of the instant claim 1 range.
In summary, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive, Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection as outlined above.
In regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Vicini in view of Barbe and as evidenced by OMRI, Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the claim rejections under Double Patenting, Applicant again requests the double patenting rejections will be addressed when allowable subject matter is agreed upon. Again, Applicant is reminded this is an improper response to a double patenting rejection. Since Applicants fail to properly respond to the rejections of record, the double patenting rejections are updated based off of claim amendments and maintained.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
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 ALEXANDRA NICOLE ISNOR whose telephone number is (703)756-5561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30am-3pm PST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571) 272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1611
