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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 9-23 are pending in the Claim Set filed 3/02/2026.
Claims 21-23 are newly added.
Claims 1, 9, and 13 have been amended.
Applicants elected without traverse in the reply filed on 10/7/2024 the following species: Organosilane: (3-trimethoxysilyl-propyl) diethylenetriamine (DET3). In the Non-Final Office Action filed 1/6/2025, the species election was extended to include aminosilane N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyl trimethoxysilane (AEAP3).
Herein, claims 1-7 and 9-23 are for examination to the extent that they read on the elected species.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-7, 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenfisch et al (US2009/0214618) in view of Haynes et al (US20160193588, of record) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Claims 9-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenfisch et al (US2009/0214618) in view of Haynes et al (US20160193588) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
New Grounds of Rejection necessitated by claim amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL - The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
This is a New Matter rejection.
There is lack of written description for claims 1 and 9.
(Currently Amended) NO-releasing mesoporous silica particles, wherein the NO releasing mesoporous silica particles are charged with NO at a concentration of at least about 0.8 μmol/mg and release NO with a half-life for release of the NO that is no less than about 2 minutes, wherein the NO-releasing mesoporous silica particles have a polydispersity index (PDI) of less than 0.20, and wherein the NO-releasing mesoporous silica particles comprise pores that have a pore volume in a range of about 0.4 cm3/g to about 1.5 cm3/g.
9. (Currently Amended) NO-releasing mesoporous silica particles having a polydispersity index (PDI) of less than 0.20, wherein the NO-releasing mesoporous silica particles comprise an aminosilane, and wherein the NO-releasing mesoporous silica particles comprise pores that have a pore
volume in a range of about 0.4 cm3/g to about 1.5 cm3/g.
Applicants argue on page 7 of the reply filed 3/2/22026 that support for these amendments and new claims can be found throughout the application as filed such as at least at page 22, lines 5-14.
Specification at page 22, line 5-14:
In an embodiment the present invention allows one to vary reaction conditions so as to 5 get appropriately sized mesoporous silica nanoparticles. In an embodiment, the syntheses of the present invention allow controlled morphology wherein one can generate mesoporous silica nanoparticles with a useful surface area in the range of about 600-1400 m2/g. Also, the synthetic conditions of the present invention allow one to attain particles with extremely ordered pore systems (for example either rods, or 2D hexagonal systems) to intermediate and more disordered pore systems (more typically). In an embodiment, the present invention allows one to produce particles with pore of a size of about 15-25 A and with pore volumes of about 0.4-1.0 cm3/g. In one embodiment, a synthesis of the present invention produces rods with much larger ordered pores in a size range of about 85-95 A (for example, about 88 A) ordered pores (2D hexagonal) with greater pore volumes of about 1.2-1.5 cm3/g.
Thus, Specification at page 22, line 5-14 provides support for:
i) particles with pore volumes of about 0.4-1.0 cm3/g;
and,
ii) rods with pore volumes of about 1.2-1.5 cm3/g
Regarding claims 1 and 9 recite:
silica particles comprise pores that have a pore volume in a range of about 0.4 cm3/g to about 1.5 cm3/g.
However, Specification only provides particles with pore volumes of about 0.4-1.0 cm3/g;
Therefore, the claimed range: particles that have a pore volume in a range of about 0.4 cm3/g to about 1.5 cm3/g, is outside the range of particles with pore volumes of about 0.4-1.0 cm3/g disclosed in the Specification.
A complete search of Instant Specification did not provide support for the silica particles comprise pores that have a pore volume in a range of about 0.4 cm3/g to about 1.5 cm3/g.
M.P.E.P. §2163 states that new or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement.
Thus, the disclosure does not provide support for the claim amendments by changing the scope of the disclosure; thereby, constituting new matter.
The remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue on page 7 of the reply filed 3/2/22026 that support for these amendments and new claims can be found throughout the application as filed such as at least at page 22, lines 5-14.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
Applicants are claiming particles that have a pore volume that extents to particles having a pore volume of 1.2-1.5 cm3/g. However, the Specification says only rods have that higher pore volume, e.g., rods with pore volumes of about 1.2-1.5 cm3/g. Thus, applicants have not provided written description showing particles (i.e., non-rod particles) that have a pore volume of 1.2-1.5 cm3/g. Thus, combining the pore volume ranges of particles and rods introduces a new undisclosed broader range for the pore volume ranges of particles.
Specification at page 22, lines 11-14 states: In one embodiment, a synthesis of the present invention produces rods with much larger ordered pores in a size range of about 85-95 A (for example, about 88 A) ordered pores (2D hexagonal) with greater pore volumes of about 1.2-1.5 cm3/g.
Support for the claim amendments at page 22, lines 5-14 fails to provide written description support for claim amendments to claims 1 and 9.
A complete search of Instant Specification did not provide support for the silica particles comprise pores that have a pore volume in a range of about 0.4 cm3/g to about 1.5 cm3/g.
New Rejections
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or
nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention
Claims 1-7 and 9-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoenfisch et al (US2009/0214618, of record) [Schoenfisch] in view of Huh et al (Organic Functionalization and Morphology Control of Mesoporous Silicas via a Co-Condensation Synthesis Method, p.4227, 2003) and Haynes et al (US20160193588, of record) [Haynes].
Regarding claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 21-23,
Schoenfisch teaches NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles wherein the NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles are charged with NO at concentration of at about 800 nmol/mg (0.8 µmol/mg) having a t1/2 (h) 1.13 (about 68 minutes) ([0254]) Table 6: t[NO] at [0382]; (where the organosilane is AEP3, also called AEAP3: N-(6-aminoethyl)-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane [0005]). Therefore, Schoenfisch discloses a NO releasing mesoporous silica particles are charged with NO at a concentration of at least about 0.8 μmol/mg and release NO with a half-life (t1/2) for release of the NO that is no less than about 2 minutes, as recited in instant claim 1; or, NO that is no less than about 25 minutes (reads on claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 15, 19, 20).
Further, Schoenfisch teaches NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles as described above. Schoenfisch teaches “mesoporous” refers to a particle comprising pores, wherein the nitric oxide (NO) is part of the interior of the particle and that the NO donor is covalently bonded to the interior ([0185]; [0228]), wherein the NO donor is a N-diazeniumdiolate (i.e., N-diazeniumdiolate functional group) ([0064]; [0229]; [0250-0252]; Fig. 5A-5B; [0250-0251]; see entire document), wherein the pores increase the surface area available for the NO donor [0260]. Furthermore, Schoenfisch teaches mesoporous silica nanoparticles comprising pores sizes between 20-500 angstroms (i.e., 2-50 nm), which encompassed the claimed pore size (reads on claim 13 and 14). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 91 9 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. Schoenfisch teaches NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles wherein the NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles are charged with NO, wherein the NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles are prepared using organosilane is AEP3, also called AEAP3: N-(6-aminoethyl)-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane [0005]; [0254]) Table 6, [0382]; See entire document) (reads on claim 23).
Schoenfisch differs from the claims in that the document does not teach that the NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles have a polydispersity index (PDI) of less than 0.20 (recited in claim 1); NO-releasing comprise pores that have a pore volume in a range of about 0.4 cm3/g to about 1.5 cm3/g (recited claim 1); pore width in the range of 15-25 Angstroms (recited in claim 21); specific surface area of about 600-1400 m2/g ( recited in claim 22) and a polydispersity index (PDI) of less than 0.20.
However, Haynes and Huh, as a whole, cure these deficiencies.
Haynes teaches mesoporous silica particles and method of making and using them, wherein the mesoporous silica particles have a pore size of 2-50 nm having a polydispersity index of 0.005-0.200 (determined by light scattering) (i.e., PDI less than 0.20. (Abstract; [0011-0012]; Fig.1-8; [0026-0031]; [0061-0069]; See entire document). Haynes teaches that the mesoporous silica particles have a polydispersity index of 0.005-0.200 (i.e., less than 0.20 (reads on claim 1) that are advantageous for a variety of applications comprising drug delivery, catalysis, separations, and gas adsorption ([0003-0005]; [0031]; [0069]; See entire document). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles as taught by Schoenfisch in accordance with Haynes provide mesoporous silica particles having a polydispersity of less than 0.2 in order to provide NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles having a pore size of 2-50 that can advantageously be used for drug delivery. One of ordinary skill in art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide NO-releasing (nitric oxide-releasing) mesoporous silica particles having a polydispersity of less than 0.2 comprising a diazeniumdiolate-functional group while having a reasonable expectation of success that these mesoporous silica particles have a pore size of 2-50 nm having a polydispersity index of 0.005-0.200 would be suitable for the delivering a therapeutically effective amount NO (nitric oxide) to a patient need thereof, in view the teachings of Schoenfisch and Haynes, as a whole. Of note, Schoenfisch teaches mesoporous silica nanoparticles comprising pores between 20-500 angstroms (i.e., 2-50 nm), similar to Hanesa.
Huh teaches N-(6-aminoethyl)-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (AAPTMS and/or AEP-MP) (scheme 1, p.4247; p.4249; Table3) having pore volume (Vp) of 0.57 cm3/g (reads on claim 1); pore width (Wbjh) of 26.0 Angstroms (reads on claim 21: a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2144.05); furthermore, Huh teaches AAPTMS (AEP-MP) has a surface area of 805.8 m2/g (reads on claim 22). In addition, Huh teaches 3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (APTMS; AP-MP), (recited in claim 18) having a pore volume (Vp) of 0.45 cm3/g (reads on claim 1); pore width (Wbjh) of 23.7 Angstroms (reads on claim 21); surface area of 721.7 m2/g (reads on claim 22), all of which lie within the claimed range(s). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 91 9 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. Particularly Huh teaches the synthetic approach resulted in high surface coverage. Thus, one skilled in the art would been motivated to modify the teachings of Schoenfisch in accordance with Huh to provide mesoporous silica nanoparticles wherein the NO-releasing mesoporous having high surface coverage (area) providing more reactive sites for N-diazeniumdiolate functional groups that makes them ideal for a NO delivery system
All the claimed elements herein are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 2,
Schoenfisch teaches that NO at concentration for mesoporous silica nanoparticles using AEAP3 prepared from the co-condensation of pre-charged NO-donors was increased from 600 to 800 nmol/mg (0.8 µmol/mg) (See example 16 [0381]; Fig. 5B). Schoenfisch does not explicitly teach the NO-releasing mesoporous silica particles prepared by co-condensation of pre-charged NO-donors are substantially monodisperse in size. However, Schoenfisch teaches that NO at concentration for mesoporous silica nanoparticles using AEAP3 prepared from the co-condensation of post-charged NO-donors was about 600 nmol/mg (0.6 µmol/mg) having a particle size of about 210 nm (i.e., 210 nm ±0.1%: substantially monodisperse) (see Tables 4-5 [0374-375]). Moreover, Schoenfisch teaches that the size of the particles was not altered after N-diazeniumdiolate synthesis by the post-charging process, indicating that the structural integrity of the silica particles was not compromised by the conditions necessary to form the NO donor and introduce NO release capability [0369]. Thus, the narrow distribution of particle diameter, e.g., 210 nm ±0.1, prepared from co-condensation of post-charged NO-donors and the structural integrity of the mesoporous silica nanoparticles suggests that a narrow distribution of particle sizes would likewise be provided using the co-condensation of pre-charged NO-donors to provide mesoporous silica nanoparticles using AEAP3 having a NO concentration at 800 nmol/mg (0.8 µmol/mg). Nonetheless, the teachings of Schoenfisch suggests that the properties claimed in the present invention, e.g., mesoporous silica particles that substantially monodisperse, would necessarily be present for mesoporous silica nanoparticles having a NO concentration at 800 nmol/mg (0.8 µmol/mg) having a reasonable expectation of success.
Because the PTO has no means to conduct analytical experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the Applicant to prove that the properties are not present in the prior art. Moreover, the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. Atlas Powder Co. v. lreco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” MPEP § 2112, I.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 12,
Schoenfisch teaches the NO-releasing nanoparticles have a diameter of between about 1 nm and about 500 nm. [0226]., of which overlaps with the claimed range of 30-1100 nm as recited in instant claims 3 and 12. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 91 9 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, In paragraph [0194], Schoenfisch states that the term “about,” as used herein, is meant to encompass variations of ±0.l % from the specified amount [0194]. Accordingly, Schoenfisch teaches NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles having a diameter between 1 nm ±0.l % and 500 nm ±0.l %, of which overlaps with the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide instantly claimed NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles having a diameter of between about 1-500 nm of which overlaps with the claimed range, wherein the NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles are charged with NO at concentration of at about 800 nmol/mg (0.8 µmol/mg) having a t1/2 (h) 1.13 (about 68 minutes) ([0254]) Table 6: t[NO] at [0382]; (where the organosilane is AEP3 (AEAP3: aminosilane N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane), in view of Schoenfisch.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 6, 16, 17 and 18,
Claims 4, 5 and 6 are drafted as product by process claims which is a product claim. Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Recited in claim 6 is product: aminosilane N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (also called AEAP3: Instant Specification at page 8, line 17), of which is identical the compound AEP3 as taught by Schoenfisch in Table 6).
All the claimed elements herein are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide instantly claimed NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles as instantly claimed and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as evidenced by Schoenfisch, Haynes and Huh, as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that Schoenfisch and Haynes at least fails to disclose or suggest NO-releasing mesoporous silica particles that have polydispersity index (PDI) of less than 0.20 and a pore volume in a range of about 0.4 cm3/g to about 1.5 cm3/g.
Applicant argue that the person would not have arrived at the present claims by combining Schoenfisch and Haynes, and further points to yet another distinction-Haynes describes pore volumes of "at least 4 cm3/g." There is no direction in the combination of cited references to the particular mesoporous silica particles presently claimed. Moreover, the combination of cited references that utilizes Haynes' methods to prepare particles would not have at the relevant time provided one of ordinary skill in the art a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the presently claimed mesoporous silica particles.
Applicants argue that there is no teaching of nitric oxide in Haynes, let alone a NO-releasing particle. Nor does Haynes mention or suggest
mesoporous silica particles comprising an aminosilane. Applicants argue there is still no teaching or suggestion of the particular mesoporous silica particles of claim 9 that have the recited PDI, pore volume and that include an aminosilane.
Applicants argue new claims 21-23 are patentable for at least the same reasons discussed above for claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because the New grounds of Rejection now includes the teaching of Huh. The teachings of Huh make prima facie obvious N-(6-aminoethyl)-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (AAPTMS and/or AEP-MP) having pore volume (Vp) of 0.57 cm3/g (reads on claim 1); pore width (Wbjh) of 26.0 Angstroms and a surface area of 805.8 m2/g, a described above., wherein the AAPTM have a high surface area. One skilled in the art would clearly recognized the advantage of these types of silica particles having high surface area, because mesoporous silica nanoparticles wherein the NO-releasing mesoporous having high surface coverage (area) would necessarily provide more reactive sites for N-diazeniumdiolate functional groups that makes the particle better suited for attachment of N-diazeniumdiolate providing silica particles with higher loading of N-diazeniumdiolate would provide enhanced release of the N-diazeniumdiolate providing functionality thereby making the NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles ideal for a NO (nitric acid) delivery system. Furthermore, Haynes teaches mesoporous silica particles having a polydispersity index of 0.005-0.200 (determined by light scattering) (i.e., PDI less than 0.20, as claimed). Haynes teaches that these mesoporous silica particles having a polydispersity index of 0.005-0.200 are advantageous for a variety of applications such as drug delivery, catalysis, separations, and gas adsorption. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles having a polydispersity of less than 0.2 in order to provide NO-releasing mesoporous silica nanoparticles that specifically designed for drug delivery and would have been motivated to do so in order to provide NO-releasing (nitric oxide-releasing) mesoporous silica particles having a polydispersity of less than 0.2 comprising a diazeniumdiolate-functional group that are especially efficient for delivering a therapeutically effective amount NO (nitric oxide) to a patient in need thereof in view of Schoenfisch and Haynes, as a whole.
Moreover, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of the teachings of De La Poterie and Doolan, as a whole. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the instant 103 rejection is based on the combined teachings of Schoenfisch, Haynes and Huh, as a whole, where there is no unobvious distinction between the structural and functional characteristics of the claimed composition and the composition of the prior art.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant is reminded that oobviousness does not require absolute predictability In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
Conclusions
No claim is 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thurman Wheeler whose telephone number is (571)-270-1307. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-6:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. 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.
/T.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/SARAH ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights