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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5-16, 18, 20, 23 and 29 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 16, 23 and 29 are currently amended.
Claims 4, 17, 19, 21-22 and 24-28 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-16, 18, 20, 23 and 29 are currently under consideration.
Claims 1-3, 5-16, 18, 20, 23 and 29 are rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of Group I., claims 1-3 and 5-16, 18, 20, 23 and 29, drawn to method; species A: sodium bicarbonate (claim 7), species B: Dengue virus (claim 14) and species C: an anti-viral (claim 16) in the reply filed 06/23/2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
This Office Action is in response to Applicants’ elections, amendments and remarks filed 06/23/2025.
Priority
This application is a CON of PCT/US2021/018064 filed 02/13/2021 which claims benefit of 62/977,032 filed 02/14/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statements have been filed with the present application. Applicants are reminded of his/her duty to disclose patents and publications relevant to the patentability of the instant claims.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement (e.g., see Spec., [0040], [0050], [00106], [00114]). 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: a word seems to be missing after the term “tris”. Applicants may consider writing tris buffers (i.e., buffers employing tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane).
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the use of the verb comprises seems to be misplaced. Applicants may consider rewording in a way that is more similar to claims 8 and 9 regarding the amount(s) present.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the virus names are capitalized. Virus name are written in lowercase letters unless the name includes a proper noun (e.g., place name) or an alphanumeric designation, which may include uppercase and/or lowercase letters.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “each” in line 10 of claim 29 appears to be inadvertently placed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 20 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.
Lines 2-4 of claim 20 contain trademarks/trade names (e.g., Pluronic). Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe ingredients that the transdermal formulation further comprises and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For the purposes of this office action, prior art teaching further ingredients, will be considered to be read on the claim limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The percentage ranges do not further limit from the ones recited in claim 18 from which the claim depends. The recitation of “when present” in line 2 of claim 29 is interpreted as being optional. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The Examiner notes that the recitation of “and/or” in line 7 of claim 18 indicates that prior art teaching any one of the recited components and their respective concentrations will be considered to meet the limitation of the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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. Applicants are 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 10,493,102 B2) evidenced by Open Food Facts (Gatorade Orange, pg. 1-4, pub. 08/04/2018) and Antwi (International Journal of Food Microbiology 125 (2008) 320-329).
Huang discloses methods of inhibiting the virulence of a pathogen, the method comprising orally administering an effective amount of a formulation to treat a gastrointestinal spasm, the formulation having a binding pair in a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (abstract, col. 4, line 15; claim 1). Huang discloses that to provide a desired therapeutic relief, the compositions can be directed to act on tissues at a particular target site (col. 4, line 42). Huang teaches that the binding pair can be administered to prevent, inhibit, or ameliorate the effect, infectivity, and virulence of pathogens including bacteria, virus, fungi, yeast, prions, protozoa and parasites in a subject orally taking an effective amount of the supplement (col. 22, line 25). Huang teaches that the composition can be co-administered with at least one other nutritional and/or rehydrating agent for aiding recovery from a health imbalance, or to maintain a healthy balance and that examples of rehydrating agents can include, but are not limited to, GATORADE and other electrolyte drinks (col. 28, line 33). As evidenced by Open Food Facts, GATORADE contains monopotassium phosphate (pg. 2, see 12 ingredients). Mono-potassium phosphate (KH2PO4) is a well-known buffering agent in the art. As evidenced by Antwi, addition of KH2PO4 to both the liquid and gelled media resulted in an increase in buffering capacity which changed the pH evolution (abstract).
Huang teaches a method of inhibiting the virulence (i.e., damage) that the pathogen can do to include that of viruses by utilizing a formulation that has a systemic effect on the subject. As indicated by Antwi, monopotassium phosphate can prevent the pH from lowering. As stated above, Huang teaches that the compositions be directed to act on tissues to suggest a formulation suitable for a transdermal formulation.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford (US 4,250,168) evidenced by Whelan (Healthline, ed. Hobbs, pub. 10/31/2019).
Crawford discloses method of treating cold sores (i.e., herpes simplex virus) which comprises orally ingesting an effective amount of a carbonate salt to cure said cold sore and eliminate soreness caused by said cold sore (abstract, col. 1, line 34; claim 1). Crawford provides examples where human subjects experiencing fever blisters ingested aqueous solutions of sodium bicarbonate (e.g., 2 to 8 grams) in which after approximately 24 hours from the first dose soreness caused by the fever blister was eliminated and the blister was essentially cured (col. 2, Examples 1-4). Given that the formulation provided by Crawford is suitable to be ingested whereby actives are delivered into the bloodstream for systemic effect, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art ahead of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that various modifications of the invention could include a transdermal formulation. As evidenced by Whelan, dissolved baking soda (i.e., sodium bicarbonate) can be absorbed through skin and can be used as a paste when combined with water or other ingredients such as lemon juice or oil (pg. 2 of document, see Best way to use).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-16, 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrahmsohn (WO 2015/038788 A1) evidenced by Goldman and Prabhakar (Medical Microbiology. 4th ed. Ch. 1, Immunology Overview, pub. 1996).
Abrahmsohn discloses therapeutic compositions, primarily for topical application, and methods of making and using the composition (abstract). Abrahmsohn provides a method to prepare a paste in Example 1 which sodium bicarbonate is the primary component (pg. 35, line 25). Abrahmsohn discloses a composition and methods with broad antimicrobial activity against viruses which can be used in the prevention and treatment of pathogenic processes in humans and animals by any administration method, but is preferably applied topically (pg. 1, lines 7-10).
Abrahmsohn discloses wherein the composition is alkaline, for use in the manufacture of a medicament for the treatment of a wound, a bacterial infection, a viral infection, a fungal infection, an inflammation, or pain reduction (claims 11-12) and that the composition can include anti-viral compounds and anti-viral agents (pg. 23, line 22 and 25). Abrahmsohn teaches that formulations for the topical or transdermal administration of compositions of this disclosure include powders, sprays, ointments, pastes, creams, lotions, gels, solutions, patches, drops and inhalants (pg. 24, lines 6-10). The compositions may be mixed under sterile conditions with a pharmaceutically-acceptable carrier, and with any buffers, or propellants which may be required (pg. 24, lines 6-10).
Abrahmsohn teaches that such a rinse or gargle can be used, for example, to kill organisms that cause illness such as cold and flu, to kill organisms that cause mouth sores (e.g., herpes), to treat canker sores and other ulcerations of the mouth (bridging pgs. 28-29). An antiseptic rinse comprising the composition is used for sinuses to treat and relieve symptoms of nasal congestion and sinusitis due to infection (pg. 28, line 29 – pg. 29, line 19; pg. 41, line 12).
Regarding claim 2, Abrahmsohn teaches that in addition to treating infections and reducing inflammation, such compositions and formulations can also be used to help promote angiogenesis and tissue regeneration following trauma in the mouth, tooth extractions or oral surgery (pg. 29, lines 27-30). Abrahmsohn emphasizes that the compositions and formulations can be applied directly to the tissue being treated or they can be applied systems or devices that have been impregnated with the composition or formulation (bridging pgs. 29-30).
Regarding claim 3, Abrahmsohn discloses that the compositions and formulations exhibit preventive, micro biostatic, or microbiocidal effects against a wide range of pathogenic microbes, including viruses (pg. 7, lines 18-22).
Regarding claim 5, the compositions and formulations of Abrahmsohn can be administered directly to a wound area, topically as a rinse, drench, or ointment, or by subcutaneous or intra-lesional injection (pg. 34, lines 22-23). Similarly, these compositions can be incorporated onto or into wound dressing materials such as a bandage, patch, collagen plug, or suture material (pg. 34, lines 24-25). In one embodiment, a composition or formulation of the present invention is used to treat a skin infection ( e.g., staph infection, chicken pox, herpes zoster virus, etc.) (pg. 32, lines 18-20). Preferred paste formulations are sufficiently viscous to remain in place following topical application and elute active ingredients over time (pg. 25, line 29-30). Such viscous formulations may thereby be applied adjacent to an area surrounding a wound, abrasion, infection or the like (pg. 25, line 20-31). Here the prior art teaches and suggests containment thereby inhibiting viral transmissions.
Regarding claim 6, while Abrahmsohn does not explicitly teach the species recited in claim 6, Abrahmsohn does demonstrate wound healing in tissue (pg. 31, line 25) and reduced inflammation (local and systemic) (pg. 23, line 13). As evidenced by Goldman and Prabhakar, blood contains monocytes and macrophages are in submucosal tissues of the respiratory and alimentary tracts (pg. 9, para. 1). Here the prior art shows that one skilled in the art would reasonably expect that the activity of one or more of the species would be increased or enhanced because as inflammation reduces, the natural defense system would be less stressed.
Regarding claim 7, Abrahmsohn teaches sodium bicarbonate (pg. 4, line 16, claim 4, 10).
Regarding claims 8-9 (i.e., 30% to about 35%), Abrahmsohn teaches sodium bicarbonate at concentrations that are outside the range recited (46.8% - 55% in Fig. 1). However, MPEP 2144.05(II.)(A.) states that generally, such differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating that that range of percentages are critical to the invention. "[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." Further, one in the art would be cognizant of the effect that pH level has on skin and would be motivated to tailor the concentrations to particular skin sensitivities.
Regarding claim 10, Abrahmsohn discloses that in specific embodiments, the bicarbonate salt is selected from the group consisting of sodium bicarbonate, calcium bicarbonate, potassium bicarbonate and ammonium bicarbonate (pg. 4, line 15-17).
Regarding claim 11 (i.e., 5% - 56% w/w) and claim 13 (i.e., from about 5% - 45% w/w), Abrahmsohn shows the concentration of sodium bicarbonate in a paste (i.e., transdermal formulation) at 46.8% - 55% (w/w) and in a rinse from 5.5% to 6.68% (Fig. 1). MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.
Specifically regarding claim 13 (i.e., penetrant 5% - 55%; detergent 1% - 15%, water 15% - 65%), looking to Applicants’ specification, the penetrant portion comprises an alcohol (see Spec., [00112]) and describes poloxamer as an example of detergent ([00120]). Abrahmsohn discloses formulations with poloxamer (i.e., detergent) at 4.4% - 7.5% (w/w), (Fig. 1). Example 1 shows 1 milliliter (ml) of 3% hydrogen peroxide, 3.64% (v/v) isopropyl alcohol (i.e., penetrant) (approximate total of penetrant 6.64%) with 10% - 19% water present in the paste (pg. 35, lines 26, 28).
Regarding claim 15 (i.e., therapeutic agents) Abrahmsohn teaches that the therapeutic composition additionally includes an anti-viral compound (pg. 5, line 20; pg. 23, line 23).
Regarding claim 16 (i.e., antiviral drug or a protease inhibitor), Abrahmsohn teaches that examples of anti-viral agents include, but are not limited to the anti-viral drugs, acyclovir and famciclovir (pg. 23, line 25-26).
Regarding claim 20 and considering the 112(b) issue addressed above, Abrahmsohn teaches the trade name PLURONIC where the poloxamer concentration is in the range of from about 6% (w/v) to about 12% (w/v) (pg. 14, lines 19, 24). Abrahmsohn teaches gel formulations (pg. 24, line 3; 25, line 24) and that the formulations or compositions comprise polymeric material (or polymeric precursor which forms a polymer, gel, hydro gel, or viscous fluid in situ) (pg. 26, lines 8, 13, 15).
Regarding claim 23, Abrahmsohn teaches poloxamer as a non-ionic detergent (pg. 14, line 17).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, ahead of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the method taught by Abrahmsohn with expected results. One would be motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Abrahmsohn teaches that the compositions and formulations have an alkaline pH which is attributed to neutralizing the acidic environment produced by proton release during injury (pg. 23, lines 8-12). Abrahmsohn discloses that the compositions and formulations aid in (soft tissue) repair and regeneration by inhibiting or killing infectious organisms and by reducing inflammation (i.e., sign or symptom of viral infection) and pain at the site of injury or repair (pg. 28, lines 18-20). Advantageously, the composition can further promote wound healing and, unexpectedly, further provides pain reduction, or pain relief, which can reduce the amount of other potentially harmful or addictive pain medication (pg. 2, lines 11-13). The composition comprises a mixture of ingredients which can be easily obtained or prepared (pg. 2, line 14). The composition has a long shelf life and is not known to induce resistance in the target pathogen (pg. 2, lines 15-16). The composition can be applied or administered at strengths which are highly effective, yet safe to a patient in need of treatment using the composition (pg. 2, lines 16-17).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrahmsohn evidenced by Goldman and Prabhakar as applied to claims 1-3, 5-16, 20 and 23 above, further in view of Galarza (WO 2016/210127 A1).
The teachings of Abrahmsohn as evidenced by Goldman and Prabhakar above are incorporated herein.
Abrahmsohn does not teach dengue (elected species).
Galarza discloses flavivirus virus-like particles (VLPs) that display on their surfaces antigenic flavivirus proteins with methods of making and using these VLPs (abstract, claim 1). Galarza discloses VLPs wherein the flavivirus is dengue (claim 4). Galarza teaches the creation and production of virus-like particle (VLP) based vaccines (e.g., for dengue) as well as its use for diagnostic and therapeutic indications ([0003]). Galarza discloses strategies and methods used for the development of novel monovalent or multivalent vaccines that are able to protect humans against infection with one or more clades or antigenic variants of the flavivirus (dengue) viruses ([0003]). After purification with the appropriate buffers and additives, concentration, and formulation, the VLPs and compositions comprising these VLPs can be administered to a subject by any mode of delivery, including, for example, transdermal or transcutaneous, to induce an immune response to protect against dengue, antigenic variants or serotypes ([0003], [0118], [0125]). Galarza teaches VLP production and purification with the employment of buffering agents (e.g., phosphate, TN buffer (i.e., Tris-HCl)) ([0143]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, ahead of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the VLP taught by Galarza in the method and composition of Abrahmsohn with expected results. One would be motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Galarza provides a way to develop a safe and effective dengue vaccine while preventing antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of disease that may result in potentially fatal Dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF) and Dengue shock syndrome (DSS) (pg. 46, line 18). Galarza’s teaching of adjuvants to include oil-in-water emulsion formulations and formulations containing pluronic-blocked polymer (i.e., poloxamer) ([0120]) indicates a significant enhancement in terms of immune response ([0135]) which strongly suggests the reduction in risk of contracting a viral infection while mitigating safety.
Claim 18 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abrahmsohn evidenced by Goldman and Prabhakar as applied to claims 1-3, 5-16, 20 and 23 above, further in view of Sand (US 2016/0235851 A1) and Beal (US 2019/0083527 A1).
The teachings of Abrahmsohn as evidenced by Goldman and Prabhakar above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 18 (i.e., isopropyl palmitate 5%-20%; benzyl alcohol 0.5%-5%; stearic acid 0.5%-5%; safflower oil 1%-6%; oleic acid 0.5%-2; and/or deionized water 20%-80% w/w), and claim 29 (i.e., when present, isopropyl palmitate 1% - 15% or 10% - 20%; benzyl alcohol 0.5% - 4% or 2.5% - 5%; stearic acid 0.5% - 5%; the safflower oil is 1% - 6%; oleic acid 0.5% - 2%; and/or the deionized water 20% - 80%), the references teach one or more of the components and concentrations thereof.
Sand discloses improved formulations and methods of applying these formulations for topical treatment that ensure at least localized transdermal or systemic delivery of an active agent through the skin, nails or hair follicles (title, abstract, [0007], claim 1). Sand discloses an exemplary embodiment in which a formulation is applied to a subject’s forearm and said formulation contains 33% w/w sodium bicarbonate; 1% w/w benzyl alcohol; 25% w/w soy lecithin isopropyl palmitate; made up to 100% w/w with a 30% w/w solution of Pluronic® in water ([0274-0277]). Sand teaches benzyl alcohol in the range of 0.5-20%, lecithin organogel (i.e., isopropyl palmitate and a polar liquid) in the range of 0.5%-70% w/w with an effective amount of anesthetic is in the penetrant ([0120], claim 18) to meet the limitation of the claim. MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.
Beal discloses formulations for topical and/or transdermal administration, and methods of using these formulations comprising one or more buffering agent, (i.e., sodium carbonate and/or sodium bicarbonate) to a patient in need for skin disorders, and other diseases and disorders and methods for modulating pH (e.g., raising) for treatment and prevention of cancers and related conditions (abstract, [0013], claims 1, 7, 17). Similar to Sand, Beal teaches oleic acid as a bilayer fluidizer ([0185]; see Sand [0062]). Beal explicitly teaches deionized water at 21% ([0237], Example 1; pg. 35, Group C).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, ahead of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to applying the formulation components and percent weight ranges thereof, e.g., benzyl alcohol and isopropyl palmitate, to teachings of Abrahmsohn with expected results. One would be motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success for several reasons. Both references teach that a wide variety of therapeutic agents may be used in the formulations, including anesthetics, anti-viral agents, vaccine components, wound healing compounds (Sand [0072], Beal [0208]). Sand indicates systemic delivery as being desirable in instances where vaccines are used ([0072]). Beal emphasizes that the therapeutic agents are generally any therapeutic or prophylactic agent for which transdermal delivery is desired ([0208]).
Importantly, Sand teaches that the utilization of formulations with high pH buffering agents shifts the balance significantly to unprotonated form, making the active more water soluble and more likely to be effective ([0081]) to suggest raising the pH enables bioactivity, enhances delivery of actives and achieve positive clinical outcomes. This resonates with Abrahmsohn’s teaching and suggestion of alkaline pH having a neutralizing effect on the acidic environment produced by proton release during an infection (pg. 23, lines 8-12). Beal found unexpectedly that by employing carbonate salts delivered with a combination of a nonionic surfactant and a polar gelling agent, the penetration capabilities of the carbonate salts of the resulting formulation and the effective level of the delivery of the carbonate salts were enhanced and this penetration was achieved by using significantly less lecithin, a significant improvement in the art, absent evidence to the contrary ( [0160]). Moreover, these prior art references provide enhanced methods to facilitate improved topical formulations with localized and systemic effects.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 5-16, 18, 20, 23 and 29 are rejected; no claims are currently allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karen Ketcham whose telephone number is (571)270-5896. The examiner can normally be reached 900-500 ET.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/Karen Ketcham/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614